AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Well, it could add some interesting flavor to the endgame, but if you’re down to two territories, then you’re not purchasing much of anything anyway, so there won’t be much tactical difference.

One of the strongest two-territory combinations is Moscow + Caucasus, which are often worth about 12 IPCs. So, instead of 4 regular infantry, you buy 6 citizen-soldiers…but they’ll defend roughly as well. 6 hit points and 6 defensive pips vs. 4 hit points and 8 defensive pips? It’s kind of a wash.

Even if you get the design of the citizen-soldier unit right, having the rule kick in when you’re down to only a couple of territories doesn’t quite satisfy the itch I’ve got, which is to punish countries that repeatedly over-produce infantry. The idea is that if you pour out the blood of your armies like water, well, then, eventually you run out of blood! But with the two-territory rule, you could build nothing but tanks and fighters the whole game, symbolizing your anxious concern to avoid risking any more lives than you absolutely have to – and then still wind up “running out” of infantry in the endgame when your enemies push you back to your capital.

There’s nothing wrong with designing custom units, and in fact I think your citizen-soldier unit is quite well-balanced, but I don’t think the “manpower tracking” problem can be solved with any kind or kinds of custom units. It’s just not that sort of problem.

Regarding the heavy tanks, its the ability to cancel a hit that you’re paying for. Don’t underestimate how powerful this can be; many people insist that tanks in 1914 are broken until they actually buy some and use them to breakthrough the enemy lines.

1914 house ruling is doomed in this forum

So, A&A takes place in an era where the locomotive is a mature and widely-implemented technology, even in remote regions like Africa. Why can infantry only move one space? For combat movement, this makes complete sense. The troops are moving in a hostile situation in which every mile can be a struggle. But, why couldn’t the USSR move troops from Vladivostok to Leningrad in a single turn? Turns represent a lot of time, plenty of time to shift all the resources that go along with an infantry unit. Trains are fast, when its simply a matter of moving men and equipment through friendly land.

Now, A&A is a game and is not always realistic. But, being able to move troops more fluidly within friendly territory could open up the game’s strategies somewhat. I think it makes an interesting thought experiment. I’m using AA40G to think this through - but it could be applied to other versions as well. Its particularly important for the AA40 series though because of the larger map size that can mean some land units move entirely through friendly land can sometimes take 5-6 turns to get where they are going - far too long. 4 Turns to shift infantry from Normandy to Poland. 6 turns from Korea to Burma. Russia’s Eastern Front to the west… etc. This unnecessarily ties game resources up.

Suggested rule:
All powers in possession of their capital may move land or units that have not moved in combat at all and are on a land friendly space (not on a transport) to any other friendly land space, as long as a path can be traced that only involves land spaces that started the turn under your control. Air units may then make an additional non-combat move as per regular rules.

Can you guys help me think this one through?

Problems:
The game is not designed around this, which means assured problems with the setup.  Is there any potential leapfrogging abuse? Say, my ally takes over a space, and then during my turn this paves the way for me to take some abusive path.
It also means the extra price of Mech and Armor is not as worth it. They are much more flexible on the front, since they can attack two spaces away, but it does boost the effectiveness of Infantry and Artillery which decreases Armor and Mech by comparison.

How it would affect powers:
Germany: I actually think this would add a lot to the game, since Germany’s troop deployment is more liquid. You still have to keep troops on the Atlantic coast to resist allied landings, but Germany can also react to these landings effectively. This also means that getting air units to Norway is easier.

The USSR has 18 infantry on its eastern front. If they are more easily able to send things between east and west, those 18 become a bit much. This seems solvable though - reduce infantry that start there and then add some in case of Japanese attack or some such. I think the change will make their front with Germany more interesting.

Japan is able to funnel troops into SE Asia much more easily. It presents an interesting dynamic where Japan could keep lots of transports in the sea of Japan to funnel troops into Manchuria, then from Manchuria to their destination the next turn. I like this dynamic, but this rule change seems like it could break an already troubled India.  Perhaps a reduction in starting units could offset the advantage that increased mobility gives them - they benefit from it more than any other Pacific power.

UK is now able to move troops from South Africa to Egypt very easily. This makes stopping Italy very hard. Other than that, so much of the UK is overseas that they benefit very little.

Anzac can move troops to Western Australia with ease. I think this is a good thing - it means if Japan invades they don’t invade lightly.

Italy is able to help Germany out on the eastern front more easily. They also are able to shuffle troops plunging into Africa back to defend Morocco.

United States: This makes it easier to shuffle troops between the east and west coasts. A plane built in Eastern US can make it to Hawaii. Which actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t view the decreased need to commit builds to one front or another as a major problem for the game - naval builds are still committed and other builds are committed the second they leave the continental US.

France doesn’t have their capital and can’t take advantage of this. This stops them from stockpiling their African troops in Egypt.

China doesn’t have a capital, can’t ever use this.

Anything I am missing? Thoughts?

Yeah, I’m not crazy about low luck myself. Sure, it can be a time saver with a lot less dice rolling. In some battles with certain numbers and types of units involved, you wouldn’t have to roll at all, just remove automatic hits. Eg: You attack 3 infantry with 6 tanks. The 6 tanks automatically get 3 hits which wipes the infantry out and the 3 infantry automatically get 1 hit so you remove 1 tank. You don’t even need a battle strip for that.
I still like the chance and surprise you can get from rolling dice for each unit. I will never forget the one game in which I was Germany and had 5 infantry involved in a certain attack. These were regular infantry, not artillery-supported, so they attacked @ 1. I rolled my 5 dice and what do you know? FIVE German crosses pretty as you please. Doubt that will ever happen again, but it was sure cool at the time.

NM found it:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Fuel-Markers-Acrylic-_p_804.html

@Imperious:

The reduced values are realistic because the target is a fast moving plane and not a slow moving tank.

My point is: if you don’t dominate the skies, then you can’t loiter around doing the damage required to neutralize a dug-in infantry division, for example.

IMO, there should be some decrease in fighter lethality if enemy fighters remain in the battlespace.

ok