AARHE: Phase 2: Combat and Non-Combat Move

Also, I wonder if having an 8 VC count makes the Axis advantage overbearing? May have to play with a bid for something like this

Some ideas:

As I’ve suggested before, a fighter that scores a kill is promoted to an Ace (rolls @3).

Air combat lasts a maximum of 3 rounds, perhaps only 2. Aircraft had very limited fuel capacities.

If, at the end of this time, both sides have fighters remaining then no side gets air supremacy. All planes must land with their ground units, and cannot strafe.

Fighters can pull out of dogfights after any round of combat, attackers choosing first. Planes simply land with their own troops. They cannot fire in the ground combat, but can be taken as casualties.

Only rolls of 1 actually destroy an enemy aircraft. Rolls of 2 (or 3 from Aces) only “force down” the rival fighter, which must land as per pulling out of a fight.

If there is any dispute over which plane shot down an enemy fighter and gets the promotion, a “kill” takes precedence over a “down”. Otherwise, if the owning players cannot agree, then nobody gets the credit.

Multiple mixed fighters should roll individual dice in combat; its handy to have a few dice of different colours to facilitate this.

My suggested changes to the Naval setup:

Partially intended to be used in conjunction with Turkey & Italy not being “at war” until the start of their own first turn, so for example the Austrian fleet might move through SZ17 unimpeded, the German cruiser in SZ18 can head for Constantinople…

Austria: add sub SZ18

Germany: add transport & sub SZ10, add cruiser SZ18, add cruiser & transport SZ26

France: remove battleship SZ15, remove 1 transport SZ16

UK: remove battleship SZ29

Turkey: remove 2 cruisers SZ20

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?

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

Also, damaged battleships shouldn’t be repaired until the start of the owner’s next turn.  It’s stupid that Brition can damage it, America can damage it and Russia can damage it all in the same round and it doesn’t sink when normally 2 hits kills it.

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”

ok lets talk about it in the setup thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8697.0

so far only change is FTR (fighter) on CV (aircraft carrier) is NAV (naval fighter)