Anyone want to take a crack at something that starts out more like this…
“It is December 1940.”
I’d be happy to give it a shot. Just to make sure I don’t head off in the wrong direction: are you looking for a paragraph similar to the ones you quoted and which describes the actual situation in December 1940, or does the concept involve some kind of alternate version of 1940 that’s built around certain house rule assumptions?
Seems a bit too early to change setup or built one.
Your suggested turn order to increase pace should be more seriously scrutinized, no experienced player provide any comment on that one. It should IMO, pros or cons, but usually pertinent comments always bring improvement one way or another.
Also, if StBs and DDs type are not clearly selected, it will change any opening.
It is already the case with less poweful DD C5 and always surprise strike on for Subs.
A few things need to be set.
However, it is interesting to think about making AB inoperative before bombing IC.
Or giving a bonus if bombing IC while AB is inoperative.
This mechanic can be explored.
But think about how far you are from OOB SBR which can never ask for such thing, you already played to much with C5 A0 D0 StBomber. :-D
You are already thinking in this new paradigm…
Probably a good idea to make France Germans and Greece UK.
Is there any German player which insist playing after loosing a G1 battle of France?
Seems already very scripted for balance of play, IMO.
Probably a good idea to make France Germans and Greece UK.
I agree with this.
Yup, I strongly agree. I have always said there is no point in having a French army on the board whose only purpose is to inflict a random number of casualties on the German army before dying. Either rewind to 1939, or fast forward to after the fall of France.
I like the idea of recreating the historical Battle of Britain, and I think you are on the right track eith examining airfield / factory defense interactions.
Imho, the key to making that work is a limit on the speed of repairs. Airfields, appropriately, only absorb six points of damage, which London can easily and fully afford to repair every turn. So if you want to simulate the German attempt to wear down Britain’s airfields faster than Britain can repair them, you need to cap the speed of repairs. Maybe limit each country to five points of repair (for all facilities combined) per turn? That way consecutive turns of max airfield damage would shut down the British airfields even with full repairs, and if Germany builds extra bombers, it could shut down the London factory after a while, too. At a minimum, this would deny Britain air superiority over the Channel (no scramble), allowing for an easier Sea Lion. If you wanted even more radical results, you could require an operational airfield to scramble fighters to defend against strategic bombing.
@CWO:
Anyone want to take a crack at something that starts out more like this…
“It is December 1940.”I’d be happy to give it a shot. Just to make sure I don’t head off in the wrong direction: are you looking for a paragraph similar to the ones you quoted and which describes the actual situation in December 1940, or does the concept involve some kind of alternate version of 1940 that’s built around certain house rule assumptions?
And just to follow up on my previous question: I assume that I should be using the Global 1940 map as my reference point (since the 1942 map is too late and the 1941 map is too vague), but to what extent should I assume that set-up adjustments will be made to reflect the historical situation on the ground? Should I mention, for example, the Franco-Thai War which started in October 1940? Hungary’s signature of the Tripartite Pact on in November 1940? The Italian invasion of Greece from Albania in October 1940 and Greece’s push-back of the Italians?
Yeah I guess I’m already pretty committed to the C5 SBR only bomber. I don’t think a dual use combat StratB will ever give us a bombing game that actually works for modelling something like the battle of Britain or the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign in central Europe. A combat bomber will just be used to pad attacks in the opener. The idea to open up all TTs for raiding seems novel, but that doesn’t really get at the heart of it either. It makes sense to have certain TTs much more attractive for these campaigns, like England and Germany in particular.
The element that’s missing is that ABs don’t really do much for the defender facing down SBR. You have a coastal scramble, but that is for naval battles or to deter amphibious assaults. You have the movement bonus but that’s focused on the attackers turn. I’m thinking about ABs in terms of defense during raids. It makes practical sense that these would be first targets, but in the game it doesn’t really work that way. Even at C5, you’re still better off hitting a major that can be damaged for 20, before a base that caps out a 6 (or 8 or 9, of you want to raise the ceiling there.) It seems like any serious bombing campaign, would have the attacker doing the opposite, trying to break airbases first and foremost, in an effort to gain air superiority over the TT. So would be nice if the game modelled that somehow.
Args idea about timed repair limits seems like it might be interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of a sbr defense advantage that can be neutralized, so that the effect goes beyond just the economic incentive to raid ABs, but extends to making SBR vs factories somehow more attractive (even independent of the repair cost to the AB.) Though I admit, I’m still not sure what exactly that might look like in specific gameplay terms.
As for a set up change, I don’t know what player experience can really reveal about a revised turn order sequence. Seems to me that if one is willing to entertain a set up change, or starting income adjustment, that A&A could support any sequence. I can’t see any real objective advantage for singling out Anzac and France for their own slot, for example. It stalls the PBEM exchange, and isn’t a very meaningful turn to try and stick another player on it FtF. Just seems like an unnecessary anti-climax to have these two closing out the gameround. Seems like an artifact from the separate Pacific game, that should have been reworked to streamline the Global game.
I think we have a lot if HRs in here that work for the current Global game. To carry it forward for the next 100 pages, it would be fun I think to think about what a full set up change might look like. For every TT that houses starting units, we could have a footnote (at least in this thread, if not the actual gamenotes) describing what forces they are meant to represent.
I like a game that builds on the historical situation as opposed to an alternate history, and which mentions anything of interest in the immediate prelude. Then use that as a guide to the unit set up.
For tripleA, I’d consider ditching the relief tiles for pro-side neutrals, and for FtF just using control marker adjustments where necessary.
I’d think about including a special mention for each minor power. Italy China and Anzac in particular, France too (or Canada, if they make the grade.) Just so each player nation has some kind of blurb to set the scene round the globe.
I like a game that builds on the historical situation as opposed to an alternate history, and which mentions anything of interest in the immediate prelude. Then use that as a guide to the unit set up.
[…]
I’d think about including a special mention for each minor power. Italy China and Anzac in particular, France too (or Canada, if they make the grade.) Just so each player nation has some kind of blurb to set the scene round the globe.
Okay, that gives me a good start to work on a first draft. I’ll aim for a text that combines a general overview of the war situation in December 1940 with some specific details about the situation on various active fronts and maybe also in areas that will see some notable action very soon (meaning in the first few months of 1941). And for game powers that might otherwise not get mentioned because the time frame for their involvement is still too far way, I might throw in a couple of “Meanwhile, country X is watching with growing apprehension as…” types of lines. I like your idea of mentioning each of the game powers, and it should be easy enough to do given how much was going on internationally at that time. I’ll try to keep the text broad enough so that it won’t hinge on any specific map or set-up adjustments; if there should end up being a few such cases of local situations, however, then the two options would be to either make map/setup adjustments to fit the text or to simply edit those references out of the text.
You got the honor CWO Marc, to break the 100 pages wall of this thread!!!
😆😃☺
I would really like to get a real accurate overview of major events late 1940, early 1941.
It would provide an interesting and compelling guideline for any 1941 setup.
For ABs I’ve found using the “Limited Factory” tech gives the incentive to go after it before a regular factory. At least in UK at the start. The UK can’t build planes with an inoperative base. Raising damage from 6 to 8 would help as well.
With “Airfield M2” on there is additional incentive to go after ABs. It may not do quite what you’re looking for Elk, but it does make ABs a more attractive target
For ABs I’ve found using the “Limited Factory” tech gives the incentive to go after it before a regular factory. At least in UK at the start. The UK can’t build planes with an inoperative base. Raising damage from 6 to 8 would help as well.
With “Airfield M2” on there is additional incentive to go after ABs. It may not do quite what you’re looking for Elk, but it does make ABs a more attractive target
I thought about it, too.
IDK how hard this can be to code on XML.
If at the start of SBR, an AB is unoperative, StB damage rise to D6+2 on IC.
You can see it as part of defending planes are abstract, that way they scramble to make air interdiction.
But when inoperative, it makes easier to StBs to reach on target.
If you want operational airfields to interfere with strategic bombing, I see three main options. Option one is to require an operational airfield in order to scramble fighters to defend against an SBR. Using this option requires either (1a) per-turn repair limits, (1b) airbases that can accumulate way, way more than 6 points of damage, (1c) airbases that are destroyed and removed from the map if they take max damage, or (1d) a two-stage raid that lets you target an airbase first, and then target the factory later in the same raid, with defending fighters unable to scramble to defend the factory if the airfield was sufficiently damaged.
Option two is to treat airfields as having a built-in “garrison squadron” that automatically scrambles to defend the territory as long as the airbase is operational. So if you have an airfield with “zero” fighters left, you can still scramble one fighter as long as the airbase is operational. Again, here you would need (2a) per turn repair limits, (2b) higher damage caps on airbases, (2c) destructible airbases, or (2d) two stage raids in order for any reasonable attacker to ever consider targeting airbases.
Option three is to penalize the bombing runs of bombers flying above an operational airfield, e.g
1d6 - 2 damage on a c5 bomber, or 1d6 damage on a c12 bomber. Again, you need per turn repair limits, higher damage caps, destroyable airbases, or two stage raids to make this work.
Note that you can keep piling on extra bonuses for an operational airfield all day long, but you will still need per turn repair limits, higher damage caps, or two stage raids. To see why, imagine an airbase that gives you +5 movement, unlimited scrambles, half damage on bombing raids, required to build new planes, and a free tech roll every turn. It’s the King Emperor of all Airbases. Will German bombers target It? No, because the UK can pay $6 a turn and in practice that is the only downside you impose on your enemy. As long as players can cheaply, reliably, and quickly repair their airbases, then targeting an airbase (no matter how vital) before a factory will never be a good tactic.
I agree the damage is too low, but targeting an AB if it’s required to build planes is better than targeting the factory. At least initially. Even if both German bombers make it through on rd1 and do max damage, at the most you’d have to pay 3 bucks. Your odds of making UK pay 3 bucks by bombing the AB, even with only 1 bomber, are better.
It would be quite easy to add a tech that increases minor base damage. 8 seems a good starting point. I also like what you said about possible destruction of base. An increase in damage and having bases be destroyed when reaching it, seems worth exploring.
@CWO:
Okay, that gives me a good start to work on a first draft. I’ll aim for a text that combines a general overview of the war situation in December 1940 with some specific details about the situation on various active fronts and maybe also in areas that will see some notable action very soon (meaning in the first few months of 1941). And for game powers that might otherwise not get mentioned because the time frame for their involvement is still too far way, I might throw in a couple of “Meanwhile, country X is watching with growing apprehension as…” types of lines. I like your idea of mentioning each of the game powers, and it should be easy enough to do given how much was going on internationally at that time. I’ll try to keep the text broad enough so that it won’t hinge on any specific map or set-up adjustments; if there should end up being a few such cases of local situations, however, then the two options would be to either make map/setup adjustments to fit the text or to simply edit those references out of the text.
Here’s the first draft:
It is December 1940. After the swift conquests of the conflict’s first year, which saw much of Europe overrun and occupied, the Second World War is turning into a grim war of attrition. Defeated in the air during the first phases of the Battle of Britain, Germany has called off its contemplated invasion of the U.K. and, since October, has been carrying out a night bombing campaign against London and other large cities across the English Channel. In the Atlantic, German U-Boats have enjoyed several months of exceptionally good luck in their operations against Allied convoys. Britain, besieged though it may be at home, is preparing to strike back against the Axis in North Africa: with Australian support, it is about to launch Operation Compass, the first major Allied offensive of the Western Desert Campaign. The attack will be a heavy blow to Italy, whose invasion forces in Greece are at this moment being driven back into Albania by the Greek army.
On the other side of the world, Japan’s invasion and occupation of China has bogged down into a bloody stalemate. Further south, Thailand has gone to war with the Vichy regime to gain control of parts of French Indochina, an area where Japan has had its own presence since September. These developments are raising tensions between Japan and the United States, which is concerned by growing Japanese naval power in the Pacific and Japanese aggression in mainland Asia. The Soviet Union is likewise keeping a wary eye on Japan, its opponent in several recent conflicts along the Mongolian and Manchurian borders. In the wake of Japan’s defeat by the Soviets in the latest of these border wars, the two nations will soon establish a neutrality pact. The accord will put Japan at greater liberty to turn its attention towards the Pacific and South-East Asia, while the leaders of the Soviet Union – having already signed a non-aggression pact with Germany the previous year – will be able to reassure themselves that their potential adversaries to the east and to the west have now been neutralized by the tools of diplomacy…
I dig it! :-D
Seems to me that would be a pretty fun scenario to draft out, and much more straight forward.
In terms of the starting unit distribution you could basically go with a scaled back 1941. I prefer the basic thrust of Oztea’s set up, especially the way the Soviet Union was handled. But maybe with fewer units at the outset to accelerate the play pace?
Glad you like it. By the way, here’s something I noticed while I was researching the text, and which should perhaps be reflected in the modified Global set-up: the Flying Tiger squadron started being formed (with plane purchases and pilot training) in late 1940, and only started arriving in Asia (specifically Burma) in mid-1941. The Flying Tigers didn’t go into combat until December 20, 1941 – two weeks after Pearl Harbor – so technically the single fighter that China is allocated in the 1940 game (from the very beginning under the OOB rules) shouldn’t be there until the game reaches the second half of 1941.
@CWO:
Glad you like it. By the way, here’s something I noticed while I was researching the text, and which should perhaps be reflected in the modified Global set-up: the Flying Tiger squadron started being formed (with plane purchases and pilot training) in late 1940, and only started arriving in Asia (specifically Burma) in mid-1941. The Flying Tigers didn’t go into combat until December 20, 1941 – two weeks after Pearl Harbor – so technically the single fighter that China is allocated in the 1940 game (from the very beginning under the OOB rules) shouldn’t be there until the game reaches the second half of 1941.
So, it might be possible to left China empty of Fighter on set-up but with 1 or 2 Fgs in Philippines to use the optional rule about Flying Tigers changing US Fg into Chinese Fg. So, on USA’s turn it might correspond to mid 1941 period.
@Baron:
So, it might be possible to left China empty of Fighter on set-up but with 1 or 2 Fgs in Philippines to use the optional rule about Flying Tigers changing US Fg into Chinese Fg. So, on USA’s turn it might correspond to mid 1941 period.
I don’t think the Philippines could be used in this way. The P-40 Warhawk used by the Flying Tigers had a range of about 650 miles, which is about the distance between the northern tip of the Philippines and the closest point of mainland China (roughly Hong Kong) – and that’s assuming the plane is flying a one-way trip, and that it would arrive over China with no fuel left for combat. A plane could be ferried to China that way, but it couldn’t fly a Philippine-based combat mission.
Nice catch.
Currently it works like this…
“FlyingTiger_ChangerMustActivate” Changes the US Fighter at the Philippines into a “FlyingTiger” unit. This unit may move to Dutch or UK Pacific territories during it’s ncm. When ending it’s turn in a Chinese controlled territory, it will become a Chinese unit. May not enter Chinese territories unless US is at war with Japan. Has same abilities as Fighter.
It also allows for a purchase option in the US unit roster though, so you could buy a replacement, but it still has to be flown over to China from the US somehow.
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
I think we have to assume the maximum range of all fighter aircraft is 4 spaces (regardless of the specific type), which is crazy far for the period, but I think they’d come at us with pitch forks and torches if we tried to nerf fighter movement from M4 for realism. It’s one of the few values that hasn’t changed since Classic.
:-D
Personally I just love the look of the unit. On the physical board I’m always trying to switch out my Lightnings for the 41 Warhawks, since I keep all my fighters in the same big unit tray like a madman hehe
I think Nation specific units can be confusing sometimes, but the Tiger and China are pretty weird already, so maybe it’s not a big deal. Certainly if there was no fighter in China to start, it would be nice if we had a way to include them via US purchases.
I also ment to reply to the AB stuff, but had a long night last night and a kind of rough morning haha. I’ve been trying to link up with Simon to test some stuff live, but RL getting in the way and we’re on opposite sides of the globe. Maybe tomorrow I’ll finally make my way to the lobby.
For now I think what Barney was saying about limited factories gets pretty close. That HR basically puts limits on what units can be produced at a factory depending on whether it also has operational bases. I like Args ideas too, if people wanted to up the importance of the AB, but stop short of a connection between bases and unit production. The built in scramble +1 seems like it might be fun.
I’d still like to separate the Marine unit from the warship=transporting thing. I think our current price structure for marines works well with just normal transports. So it would be nice if the warship transport idea was it’s own toggle, so you could just have normal marines if desired. I guess right now you can player enforce it (just don’t allow moving them onto Battleships etc.) For making warships more attractive I think just lowering the cost should be an option (rather than adding abilities) seems cleaner, with fewer moving parts. So instead of a BB that transports Marines or gets the AA shot or whatever, we should have a toggle that lowers its price tag to 17 or 15 or whatever.
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
My guess would be that the planes were shipped to Burma disassembled (in crates), then forwarded to China via the Burma Road or put together in Burma and flown over the Himalayas to China. The whole Flying Tiger squadron concept was basically a clandestine operation of the Roosevelt administration, which wanted to help China without overtly violating the peacetime status of the US, so they had to use discretion. Flying combat planes to China from the Phillipines would have been too blatant, and would have upset both Congress and the Japanese. In the context of A&A, it might even be considered an act of war. My feeling is that the simplest method would simply be to give China its Flying Tiger unit at the proper phase of the game by adding it to the map as a new unit, not by transferring an existing fighter that’s already on the board. This would replicate the idea that these fighters were sent to China covertly rather than overtly. Also, it would agree with the White House’s fiction that the pilots in question we “civilian volunteers” and that the planes were part of the Chinese Air Force – an illusion that would have been shattered if the US had transferred US Army Air Corps planes to China, flown by American uniformed servicemen.
@CWO:
Do we know what the actual route of supply was for those Warhawks?
My guess would be that the planes were shipped to Burma disassembled (in crates), then forwarded to China via the Burma Road or put together in Burma and flown over the Himalayas to China. The whole Flying Tiger squadron concept was basically a clandestine operation of the Roosevelt administration, which wanted to help China without overtly violating the peacetime status of the US, so they had to use discretion. Flying combat planes to China from the Phillipines would have been too blatant, and would have upset both Congress and the Japanese. In the context of A&A, it might even be considered an act of war. My feeling is that the simplest method would simply be to give China its Flying Tiger unit at the proper phase of the game by adding it to the map as a new unit, not by transferring an existing fighter that’s already on the board. This would replicate the idea that these fighters were sent to China covertly rather than overtly. Also, it would agree with the White House’s fiction that the pilots in question we “civilian volunteers” and that the planes were part of the Chinese Air Force – an illusion that would have been shattered if the US had transferred US Army Air Corps planes to China, flown by American uniformed servicemen.
If China is considered the last power to play, it might not be that far stretch to put on set-up and out of position a Chinese aircraft, which might be considered the Flying tiger.
Or, giving an initial 10 IPCs bonus to allow Chinese player to built a one time single Fighter.
So, it will only appear on units placement phase.
