AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

I’d rather have cheaper, defenseless transport planes myself.

I think that’s totally reasonable, Midnight_Reaper. You could introduce cheaper air transports into this roster without breaking anything important. My preference is for more expensive air transports because the extra price thematically represents (a) the up-front cost of developing the technology and tactics (nobody has to spend money on researching paratroopers for this roster), and (b) the relatively limited supply of air transport available during World War II. There’s a fun little article below about how most of the American Air Force’s transports were either hastily converted civilian planes, or wooden gliders manufactured in piano factories. If the Americans had to make do with makeshift equipment, you can only imagine what the Italians were using.

https://amcmuseum.org/history/world-war-ii-transport-and-troop-carrier/

Strategically, air transports provide a much deeper threat into enemy territory that requires a much larger garrison. E.g. if you put an assault boat in the English Channel, it threatens Normandy, Holland, Norway, Hanover, and Denmark. If you put an air transport in London, it threatens all of those plus Paris, Marseilles, Gibraltar, Morocco, Milan, Berlin, Poland, Finland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. It’s not that I expect anyone to fly many air transports into a battle to use as fodder; it’s just that spending 12 bucks on one air transport can force your opponent to spend more than 12 bucks on extra defending infantry.

In terms of rules simplicity, I have tried to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless unit” from my unit roster. I find automatic combat losses to be something of a downer, and I’d rather use that spot in the rulebook for a more interesting rule.

All of that said, again, this is mostly personal preference – if you want a $9 defenseless air transport with 4 movement, that’s almost certainly fine.

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

@Imperious:

Use coins?

total investment: 1 roll of dimes, 1 roll nickels, 1 roll pennies

total investment 7.50 and you can even latter buy lunch with it.

You can buy lunch with it LATER. Thats funny.

No I was going to play tonight, but I just got TOI for my b day so I probably will be playing that to night instead.

Yes private emails and a few PM’s its been going on for about 4 months. Its usually ok, but that last one was rather long. I answerd the first 5 questions and felt it would take me alot of time which i didnt have.

thanks again.

oh I see
thats fine
the current tech list welcomes scrutiny

check out the draft detailing the techs if you haven’t already

the heavy artillery gives you a new unit at 5 IPC 3/2, it has ability to fight in adjacent territory with -1 modifier, provided itself is not being attacked