Topics created by Black_Elk

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

Thanks Barney!

Might interest some people here that the latest pre-release Jar for hardAI includes scrambling logic. See the AI dev thread if you want to download it and give it a go. I believe Redrum is working on fighter landing and transports next. Have fun all

Great post Black Elk. Here are my usual US buys for the first 3 rounds.

1st 3 bombers. Save 6
2nd 3 bombers, Transport, infantry
3rd 2 bombers, Transport, 2 infantry
4th turn on can change based on bomber losses, German plane buys, and what Japan is doing.

The point with this build is to merge allied fleets off sea zone 13 on turn 3.

The pleasure was on my part, Black_Elk.
I like to find ideas and optimized them inside specific guidelines.
These last one was invented while writing on it, never know that something that I found also interesting could come out of it!

However, it needs someone like you to come with the big picture and completely outside the box ideas.

I will be watching for feedback from your game-plays.

See you around.
Baron

The vichy rules reminds me of the one from xeno games.  I think their’s was to roll for the fleet like yours except uk and germany each got one chance at the fleet and 2-4 was scuttle. I like your idea of rolling for individual ships. Maybe make it individual sz’s?

On the territories they rolled 50-50 free or vichy. If it went vichy it and everything in it turned german. I think the allies were allowed to use free french areas any way they wanted,but if they actually attacked a FF territory to take control of it, all remaining FF turned vichy. If FIC went vichy it went to japan.

It went something like that anyways.

@SS:

:cry: KISS  :cry:

Said otherwise, to lose IPCs in Convoy Disruption Phase, the enemy need to capture one of your originaly held valueless Islands AND put in the surrounding SZ a single submarine (-2 IPCs) or warship (-1 IPC).
Those penalties cannot be cumulative, even if there is more units in SZ, it is either -2 IPCs or -1 IPC, no more no less.

For instance, once Guam taken by Japan and having as many IJN Subs as you want in the surrounding SZ of Guam, it will cost 2 IPCs to US until all IJN Subs move elsewhere or are sunk by Allies.

A different NO, simpler but probably costlier to original owners, based on my suggestion made earlier:
All valueless Island groups controled by at least one stationed unit (Ground, Air, operational Air Base or Naval Base) gives 2 IPCs.
But cost 1 IPC to any original ex-owner, this penalty applied during Convoy Disruption Phase of this ex-owner.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355089#msg1355089

I personally like at least 3 subs for G round 1 so that I can strafe 111 and keep my bb while taking out UK’s turn 2.

I bumped this up because there is a similar thread to compare with.

I agree with your long standing position on Factories Flash, and it is a very practical way of playing IMO. I don’t think that’s what their looking for though.

The concept of giving IPCs for an IC sounds pretty good, but could bankrupt a power like Russia that generally is force to give up such territories (they have 3 minors that generally fall to the axis). Italy is also forced into a predicament of sacrificing N Italy (Major IC) to hold on to its capital. If they also had to give up even 10 IPCs for losing control of the N Italy Major production center they might as well pack it in. Keep in mind that it does get down graded (not that Italy could build that many units if on the hot seat LOL)

If you were going to do a capture IC gain IPCs though I would have a set amount for a minor/major, then maybe a bonus amount if it is also a capital. I wouldn’t want to have to start counting adjacent territories etc….

I would be in favor of setting a limit on IPCs surrendered to the conquer if a capital is taken. Maybe a straight 20 IPCs or so. Allow that power to keep any additional IPCs saying they smuggled out part of the treasury before things went south. If that power still has factories available then they can continue to collect income and produce units from them. No IC on the board then they work like China and only produce inf until they recover an IC (or can buy one?)

Another way would be let it be more random using dice.

Lose minor roll 1 dice, enemy collect that amount
Lose Major roll 2 dice, enemy collect sum
If it is also a capital you roll two more bonus dice
So minor capital rolls 3 dice, major capital rolls 4 dice, enemy collects sum (you keep the rest if any)

Here’s a different approach that might be be cool and keep the dice rolling. If you loose your capital you roll 2 dice, the sum is what you managed to smuggle out, the rest is turned over to the enemy (min 2 ipc, max of 12 ipc).

I also think there should be a scorched earth policy BTW, if you lose an IC.

minor IC roll 1 dice (place that many damage markers)
major IC roll 2 dice (sum is amount of damage)

Here is another way of implementing auto Shipyards that just occurred to me.

At the beginning of each round* roll 1d6. The hit will determine whether the Shipyards technology is activated for all players.

round 1: hits at 1 to activate Shipyards for all nations
round 2: hits at 2
round 3: hits at 3
round 4: hits at 4
round 5: hits at 5
round 6: auto tech Shipyards for all nations

This means that from the first round, and for each round which the game progresses, the odds of Shipyards will increase. Until the 6th round, at which point the Tech is activated automatically for everyone.

Germany starts the game round sequence so they can roll it. Or, depending on how many players you have, you can alternate the roll each round so that someone else gets a chance to try for the hit.

The logic here is that the Naval Race escalates as the war itself escalates, until it crescendos, and everyone gains access to the cheaper naval unit cost structure at the same time.

Axis have the strong early incentive to go naval if shipyards is activated in the first or second round. Every round after the 3rd the cost structure starts to favor Allied builds. Though even then, Axis can exploit late game naval action.

Naval Race rules: an independent and escalating tech roll, which grants Shipyards for All! :-D

In TripleA this is how you use the roll…

At the start of each round:
“Game” tab > “Roll Dice” > roll 1 six sided die (free roll)

If it hits according to rules above, then
“Game tab” > “Enable Edit Mode” > Add Tech Shipyards for All

*note: you could also choose to make this roll at the end of the game round rather than the beginning. This means the roll would usher in the 2nd round, rolling each round thereafter until Shipyards is activated, or until auto-tech Shipyards in the 7th round. It works either way, though I think it would be more fun to roll Shipyards at the beginning of the round rather than the end of the round and this keeps the value of the roll corresponding exactly with the game round G1 at 1, G2 at 2, G3 hits at 3, and so forth. Its a fairly simple way to get cheaper ships into the game for everyone.

For people who play using the Optional Global tech rules, the Shipyards technology is now removed from Breakthrough chart two. If you roll on 3 on the second breakthrough chart, re-roll the die until you hit one of the other technologies.

Well the idea was to take all the “at war” related NOs and just streamline them into a single simple to remember rule with a straight forward easy to remember bonus. G40 is poorly balanced to begin with. I wouldn’t suggest this as the sole corrective for game balance, since clearly, if you want a game balanced by side, you’re going to have to tweak the board in more ways than this. I just find it annoying how for example, Russia has no incentive not to declare on Japan immediately, or how there is no mechanism to support neutrality in so many instances with various powers. Even if the decision to declare is still fairly obvious,  at least this gives you something to consider,  and something that holds for both sides along a neutrality pact, instead of so many 1 sided DoW bonuses. There are a bunch of silly NOs that seem to exist for no other reason than to give certain nations +5 here and there. I’d just as soon ditch all of them in favor of a single rule that handles neutrality across the board.

I think it might be novel if this included a nod to the pro - side neutrals too. But again, I don’t see this as necessarily a balance driver, more something I prefer for rules consistency with all powers.

When you get down to it, I just don’t think the DoW bonuses +5, belong in the National Objectives list. They cannot be contested the way other NOs can, and the way they are worded OOB, these objectives don’t seem to drive the gameplay in a very meaningful way. I would seperate them off from the other NOs and provide a universal rule that can be handled in a line or two, applying to everyone equally. Then replace the existing Neutrality/DoW NOs currently in G40 OOB, with some NOs that are more interesting as gameplay drivers.

My usual approach for Axis and Allies, going back to AA50 and now with G40, is to replace specific National Objectives, with universal or general Objectives that accomplish similar gameplay effects whenever possible, since I believe the latter are better for the game flow and easier to remember. Basically if you can replace half a dozen Nation Objectives, with a single General Objective (that applies the same way for all nations) that is ideal.

Thus far I have used this neutrality bonus idea, in conjunction with a VC bonus idea, and a few others to more less strip G40 of “national” objectives altogether. Then if you wanted to bring NOs back into play, to do something more streamlined,  with just 1 or 2 high value NO per nation, on areas of the board where the gameplay/strategic interest would benefit from their inclusion.

Along these lines, for consistency and to provide additional income for Germany and Italy, it might make sense to include China in the neutrality rules. I gripe on China constantly, but in this case you’d have a potential +10 for both sides if G/I opt not to declare on it. Axis would have to decide if they want the extra in Europe, but only at the risk of a stronger China vs Japan. Which might have an interesting effect on balance. I’ll edit to the lead post to reflect this option.

I’m curious which statements here are differing from what you’ve seen in the league? Do you feel that this NO is playing differently or is more relevant in the league?

I suppose its important to realize that any statements you read here on the boards are largely anecdotal. It comes down to how much of what you read accords with your own experience. And of course results will differ depending on what conditions you typically play with. For example, I noticed just now you mentioned the Russian bomber in another thread. In G40, and in other prior A&A games, many people have used additional Russian aircraft as an expedient alternative to the open pre-placement bid. An Extra Russian fighter in AA50 for example, or a Bomber in G40. In G40 specifically, that option is preferable to me, than an open bid for UK. Its the sort of set up change you really have to force though, because given the option most people would take that same bid amount and instead throw down 4 infantry or 3 art units in separate territories to spread the advantage, or a pair of subs to break a naval battle. Anyway, the point being that if you are using a Russian bomber in your games regularly, then chances our you’ll be seeing different results from people who try other balancing options. Beyond this, there is also the No Tech aspect, or things like whether or not players are using standard dice rules or low luck rules. All this stuff can skew the results in a given set of games, or provide somewhat different play-balance results from the games of people who play other ways.

I will say this about G40, if you play standard dice, there is a fairly substantial swing potential on sz 110 and sz 111, not to mention with casualties in France. This can be a pretty big deal for an opening battle that sets the stage for the whole game. The results there can be a lot more consequential than say Classic/Revised when a transport hit, or a destroyer dudded out was in the opening round. The old German battleship headache comes to mind. Or take for example how in Revised the swing on the W. Russia battle could really effect the whole game in a massive way, such that some players would just quit outright in the opening round, if the dice didn’t go their way. Something similar can occur here (though perhaps not quite as extreme) with sz 110 and 111. If the Luftwaffe trades well in those battles it can be a huge boon for Axis. If they trade poorly it can be a small nightmare for G. Low Luck can control for that to a certain extent, but what you gain in consistency by using LL during the opening round, you lose out on in dynamism during the endgame. This is why I tend to prefer dice since they are so unpredictable for the endgame, though I appreciate the place for LL and understand why so many are fond of it. Still even a small bid disrupting either of those battles, or the battles in the med, can take it from a risky swing to a clear and obvious choice, especially under LL conditions.

So all that is just to say that the conventions in your playgroup, the typical bid, what sort of rules you option in or out, can really affect the patterns that emerge.

You’ll probably have noticed as well, that because A&A uses a very fixed set up and involves a number of scripted first round battles, that players often use a technique that you might call mirroring. Where players tend to model their strategies and opening moves, on things that they’ve seen stronger opponents do. Adopting the strategies that beat you last time, we might call it. This happens a lot after a board first comes out, or especially with players who are new to the game. So what happens is a kind of gameplay evolution, that selects for the best opening plays and weeds out the poorer ones over time. So right after a new board comes out everyone is excited, since the playing field is leveled, and nobody really knows how to exploit the map. Very quickly though, players start adopting standard buys and standard openings, until at some point (after a year say) someone hits on a strategy that is very dominant, which never remains secret very long. Soon variations in it get more popular, until eventually it becomes a scripted move (something everyone does.) Its usually at this point, if the advantage is clearly going one way, to one side over the other, that people start seriously examining bid solutions.

Whats interesting about all this, is that if you are playing with someone who is inexperienced, and does something totally batshit crazy, that you wouldn’t expect anyone to do ever, sometimes that sort of game can actually get entertaining as well as challenging. Since you really don’t know how to predict the erratic behavior of the newb. These games can be fun, since they force all sorts of weird decisions on you. Like wow, he built that? I guess I have to go destroy it now, and do something I wouldn’t usually do haha.

I agree though, from an archival standpoint, its nice to have a league and a way to track what sorts of things are happening in games (what sort of bids are being used for example, and what opening moves.) The overall tally Axis wins to Allied wins. But even there, the nature of the dice can be pretty nuts in providing different experiences.

All this is just to clarify something that it might have been worth saying at the outset. When I talk about game “Balance” or “Balance by Sides” what I am really referring to is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ among both players that the starting conditions provide a roughly even shot for either to prevail. There’s no way to be really absolute about this, since as soon as you roll the dice in a single round of combat, you shoot off into so many different variables that its probably impossible to say anything with certainty… eg. whether a bad roll somewhere can be recovered by an amazing one somewhere else, later on. So really what we a striving for is the sweet spot, where the feeling of balance is the same for both players at the outset. Where one person isn’t constantly grumbling about how the odds are totally stacked against them from the get go, or how if they don’t win battle X, “its basically all over!” I’m not sure how much you could learn from seeing my games in an after action, since I’m perhaps not as cut throat as others, and I like to experiment a lot (often with game mechanics.) I don’t mind losses and haven’t bothered to keep a running tally on anything.

If I’m in the lobby and I have more time to play, I also almost never concede defeat, at least until I see the deep endgame ;) Since that’s the one that fascinates me most in A&A games! The deep endgame, for those unfamiliar with how I use the term in A&A, is how things play after capitals have already fallen. So in Classic or Revised or 1942.2 the Deep Endgame is when you are down to just 4 nations. In AA50 when you are down to 5 etc. Another way to think about it is the gameplay when W. Allies can take over Russian land directly because the capital has fallen.

Pretty good at grinding it out, since even a losing game can be entertaining, and it teaches you about the production spread and the importance of the center ;) But now I’m just rambling.

Is it the general premise of this thread (that Russia’s NOs are too weak, and virtually pointless) that you find problematic? Or the proposed solution as a bid alternative? I guess I’m just a little confused where you think we’re running off track. Most of the results posted in that league forum for g40 games (at least for the last several months) show Allies being bid out consistently, often at above +10 ipc. So I feel that it supports the general position of game unbalance in favor of Axis. I’m not sure what bearing any of those games would have on my proposed solution right now, since those games are virtually all using pre-placement bids. What I have suggested here is a standard income modification for an NO as an alternative to what people are currently doing, which is bidding pre-placement. Does that make more sense from the perspective of a bid replacement/balance perspective?

@wittmann:

I agree that the Leningrad NO should go. Germany can�  easily capture the city and start building there. Why give it 5 bonus too?

I think that capture a city, or a Capital, should give you a one time bonus. You can plunder a city once, not every day year after year. Now that should put a stop to the back and forth  trading of capitals too.

Iron trade with Sweden and Lend Lease convoys should of course give you NO money every turn

Other than Russia transporting factories east to the Urals before the Germans reached them, I find it hard to accept any factory being used (by anyone) after it’s tt has been captured in combat. Therefore, simply remove them and give the captor a cash bonus for acquired assets. Or allow them to build (in their own home factories) any new tech units the enemy had developed.

I think you got it….
In fact not remove it but give the captor a cash…
For minor factory give the value of the territory in cash.
For major factory give x 2 the value of the territory in cash.

Even a liberated France “building” anything other than infantry in Paris is unhistorical
I totally agree….

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.

This seems like a very interesting system, I’m definitely going to explore this concept with my buddy next time we get a chance. I remember I once tried to play Classic with my friend Oddie using a full fog of war secret move concept. Basically we tried simultaneous phases (ie. all nations purchase at once, then all nations move at once etc.) Roughly modeled things on Risk II’s system (the old cd game by Microprose of the classic RISK boardgame) for “Same Time” Risk.

We used a screen for each player (similar to the old Dungeon Masters screen, a tri-fold that stands upright.) Purchase was planned, written down, and then hidden behind the screen, not revealed until placement. Movement was written down on an index card and kept secret until both players had recorded all their moves. Same thing for Non combat. It was very important in this case to enforce strict separation of game phases, and to write down everything, which was rather involved.

For combat we always rolled the “border clashes” first, so if both players tried to move across the same border (territory to territory) then that combat was always rolled first and both sides as if their units were “attackers.” After border clashes was the normal combat phase for all players, at the same time, with standard attack and defense. Going basically from the left of the board to the right in order.

It was not a terribly successful approach on game balance, since the game is balanced for tbs, but it was fun for a trial. The main issue we had was trying to find a way to take a TBS game, and make it into a “Same Time” game, this necessitates a completely collapsed turn order and more money HRs to work. And after my buddy moved, I just never had anyone around who was motivated enough to try and figure this stuff out.

Trying to do a Same Time Classic game was also the first one where I ever tried to include variable income bonus rolls, and set bonuses to starting cash. Since the turn order advantage was nonexistent, it was necessary to introduce more money for the game to work on a practical level. Basically finding that if you double the starting cash values for each player, and then randomize bonuses thereafter to about double normal income per round, it gave nations enough money to each to basically counterbalance the effect of trying to do all phases at the same time for each nation. (Since everyone is throwing units everywhere, and since the destroyed TUV in round 1 could then be replaced, later in the game, instead of being lost irreparably in the first round.) It was fun, but required a lot of rethinking, in terms of the basics of how the game operates. The "Same Time idea always seemed a better solution for me than a collapsed TBS order that has all Allies going at once, and then all Axis. Same time had it so that all the purchases, moves, combats and placements occurred at the same time for all Nations.

The ideas CWOMarc is suggesting seem like they might offer something similar in the way of secrecy, but without requiring the full “Same Time” dynamic, where everyone does the same phase at once. I’m intrigued to try it out.

As for the cards, I tried my Income bonus rules again last monday, and again I am convinced that Global can support this fairly well. I have yet to introduce the rest of the gamephases into the card game, but feel confident that given the right set up, Axis and Allies can support a random draw mechanic. Just need to keep drafting and testing until I get the right mix

@der-kuenstler

I agree!

12 interesting battles (a German land unit represent a division and a Soviet land unit two divisions, a Soviet tank corps is actually a division, and all naval battles include the actual numbers of ships fought):

Battle Of Prokhoshova: One of the biggest tank to tank battles of the war, it was one of the biggest and most publicised German successes in the Battle Of Kursk, which was fought in summer 1943.

Soviet units (on the attack): 3 tanks, 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 artillery

German units (on the defence): 3 tanks, 1 tactical bomber, 2 fighters

First Naval Battle Of Guandacanal: The First Naval Battle Of Guandacanal was a final Japanese attempt to win the Guandacanal campaign. Set at night, both sides had a hard time spotting each other, resulting in many near collisions and playing well into the Japanese advantage of night fighting. Despite this, one Japanese battleship was sunk, the first of the war.

Japanese units (on the attack): 2 battleships, 1 cruiser, 11 destroyers

American units (on the defence): 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers

Formosa Air Battle: After the losses at the Battle Of The Philippine Sea, Japan had enough aircraft and ships for one final, decisive battle. Whilst this would culminate in a the Battle Of Leyte Gulf, Japan was unsure where the Allies would attack. As a result, when the Allies began launching carrier based air raids on Formosa, Japan used up the last reserves in this air battle, ensuring that when the Allies landed in the Philippines later that year, Japan would have little air cover or opposition.

Japanese units (on the attack): 7 fighters, 7 tactical bombers

American units (on the defence): 6 battleships, 15 cruisers, 57 destroyers, 10 aircraft carriers, 11 fighters, 11 tactical bombers

Battle Of Moscow: After pushing though Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Lativa, besieging Leningrad, and entering Russia and conquering Smolensk, the German army stood near Moscow. With the striking power of three panzer armies, the Soviets mobilised all reserves and Siberian divisions to defend the capital-in the end, the bitter cold was too much for the Germans and the Soviets launched a massive offensive, undoing most German gains during the battle.

German forces (on the attack): 47 infantry, 9 mechanised infantry, 14 tanks, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 24 artillery

Soviet forces (on the defence): 43 infantry, 6 mechanised infantry, 3 tanks, 3 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 14 artillery

Battle Of Okinawa: As the Allies closed in on Japan and defeated the garrison on Iwo Jima, the final obstacle to the mainland was Okinawa. The last big battle of the war, Japan was determined to make a final last stand on the island, and exert their most supreme efforts short of the home islands.

Note: Each American and Japanese division is a single piece, whilst every transport unit equals 70 transports, a destroyer unit equals 8 destroyers, and ships bigger than a destroyer will be represented individually. Naval ships (such as minelayers and submarine chasers) that are not represented as units in the game shall be excluded.

American forces (on the attack): 20 battleships, 38 cruisers, 21 destroyers, 24 aircraft carriers, 6 transports for the naval battle, 7 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 anti aircraft artillery for the land battle

24 fighters and 24 tactical bombers are available to use on land or at sea.

Japanese forces (on the defence): 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 kamikazes for the naval battle, 2 infantry, 1 artillery for the land battle

Battle Of Denmark Strait: In 1941, several months before Operation Barborossa, Bismarck, a powerful battleship during World War 2, was completed, and the ship and the cruiser Prinz Eugen on a massive raid to attack merchant ships. Alarmed, the British sent two powerful capital ships to the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen’s route though the Denmark Strait, the gap between Scotland and Greenland. In the ensuring battle, Bismarck sunk the symbol of British naval supremacy and power, the Hood ad over 1400 lives with it. The resulting grief and anger empowered the British to deploy every available ship to hunt it down and destroy it. Despite success, to this day, the Bismarck still haunts the nightmares of the Royal Navy.

German units (on the attack): 1 battleship, 1 cruiser

British units (on the defence): 1 battleship, 1 damaged battleship

Second Battle Of El Alamein: As Rommel entered Egypt, it seemed as great riches for Germany and Italy were at hand. To Rommel, to his men, and even to Hitler and Mussolini, the key to winning the war was provided-Alexandria, Cairo, the Suez Canal, the British Empire itself. But after being stoped at the First Battle Of El Alamein and the Battle Of Alam El Hafa, Rommel was forced to dig in as British strength grew rapidly from American aid. The massive British counteroffensive that followed pushed Rommel across Egypt, Libya, into Tunisia, and, following the American Operation Torch, all hope for the Axis in Africa was lost.

Note: All units here represent one regiment.

British units (on the attack): 23 tanks, 32 infantry, 11 mechanised infantry, 53 artillery, 8 fighters, 6 tactical bombers

German units (on the defence): 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 5 mechanised infantry, 4 infantry, 6 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 anti aircraft artillery

Italian units (on the defence): 16 infantry, 16 artillery, 5 mechanised infantry, 2 tanks, 6 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

Battle Of Alam El Hafa: After the succesful Battle Of Gazala and the failed First Battle Of El Alamien, Rommel knew that massive Allied reinforcements were on the way, which the Axis could not match with losses in supply ships. In an attempt break though into Egypt before the inevitable British counteroffensive, Rommel launched the final Axis offensive in the Western Desert campaign and in Egypt. However, Allied air superiority, and more importantly, Ultra, forced Rommel to withdraw. From now on, the Axis could only defend in Egypt, with the only hope being a breakthrough in the Middle East from the Caucasus, which never materialised. A close battle, without Ultra, Rommel could have raced on to the Suez Canal, thus prolonging the war. One of the most important uses of Ultra indeed.

Each unit represents a division.

German units (on the attack): 4 tanks, 1 mechanised infantry, 5 infantry, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

British units (on the defence): 2 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 fighters, 4 tactical bombers

Operation Crusader: After Rommel’s devastating advance across Libya to the Egyptian border, he was unable to capture the important port of Tobruk. Despite massive attacks, Tobruk held on, making Rommel unable to invade Egypt. With the time gained, the British launched a massive attack, which was successful. Despite being able to catch the British armoured units in the flank by driving back to the Egyptian border, and destroying more tanks than he lost, Rommel was forced to withdraw across Libya, setting the stage for a massive build up on both sides for the next, phase of enormous attacks at Gazala and El Alamein.

Note: All units here represent one regiment.

British units (on the attack): 13 tanks, 12 artillery, 24 infantry, 5 mechanised infantry, 8 fighters, 4 tactical bombers

German units (on the defence): 2 tank, 6 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 mechanised infantry, 2 fighters

Italian units (on the defence): 10 artillery, 14 infantry, 3 mechanised infantry, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 3 tanks

A German or Italian (can’t decide) mechanised infantry unit will also be part of the Axis.

Battle Of Crete: After the fall of Greece, British and Greek forces hoped to hold Crete as an excellent naval base as well as a launching point to bomb the Romanian oil fields. Several air fields have finished or nearly finished construction, although RAF units were not permanently present. Hitler, worried about the bombing of the crucial Romanian oil fields, and the Luftwaffe hoping to regain prestige after the defeat in the Battle if Britain, ordered an airborne invasion of Crete as the Axis have gained air, but not naval superiority, with an amphibious option out of the question. The goal was to capture the biggest air field on the islands, which would allow transport aircraft to land reinforcements. The attacks was not meant to interfere with Operation Barborossa, although the loss of many paratroopers forced Germany to abandon air drops behind the Soviet front line. The biggest and last major attack of the Fallchirmjager, the high casualties incurred convinced Hitler that the Fallchirmjager were no long effective, ordering them to fight as normal infantry, whilst the Allies were impressed with the German victory and started forming paratroopers as well as air field defence units.

Note: All units here represent one regiment.

German units (on the attack): 4 strategic bombers, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 8 infantry, 1 artillery

British units (on the defence): 3 artillery, 17 infantry, 1 mechanised infantry, 2 anti aircraft artillery

Siege Of Sevastapool: After the devastating intitial shock of Operation Baborossa, Germany and Romania advanced into the Crimea to prevent the Soviet from bombing the Romanian oil fields, destroying much Soviet resistance. However, the Soviets had heavily fortified Sevastopol and used the Black Sea fleet to transfer the Separate Coastal Army from the Siege Of Odessa for the defence of the city, formed several additional brigades of infantry, and provided gunfire support. The result was a siege that lasted for more than 9 months, with Axis air superiority making up for the lack of infantry on the German side and the many World War 1 era artillery pieces used. Due to the long siege, many enormous artillery pieces, designed for destroying the Maginot Line, most notably the largest artillery piece ever, Schwere Gustav, were able to be brought up to the front line and used, although they had limited effect due to the lack of ammunition. Despite the success, the delay the siege caused and the absence of the German Eleventh Army helped contribute to the Soviet victory against Operation Case Blue. In a rare call for help, Germany asked for their Italian allies for several motor torpedo boats, due to the Italians having wide expertise on this matter, using them in both World War 1 and 2, to assist air operation in preventing the Soviets from evacuating the city. Two interesting vehicles used in the attack were the Goliath tracked mine, a remote controlled vehicle aimed at blowing up and destroying the Soviet fortifications, and the Stug 3, an infantry support vehicle aimed at also destroying the fortifications at Sevastapool, although later in the war was also an effective tank destroyer.

German units (on the attack): 10 infantry, 1 tank, 4 artillery, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

Soviet units (on the defence): 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber

Operation Bodenplatte: As the German momentum in the Battle Of The Bulge slowed, Hitler, with the weather clearing, ordered a massive air offensive against the Allies to gain local air superiority to regain the speed necessary for victory. Although the Allies lost many aircraft destroyed on the ground, the losses were replaced within a week, and few pilots were lost. Meanwhile, large amounts of German squadron leaders, many of which were veterans, were killed, who could not be replaced, and aircraft losses were also quite high, which could not be easily replaced with the Soviets destroying enormous amounts of aircraft in the east. In the end, not even temporary air superiority was achieved, and the Luftwaffe was destroyed beyond repair, not accomplishing or doing anything significant for the rest of 1945.

German units (on the attack):

American units (on the defence):

British units (on the defence):

Note: I am unable to find information on the amount of Allied aircraft present in the attack. Can you help me with this please? Thank you!

Here is a saved game “rough draft” edit of the China set up above, for use with TripleA. Right now it uses the standard turn order, but that can altered if desired. All edits to achieve the set up are logged in the game history.

Note how China is no longer a separate nation but instead placed under direct USA control.
Check the stats column for the total Money, Production, and TUV for the United States.

Burma units may be edited into the appropriate territories per the rules above.

There are no co-located units here, all roundel substitutions in play according to the rules above, including for the Commonwealth (represented here in the save edit by ANZAC at 20, Eire south Africa etc.

It is up to the player to enforce the production rules via the edit mode, or to adjust territory possession as necessary (in the case of liberated territories). Example if Japan takes Hunan, and the Americans then liberate it, the game will show Hunan as Chinese, edit possession back to United states. The same thing for the Commonwealth, or if UK pacific territories reappear after conquest/liberation, edit them back to the appropriate power. Otherwise it works as normal, just remember to enforce the factories at 10, 5, 3.

Edit any Soviet Japan Nap conditions you wish.

If no DoW is desired, then you can have all Axis declare in the first round.

VC or Combat bonuses may be edited into the IPC totals at the end of the turn to augment or replace NOs if desired.

Savegame attached below… the next step would be to create an xml gamefile reflecting the new production units, and the Commonwealth faction (while removing UK pacific and China). Eliminate the politics phase, and create a simple NO option on the VCs. Adjust the turn order to the one outlined above.

Halifax china mod no-colocation.jpg
G40 Halifax 2 China to USA.tsvg