Combining A&A Europe with A&A Pacific

Interesting,

You might find inspiration at the House Rules section - look for Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion.

In this Expansion the Cost Of All Units section gives you a quick view of the number of units as well as their combat factor etc.

You’ll find it under The Captain’s Global 1940 House Rules Collection (sticked at the frontpage of the House Rules section).

You also might find inspiration at the Global 1943 House Rules Expansion.

Good luck:+1:

Here is 11 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

The following are my thoughts on an optional rules section for my Classic House Rules. These rules, and its associated new initial setup, are far removed from the Classic Axis and Allies you may be familiar with. But with the right group I think that this would be a great time. In the mean time, I strategize and theorize.

In this post, I’ll be discussing what I think Axis & Allies units should cost and why. I think that flying units and naval units are too expensive for a game about a war that involved death from above and death from the sea. Now, I’m not arguing that every unit should have the same price. Different units have different abilities and these abilities should come at different costs. But I believe that flying units should have their prices reduced by 1/3rd and naval units should have their prices cut in half.

First, let’s talk about the way things are now. Currently, the base units in Classic Axis & Allies have these costs and abilities (IC is Industrial Complex):

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry    1    2    1      3    Bomber      4  4    6    15
Tank        3    2    2      5    Sub          2  2    2      8
AA Gun    0    *    1      5    Trans        0  1    2      8
IC            0    0    0    15    Carrier      1  3    2    18
Fighter    3    4    4    12    Battleship  4  4    2    24

To this list, I recommend reducing the price of fighters and ICs to 10, carriers to 16, and battleships to 20. This will help with the extreme range in prices at the top end of things. This will give us the following:

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
IC            0  0      0    10
Fighter      3  4      4    10
Carrier      1  3      2    16
Battleship  4  4      2    20

And to the above units I suggest adding the following new units:

Unit            ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Paratrooper  1*    2    1*    4    Special F’s  3*  3*    2*    8
Arm. Cav.    2      1      2    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6    10
Trooper      2      3      1    5    Cruiser        3    3      2    12
Heavy Art’y 2      3      1    6

All of this together gives us the following unit list:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      10
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      10
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      15
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        8
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2      8
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2      12
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      16
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      20
IC              0    0    0      10

What I am suggesting is a unilateral price cut of 1/3rd on flying units and 1/2 on naval units. Ground unit and IC’s would stay the same price. They would then look like this:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      7
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      7
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      10
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        4
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2        4
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2        6
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      8
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      10
IC              0    0    0      10

I find these prices to be more in line with the way I want to play Axis & Allies: lean, mean, and deadly. I want to be able to crash fleet on fleet, to soar into the air and take the fight to the enemy, without destroying the treasury or throwing them all away without replacement. Some of the most exciting fights in Axis & Allies are when that fleet is coming, whether it’s the Japanese fleet coming to take the Pacific, or the US Fleet coming to take the Pacific back, or the British fleet looking to avenge France.

But along with reduced prices come increased problems for the Axis. As it is, the Axis powers are under the gun to expand before the Allies can mount a credible defense of their holdings. When fighters, submarines, and transports are at all time low prices the job of the Allies - to bend but not break and to build up the forces to take the fight to the Axis - becomes all that much easier. This in turn makes the job of the Axis - to take as much territory as possible before the Allies come to take it all back - all the harder.

What to do about this question of balance? My suggestion: give the Axis a proportionally more air and sea power at the start of the game. This will allow the Axis to strike all the harder before the Allies start walking things back. So, half again more flying units and double the fleet for the Axis? How much are we actually talking about?

Standard setup for Germany gives 5 fighters and 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 2 transports, 0 carriers, and 1 battleship.

Standard setup for Japan gives 5 fighters and 1 bombers, 1 submarines, 2 transports, 1 carrier, and 2 battleships.

This gives both powers a total of 5+5=10 fighters and 1+1=2 bombers, 2+1=3 submarines, 2+2=4 transports, 0+1=1 carrier, and 1+2=3 battleships combined for the Axis powers.

Add to that the 4 cruisers (2 to Germany, 2 to Japan) and the 3 additional transports (1 to Germany, 2 to Japan) given out in the setup to account for additional naval forces not currently accounted for. (The Allies get 6 cruisers and 3 additional transports added to their navies at the start.) No extra fighters or bombers handed out yet.

This gives us a total Axis air and sea force of 10 fighters and 2 bombers; 3 submarines, 7 transports, 4 cruisers, 1 carrier, and 3 battleships combined for the Axis powers. Half again more fighters and bombers would yield 15 fighters and 3 bombers. Double the fleet would yield 6 submarines, 14 transports, 8 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 6 battleships. I would divy up this expanded force into Germany: 8 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 submarines, 6 transports, 3 cruisers, 0 carriers, and 2 battleships; and Japan: 7 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 8 transports, 5 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 4 battleships

This would be a massive force, dwarfing the Allies in the sky and at sea. But with new battleships and new bombers for 10 IPCs each, new fighters for 7 IPCs, and new submarines and transports for 4 IPCs, would even this massive force be enough? I don’t know, yet.

Both the known unbalancing effects of much cheaper air and sea units and the massive additional forces given to the Axis to balance out those cheaper planes and ships are well outside of normal Axis & Allies play. All of the above is why these rules and setups are optional. But after I get some results with these rules, I’ll update this post with some data.

-Midnight_Reaper

I’ve always thought about making essentially everything worth at least 1 IPC anyways, hoping that that if nothing else would get some fighting. Maybe you’re right and pushing a couple IPC’s for each might do the trick as well!

I’ll have to try it out and will let you know how it does. May try the prerequisites that were mentioned as well. Always wanted to do that with the Med as well (Allies must control Sicily before they can attack mainland Italy), so I may expand that and see if it brings some of those small territories into it. A Midway battle would be pretty sweet!  :-)

Thanks for the feedback.

@toblerone77:

One of the biggest problems I have with later iterations of the game is that it seems that the US/UK D-Day scenario is unlikely. The mechanics in this game would allow for some type of “Event/Attack” achieved through meeting objectives or game time to give a special advantage.

Yes, me too got the impression of close cooperation between the Western Allies during the D-day landings and battle of Normandy. This is true to the English language part of the world like USA, Britain, Canada and ANZAC forces, but also French and Polish forces did sail on British ships and got close air support from US aircrafts. If matched with an A&A game it looks like this turn was an All Allied move and attack together turn.

But, if you want to change the game turn system and gather all the western Allies, like USA, UK, ANZAC and France, into one player with separate economies, but let them move and attack as one, not for one special turn only, but during the whole game from turn 1 to the end, then we must either change the combat mechanic or the Western Allies will not benefit from the can opener tactic. Of course we could let Germany and Italy be one player with separate economies too, but that would not be true if we claim a link to the real war, since Germany and Italy never cooperated in the real war. Even the joint amphibious assault on Crete could not be claimed to be a joint operation, since the Italian infantry come in Italian ships that were sunk before the reached the island, while the German paratroopers jumped from German aircrafts.

The allied D-day was different from Crete, since US, Canadian, French and Polish infantry sailed on British ships and got shore bombard support from British ships, while British and Canadian paratroopers jumped from US aircrafts, and all nations got close ground support from US aircrafts. Now that was a true joined operation.

I figure that a better game would have this turn sequence.
1. Euro Axis Germany and Italy
2. Commie world Russia and China
3. Japan
4. Western Allies US, UK, ANZAC, France

The different allies that share turn, have separate economies but move and attack together.
Allies from different Turns can share seazones but not share territories. UK units can liberate Russian territories, but never non-combat move into them. Same with Japan and Euro-Axis.

It could be like this, if not for all the Purist¨s

@Razor:

Maybe the inherent Carrier defense value should be boosted, to compensate for the weaker fighter. Let say you can land 2 planes on the Carrier, but the Carrier itself has a little fighter force just to close combat self defense, making the carrier defend on D3 ?

Very good idea: it is a can opener. It gives much room to compensate.
Maybe you can even give it the classic A1D3, if necessary for balance.
Or even going that far: A2D3, so almost all of the OOB A3D4 Fg + A0D2 Cv= A3D6, will be converted: Fg A1D2 + CV A2D3 = A3D5.

Just suppose that there is a bunch of escorting ship/fighters wich can not be separated from the Carrier unit.

It can probably solve a lot of balance problem.

I for one hate the notion of zero IPC territories altogether. Regardless of where they are on the map.

I would be in favor of doubling the value of all territories, making 0 IPC tts worth 1

Right now most nations income is much inferior to their production capabilities, ICs are sometimes a rare purchase

Doubling the IPC values of all territories would swap this, nations would have insufficient factories to start the game, and would likely purchase additional ICs and/or upgrade the ones they star with
You would obviously have much more units on the board, but this I believe would lead to less board space being ignored for large portions of the game
Battles would also average out better with regards to dice rolling

Just giving a possible solution and arguments for it :)
It may be a terrible one, but it’s more feasible for F2F games with marking all over the map

In the first game i played with my brother I just assumed that submarines have first strike. I actually
was rather surprised when I read that they don´t.
Also, I think that USW is rather weak.

Maybe using the damage rules from global 1940 and give the subs first strike could help the central powers
a bit in their struggle.

Actually, I would say all tanks are A: 3 D: 2 but you can combine it with an infantry for it to D: 3 if they are American, Russian or German.  Potentially British.

Italy, ANZAC, Japan and France would not be able to combine these.

It’d be more in line with BLITZKRIEG since Germany could combine an infantry iwth a tank, and a tank with a tactical bomber for extra punch on offense and defense, more akin to what they actually did.