1942.2

The game began with a limited Russian counterattack that easily eliminated forward German elements, and a slow transfer of units away from the Japanese frontier, purchases for Russia were typical - but strategically sound - throughout the game.

Germany managed to lose his only bomber in a glorious and honourable strategic bombing raid turn one, and then shocked the Allies by moving almost every offensive unit on the board in the direction of Moscow, immediately tipping the Allies off to the Axis intentions. However, no serious offensive action was taken until midway through the game.

The Kriegsmarine made some initial headway against the UK navy but was ultimately eliminated, as was the small fleet in the Med. Lip service was given to the Afrika Korps, and the Allies never really had any threat in Africa or the Middle East.

In the Pacific, Japan constructed a battle ship and tried to keep the Allied navies at arms length, but won a surprising victory against the whole US Pacific fleet early on. A half hearted ‘Man in the High Castle’ invasion was attempted, but driven off, and from that point, the Pacific was very quiet.

China was a steady slog for the Japanese, who, having agreed to take Moscow with Germany, grimly marched across the Chinese and skirmished with the British around Burma. By the wars conclusion, British units were liberating left, right, and Chelsea, but a Japanese factory in Manchuria gave the impression of either a long winded draw, or a very long winded Japanese victory, as they had free reign of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The US took off with gusto and focused on the Atlantic, as Germany practically gifted France to them. France, Italy, Denmark and the Low Countries exchanged hands several times as the Germans had to divert more and more away from the Russian front.

Combined UK and US operations, coupled with the total abandonment of the Pacific by the US, meant that the Western front was lost to the Germans from the outset of Allied offensive operations. A factory in France was testament to the efforts of the Allies determination to press their only real advantage in the war.

The game was - unfortunately - called due to time constraints, but not before honour could be satisfied. Germany can opened Moscow for Japan, having only taken small bites out of the main Soviet forces up to this point, and received some extremely fortunate dice rolls that made Japans follow up victory a possibility. It was decided that the turn sequence would be forgone and the Allies would launch an all out attack with everything they had to try to take Berlin.

Before the final battle, it was agreed by the participants that an Allied victory would result in a draw, and a successful Axis defence would be an Axis victory. The battle was the last action of the day and there was a great deal of cheering and not a little swearing by the perfidious Germans, but five fighters and just enough boys and old men eliminated the Allied invasion. (One successful AA defence roll being a significant contribution).

The game was called as an Axis victory, but it was conceded that there was a good chance that it would have been an eventual Allied victory, if the game had continued for a few more turns.

This was an unconventional game that ebbed and flowed with no clear outcome even to the last, and was thoroughly enjoyed by all involved and all who watched the conclusion. Jon and Colin (who were both new to the Battle of Britain, but definitely not to A&A) fought valiantly, and were formidable and flexible from the word go. Dale’s willingness to stick to his panicky ally and his shaky battle plan was commendable, and certainly his commitment was a major contributor to the final victory.

Central Powers: Germany (G), Austria/Hungary (AH) - Mike (aftertaste). Ottoman Empire (OE) - Jon (Jon1988).
Entente: Russia ® - Tomas (Duklapasser). France (F), UK (UK, duh!) - Andrew (holymonk). Italy (Italy, because it always sounds like I’m talking about myself when I type I), USA (US, as if it wouldn’t be obvious by this point), - Colin (GuiltyCol).

Two house rules were played throughout, 2 territory movement permitted for ‘non-combat’ moves on land, and a 4 build limit to India.

The CP opened with typical strikes into Venice, Serbia and Belgium, however, poor co-ordination between G and AH led G to under commit in Poland leaving a juicy target for R’s massive stack in Ukraine. The UK fleets were eliminated, but only a single G battleship remained in the North Sea, her crew desperately trying to pump water out of her many shell holes. Venice managed to hold, and that was as far as AH ever made it into Italy,

The Entente responded in turn 1 with a slow, defensive posture, with limited attacks by all except for R, who eliminated G’s army in Poland with ease, confident that AH was not yet in position to launch a concentrated invasion, in addition to eliminating an OE cruiser squadron. The UK made landings in Saudi Arabia and the territory west of it (I forget the name), but largely, the first turn was unremarkable. F finished off G’s battleship with his own.

It was clear that the CP went for ‘Russia First’, but with the initial G stack destroyed, most reinforcements were sent east, delaying an invasion proper, and ensuring that the CP were defensive on the western front, especially with Italy’s stubborn defence of Venice.

AH took Romania whilst OE swallowed Bulgaria and sent some units west later on to aid AH, who had to contend with the lions share of the forces committed to Russia. OE fought to contain UK incursions whilst also attempting an aggressive Med Sea campaign, which ended in unlimited glory… and hundreds of deaths, I should imagine.

The mid game was heated, with UK and OE dancing around each other in the Middle East, but OE plugging all gaps expertly. F tried to help, bless them, but the captain of a transport - whose modest force of proto-marines could have really been a thorn in the side of OE - either had the wrong charts or one too many in the mess before steering straight into an OE mine! Cheers mixed with moans of despair ensued!

The AH fleet received some unusual attention by a certain Entente member throughout the game, and managed to account for itself well, eliminated units from F, the UK and Italy, but it was eventually sunk, allowing the F/Italy landings to take place without fear of a sortie.

Italy and F promptly began landing in Albania, and whilst never a serious threat, did divert AH units from Russia. Italy eventually began an offensive into AH that was only held at bay by OE units marching across the Balkans. Africa was unusual this game, as G headed straight for Egypt and even managed to take it for a time, frustrating UK efforts to dominate OE. We subsequently learned that a player may NOT amphibious assault into an ongoing engagement, c’est la vie.

In the East, AH and a reinvigorated G took Ukraine, but at a cost. Dice rolls were good for G and AH throughout, regularly coming out above average, but the CP still had a mans job on their hands to take Moscow before the Entente could start to take advantage of their numerical superiority.

By late game, the lead had switched at least twice, with no clear winner in sight. The US had a fleet inbound to France and G had no way to stem the tide. One spoiling attack in Belgium managed to nibble off some UK units, but a strong F and eventual UK build up was probing into Germany on the absolute rampage, by the game’s end. Italy - as mentioned - was aggressive, and that really told when AH started to divert units away from Russia.

OE eventually drove the UK out of the home territories, and there was even talk of abandoning India by the UK, with a large force in Persia poised to strike. Africa was finally ‘saved’ by the Entente as the CP had no way to reinforce, and G’s remaining subs made a go at a F fleet off of Portugal, but even an unlikely victory would have had little effect on the outcome.

Before the game was called, AH and G had been making inroads into Moscow, but the Imperial Russian Air Force clearly had some secret tech, like MiG 15’s or something, because they were shooting down CP fighters like it was going out of fashion! Progress for the CP was slow and grinding, and even though G managed to cut a path through most of Russia, the northern territories were left open to that US fleet from before.

Those men really made the difference, because without them, Moscow would probably have fallen. G thought he was being sooo freaking clever when he bought a cruiser to block the Baltic Sea, but clearly the Admiral died early on, because nobody pointed out that there was a perfectly usable northern sea route! Epic Fail of the match!

However, the game was NOT over, because OE, being the team carrying champion that he is, diverted his India army to the Ukraine, in an effort to gain the final victory, at the expense of keeping the UK on the back foot.

Unfortunately, the game did end before a full conclusion could be drawn up. But the players all agreed that a game that ebbed and flowed the way that this one did deserved a final battle, or two or three, because the battle of Moscow went on until one side won or lost.

It was fought.

To…

A…

Man.

But by the end, as the sun set for the final time over the corpse choked fields and rubble filled streets of Moscow, the bullet ridden and blood stained flag of his Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, flew over what remained of the Kremlin.

The game was called as an Allied victory.

It was a hard fought game, with many a twist of fate and not too much a great deal of swearing. And in truth, we don’t really know who would have won for certain, because by the end, we were skipping almost entire goes, just to get back to the fighting in Moscow. Perhaps the CP could have reinforced before the Entente rolled into Berlin or Vienna, (G was on a very healthy income), but it is just as likely that the UK would have taken advantage of the lack of OH units and smashed Istanbul.

Whatever the result, we will always remember the look on G’s face when he realised the blunder he made purchasing that damned cruiser!

Some parts of the game that were overlooked by Private-Panic:

Germany pursued an aggressive Dreadnought building policy that would have made Alfred Tirpitz proud, on the back of annihilating the Royal Navy around England, persuading France to move her two battleships and one cruiser to the North Sea to contain the German fleet. Throughout the war, the UK was forced to divert funds away from Europe to maintain naval parity, meaning that the middle east was the focus of British offensives, which the Ottomans rather handily kept at arms reach, despite almost every territory in the region changing hands at least twice.

An aside of the UK spending a fair portion of its funds on the RN meant France had the lions share of the responsibilities against Germany on the continent.

The Black Sea fleets cancelled each other out, Britain lost two cruisers in a (if we’re being honest with ourselves, Dukla :wink: ) pointless attack on the A-H fleet, and the Russian Baltic battleship bravely did nothing throughout the war.

On the Dark Continent, Germany did everything in her power to frustrate the Entente, conducting sound strategic moves coupled with exceptional dice rolls. Germany’s position in Africa is utterly hopeless outside of divine intervention, but all things considered, Credulous acquitted himself well.

A well fought game by all involved that could very easily have ended in a CP victory, but by the games conclusion, it was all Germany could do to keep the French and (rather late) British away from Berlin, and Italy was rampaging through A-H with reckless abandon, taking advantage of their foothold in Albania that was never given proper attention by the CP for the whole war.

Something I personally took away from this game was that for the CP, mainly A-H and G, building a warship now and again - whilst unconventional - might be a good strategy to force the Entente to spend more than you did to keep you contained, ultimately costing them more. Maintaining two fleets in being might be an idea for players in the future.

@trig said in Modernising Battleships:

@aftertaste I think so, for instance, there are alot of things that only one of two nations benefit from. For instance, when does the US need Heavy tanks? Or the Soviets advanced ASW? The Chinese almost never use ships.

Someone isn’t planning for the next war. 😉

That said, modernizing battleships was more of a interwar Washington Naval treaty thing, as it allowed you to get better ships during the “building holiday.” In wartime, it was simpler and more effective to just build another one.

You make good points, and I suppose there isn’t much reason to not use the rule, but I think maybe it’s a bit more subjective, historically speaking. Modernising in the ‘36-‘39 period makes more sense, I’ll see if my group want to play test the idea. Thanks for you help, Trig.

This is only an idea, I’m not tied to it, so be gentle.

Would the capability for all Major Powers to upgrade Battleships to Fast Battleships be a good idea, specifically to balance, and not historical accuracy?

I think it should require an undamaged Major Shipyard, take all three production turns, and cost; 4/4/4. With Improved Construction; it would take 3 turns and cost 3/3/3, or two turns, and cost 8/4, at the discretion of the players involved.

I’m sort of comparing this to upgrading Militia, but only as a precedent, not as a template.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of placing a carrier purely to ‘catch’ aircraft, but if it’s in the rules, so be it.

That being said, I agree with @Munck, you can’t ‘catch’ aircraft in GW’36, and those that think you can (15.3 be damned) must be purged.

@trig I like the +1 on the first round of combat, it might not be great considering the fact that players roll a D12, but on top of all the other benefits Radar already gives, it might be the best solution. Also, in GW’36, Subs are not considered Surface Warships, so they wouldn’t receive the +1.

I’ve had an idea about being able to place all ships/submarines in harbour that comes with a bunch of rules, and I was hoping for some constructive feedback:

In the non-combat move only, any naval unit may enter a friendly naval facility (hereafter referred to as; “port”) at any point in their movement. The units stay on the board, and are denoted with a marker in a Sea Zone adjacent to the port, and are treated as being in that Sea Zone for movement purposes. A naval unit may not move into and out of port on the same turn, and naval units produced in a Sea Zone with a port may be placed in port.

The max number of naval units that may stay in port is equal to the max damage of the naval facility in question. Naval units are not ejected unless the facility suffers damage, but they are not obliged to move - or become susceptible to attack by enemy naval units - until the next turn. A facilities ability to produce or repair naval units is not affected by having ships in port. Nations of the same Alliance may move their units into port on their non-combat move as long as there is room available.

Naval units in port:

• Retain the +1 to movement provided by Major Naval Facilities.

• May “Sortie” if an enemy nation makes a combat movement into, or through, any Sea Zones connected to the port, including an amphibious attack into a Land Zone that does not contain the port. Ships may not “Sortie” during an enemies non-combat movement.

• May not engage in combat unless making a combat move into a Sea Zone, including any adjacent to the port.

Enemy Action
Enemy naval units may not engage naval units in port conventionally, but may shore bombard, and all hits are assigned by the defender, defending Shore Batteries may return fire in the usual manner, and friendly fighters may scramble normally. If naval units in port “Sortie”, then a conventional battle takes place.

Enemy air units may attack naval units in port conventionally, but the defender utilises all units in the Land Zone. Bombers may Carpet Bomb the naval units in port, and may still Strategically Bomb the port, but cannot damage naval units when Strategically Bombing. In any case of Carpet or Strategic Bombing, the ports inherent AA will fire.

If an enemy captures the Land Zone that the port is in, the naval units are ejected on that turn, but they are not susceptible to attack by enemy naval units until the next turn. (I considered suggesting that all naval units in the port are scuttled, but that seemed a bit harsh).

Some bits I’m unsure of are;

• What to do if a port is captured or damaged in the enemies turn. Should the naval units be vulnerable to attack in the same turn, or is that a bit unfair? It seems to defeat the point of giving them safe harbour if they can be attacked after one round of Strategic Bombing.

• I’m also not sure about enemy ships shore bombarding, but there is some historical precedent.

@insanehoshi Air Superiority’s not a bad shout, I hadn’t considered that. I think, though, with all, or even some, of the extra rules I’ve suggested, your rule would definitely make Radar Tech OP.

You’re right about the tech disadvantage, historically; the Japanese didn’t develop Radar anywhere near to the extent that the Americans did, because of the overwhelming scientific and industrial advantage the US enjoyed.

When considering the net positive effect that these suggested rules would provide for any Nation that develops the tech, I think that makes Radar almost a go to for Nations with limited tech capability. But you are right, it could unbalance the Pacific in favour of the Americans, which is why I’m not advocating these rules too strongly.

@adalwolf Radar Tech allows Airbases to scramble an unlimited number of aircraft to any adjacent land or sea zone, and, historically; the sort of Radar sites I’m talking about were zero help to warships who were typically fighting well beyond the horizon, relative to any Radar site. Additionally; one of the rules I’ve suggested gives Surface Warships a bonus for Radar Tech anyway.

@trig You may be right, +1 all the time might be too much, +1 on the first round will suffice. What did you think of the other changes I suggested?

@trig I like the +1 on the first round of combat, it might not be great considering the fact that players roll a D12, but on top of all the other benefits Radar already gives, it might be the best solution. Also, in GW’36, Subs are not considered Surface Warships, so they wouldn’t receive the +1.

This post is based on my limited understanding of naval warfare during WW2 generally, and the effect that reliable radar had on said warfare specifically, so what I am suggesting may be OP, but just bear that in mind when replying, please.

I propose these additional effects after researching Radar:

1. Surface Warships, except for TBD’s and Costal Defence Ships, receive +1 to their Attack and Defence values.

2. Seaplanes receive +2 to their Attack value.

3. Under Convoy Modifiers during Convoy Raiding; an additional row that reads: “If aircraft are on patrol in the Sea Zone and the aircrafts Nation has Radar Technology, +3”.

When Radar is researched this will replace the previous row that reads; “If aircraft are on patrol in the Sea Zone, +2”. I know that there is already a bonus for having radar, but I read that as shipborne radar, not airborne radar.

4. Medium Bombers receive +1 to their Attack value if attacking Submarines.

This is a bit specific, and as Medium Bombers already attack at 7, I’m not married to this one.

5. Anti-Aircraft Artillery receive +1 to their Attack and Defence values.

This is shaky at best, and not related to naval warfare, or radar, so shoot this one at your leisure, (haha, puns), but it is meant to represent proximity fuse AA shells, which had a HUGE impact an AA lethality. Maybe it could be a House Rule Technology?

Like I said; I don’t think these new rules should definitely be used, but based on the history involved, they could be. Either way, I would appreciate any feedback.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of placing a carrier purely to ‘catch’ aircraft, but if it’s in the rules, so be it.

That being said, I agree with @Munck, you can’t ‘catch’ aircraft in GW’36, and those that think you can (15.3 be damned) must be purged.

Thanks to everyone for your input, it’s been very helpful. I’m going to take another crack at this…

Rocket Facilities cost 3/3, or (with Improved Construction) 2/2 or 6. I still think the facility should take two turns to build, but if others think it should only take one, there’s no reason it can’t just take one turn and cost 6 (5 with Improved Construction). Facilities can be built in any territory owned by the player that is in supply, have a max damage of 6, and have inherent AA.

The rockets themselves cost $1, and have all the usual abilities as described in the v3 rules. Facilities can fire one rocket, each player turn.

I’ve reduced the cost of the Facility from my original estimate and kept the cost of rockets very low to keep rockets a viable alternative to strategic bombers (thanks for the number crunching, @CaptainNapalm). I do accept that strategic bombers may be the better option though.

@sjelso You’re correct, they were, but they were more tactically mobile than strategically, as far as I understand, although I’m no expert. Maybe (as @Trig suggests) Rockets should be a type of unit, perhaps only available after the initial building of a Facility, but with no additional costs?

@insaneHoshi I like the idea of a technology countering the other, and there is certainly precedent, but when it comes to GW’36, I think Strategic Rockets means V2’s exclusively, and not V1’s, although I do see the merits of your suggestion.

As the rules currently stand, the Strategic Rocket Technology could use some tweaking, I think. The required rolls are fine, but how rockets are implemented is a bit difficult to justify the IPC cost for, when for the same price you can have two Infantry, or a Medium Armour &c., which will probably achieve more in the game for the controlling player.

I propose that after achieving Strategic Rockets, a player should have the ability to build a Rocket Facility in any owned territory within Supply, which should take two turns to build, cost 6/6 IPC’s, but retains the usual attack abilities as currently described in the v3 rules. Improved Construction will reduce the cost to 5/5, or 12 for one turn construction.

Obviously the Facility cannot move, and the additional cost and time to construct the Facility is countered the fact that the Facility can fire one Rocket attack each player turn, instead of only once per game. The additional cost and time for construction is to balance it out a little.

The Facility has inherent AA, and has a Max Damage value of 3, the Facility must have no damage before it can fire an attack, but a player may repair any damage in the Production Phase and fire an attack in the same turn.

I’m not sure if there should be a limit to Rocket Facilities in a territory, but I’m not inclined to say so.

@trig I should add, the reasons I said 4/4/4, then 3/3/3 or 8/4 are:

1. 6/6/6 is a Fast Battleship, so there’s no benefit.
2. 5/5/5 is a Battleship, and why upgrade a Battleship when for the same price you can have two Battleships, even if they’re slower?
3. 4/4/4 is 12 IPC’s total, which isn’t a lot, compared to options 1 and 2, but it is just about costly enough that other options are just as viable (such as a tactical bomber) so there are pros and cons to weigh up.

It should always be three turns (without Improved Construction) because improving a Battleships speed by 6-7 knots with the same armour and weaponry is a job and a half!