Posts made by Chris_Henry

I totally agree with you on terrain. Played a huge role obviously, and just can’t be shown on this map. Weather as well at times, but again, only so much you can do.

You make a fair point on limiting rounds of combat because of how far and fast some fronts moved compared to others. Again, not 100% how to quantify that in a game though. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re talking about a similar idea without limiting the number of rounds of combat to three. But what’s stopping the defender from retreating after one round of battle each time then? I guess I feel it still doesn’t fix the problem of fast moving fronts, but I don’t know.

You’re right, naval combat is another thing all together as well. I’ve thought on that one too, and my initial thought process is that combat shouldn’t necessarily happen every turn. If we assume ships can share a territory in the same manner that land units can finish a turn contesting a territory, we could role a die before each naval combat, a role of 1-4 battle commences, but at a 5-6 nothing happens during combat, as the two navies couldn’t locate each other. Having planes out scouting could add one to your dice role though, to better help search for the enemy fleet.

I haven’t come up with any decent idea about air combat either, but again, I agree, it would be nice to have some sort of aerial combat that would dictate local air superiority in each battle.

Hey all.

A house rule I’ve always been interested in (but never actually implemented) is a retreat mechanic and/or a limited number of combat sequences per turn mechanic. I get the game as is and why it has to happen, but part of me always hates that a defender can’t decide to pull back if they wanted and regroup/salvage forces. Relatedly, it bugs me sometimes that an entire front is wiped out in a single turn of combat. Again, I get how this has to happen in a game, but that’s why these are house rules, right?  :-)

So here’s my thought:

Each turn of combat lasts three rounds. The attacker gets first impulse and attacks as normal, then defender defends as normal. Next round of combat each player roles a die for initiative, the higher dice role gets to attack for the second round of combat. In this way the attacking force isn’t necessarily always on the offensive. Alternatively, if the defender wins the dice role, he/she may choose whether to stay on the defensive or launch a counter attack (I haven’t decided which I like better). I’ve also debated having air superiority adding one to your dice for initiative as well in some way, but this is an unfinished thought. This process would be repeated for the third round of combat as well. After that, fighting ends for the turn. If units still survive from both sides, the territory is contested, and no one receives the IPC’s.

The first round of combat has to happen regardless. Starting on the second round though, the side with initiative can choose to retreat from the battle, and again in the third round, if they so choose.

One of the biggest detractors from this, and is a theme I’ve seen on these boards as well, is having a static war, where mechanized units would lose their edge in the game by being able to blitz by having contested territories, etc. My thought is this:

After the above combat is complete, there are different possibilities.

1. If the battle ends and the original attacking force is victorious, any mechanized units they have remaining can move one more space, assuming they hadn’t already move their two spaces previously to enter the battle. So if German tanks and/or mechanized infantry started the turn in Poland and attacked Eastern Poland and the battle ends in a German victory, those mechanized units could then move one more space to Belarus, for example.

2. If one side retreats from the battle, and the side that keeps the field has any mechanized units (mechanized infantry or tanks) remaining, they can attempt to trap some retreating forces in a kessel. The retreating forces would have to role one die. On a role of 3 or less, that many one movement units (so three maximum of infantry or artillery) got trapped by the advancing mechanized forces and cannot retreat, and must battle the next round, if the retreating side is retreating before the third round of combat, or keep the territory contested if the third round has happened already. I’ve thought about adding a mechanic where if the retreating side also has any mechanized units left they can negate -1 from the role of how many units got trapped in the kessel.

Any thoughts on any of this? I felt like this might add a different element to the game, and add a little more strategy. As the attacker, you have to think about the possibility that you lose initiative after the first round of combat and may have to go on the defensive. It makes mechanized units potentially a bit more fun too by giving them some different special abilities.

@Carolina:

So this rule seems to highly benefit the Axis, right?  What is the balance for the Allies?

You’d also have to remember that the French IPC’s would be able to be used. OOB, Madagascar, Syria, and the three central African territories are all just dead IPC’s until an Axis power takes them and an Allied power retakes them. This way, there’s realistically 5 extra IPC’s to be gained for the Allies as well. They won’t have a hard time taking Madagascar, French West Africa and French Central Africa from Vichy, and Syria may go back and forth a bit, but you get the idea. Between that and the French NO here, that’s 7-8 extra IPC’s for the French/Allies.

The Axis really are only gaining the potential Vichy NO bonuses, and the two extra IPC’s from splitting FIC and Southern France economies between Vichy and whatever major power. I’d still maybe take the Vichy NO down from 5 IPC’s though. That plus the two IPC’s mentioned above gives them 7 bonus IPC’s, giving the Allies a minimal advantage in IPC’s gained (assuming they hold Syria). I think a Vichy NO should probably be worth the same as a Free French NO, but that’s just my opinion.

@Aldyn:

Actually - I did change the cruiser NO, but you may have missed the post about it.  :)

Sorry! I must have missed that entirely!

@regularkid:

I’m not sure i see the point of adding a Vichy-France mod for ‘greater historicality,’ while omitting anyway for Germany to take direct control of southern france (i.e., to violate the armistice and forfeit its benefits). That was, after all, the historical outcome of the whole Vichy France episode. It should at least be possible in any mod that seeks to simulate the Vichy France aspect of the war, IMHO

I play where once the Allies invade North Africa (or if they attack Southern France first I guess), the Axis have the opportunity to break the armistice and take the territory for themselves. It may be a bit different though because of the rules that I’ve used in the past. I don’t want to hi-jack the thread, but I had a rule where Axis units were not allowed to be stationed in Vichy territory or Vichy would declare it an act of war. When the Allies land in North Africa, I role a die for each Vichy unit, 1-3 they turn to Free French, 4-6 they stay Vichy and fight the invasion. Once that happens, I allow the Axis to attack Vichy territory, so that they don’t have to sit back and wait for the Allies to take Vichy essentially uncontested.

You would need to have any sort of reason to break the armistice in Aldyn’s rule set here, and I don’t necessarily see a reason to off the top of my head.

Interesting. As I said, I obviously have not played your version, so you’d know better than I, but I was just curious on your thoughts on that.

I’ve had versions where I still allowed the Germans to build naval units out of Southern France, but that would count towards the unit max that Vichy could build there as well.

I’m curious, and maybe I missed this earlier in the thread, so sorry if I did, but what happens to the Axis NO of holding Southern France/Greece/Egypt/Gibraltar? Does this just automatically count still or did you remove this NO?

I’m also curious if you’ve considered allowing Free French units to build in England as well, as sort of a add-on to the China spawn rule?

It does look interesting. I may have to try it. Though as CW Marc and myself pointed out, I may change the cruiser NO. I might do it more as a “if Vichy controls at least X amount of their overseas territory”. Maybe three, with North Africa being the reasonable three to choose to hold. It would make them want to make sure it’s garrisoned to keep that NO alive.

P@nther is correct, of course.

That’s the biggest advantage of the airbases though, is getting to decide where to defend. It’s up to the attacker to base his/her attacks on what the defender might do in this situation. I like that it brings a little decision making personally  :-)

Also, if we’re going to talk real life scenarios, I’d say the two fighter groups missing each other is one of the most plausible things that would have happened. Airspace is obviously very large, the odds of the planes running into each other is probably very slim, unless of course fighters were sent up as interceptors intentionally.

It’s on the Japanese player, in this scenario, to decide if bulking the naval attack is more important than bulking the amphibious landing. The USA player has the chance to react. That’s the risk taken when attacking a territory with an airbase.

I would have to say USA/China should be the same player, if for no other reason than so the USA player can actually have something to do for the first couple of turns if Japan doesn’t DOW early. Plus it most iterations of AA, China and USA are intertwined, whether it be USA units used in China, or USA fighters shown as the Flying Tigers.

That sounds awesome, Mill Creek! This Saturday is certainly a no go for me. But as I said, just staying in the loop with someone local is a great way to expand the connections and be able to play with others! I’ll definitely look you up and email you (mine is chrispatrickhenry@yahoo.com). I’m on these boards relatively frequently as well, so reaching me here is also a good way. We’ll make it work one of these time!

I’m in Seattle as well (Northgate). I play with my dad when we can, my brother does some as well, those it’s harder for us as we’re getting older to all find time to play (my brother and I are twins at 28). Can’t guarantee anything for the foreseeable future, work has been very busy. But one of these days it would be fun to link up with another player!

I generally like the ideas you have. I’m having a really hard time getting behind a NO just for a cruiser surviving though. All I keep thinking about is having the Bismarck and Yamato should have the same effect if a French cruiser gets something like that. I understand trying to find an NO for them to use, but as I said, I myself am having a hard time grasping that NO being a cruisers survival.

Also, what does this do to German naval potential in the Med? I know many don’t do it, but I usually build a few subs and a transport out of Southern France. I know others us Yugoslavia for that naval base, but I’ve never wanted to spend the money on a naval base when one is already available (obviously I’m pro Germany taking Southern France over Italy, but that’s another topic  :-D). Anyways, this would seem to be something that could greatly weaken the Axis, in the sense that the Allies will know there’s essentially no larger threat in the Med. Maybe that’s your goal, I don’t know, and I’m not necessarily against it given most people’s belief that the out of box game heavily favors the Axis, I’m just curious on your thoughts.

Right on Mike. It just seemed really well thought out, and I was very curious to see how it was coming!

I’ve gone out of my way to intentionally not order anything from FMG, unfortunately. Anything I’ve ever seen posted about them has been negative, so I haven’t even wanted to bother. Too bad, I’d like to spread the capital around to more than HBG and Shapeways.

Thanks CWO Marc, I didn’t see that thread. I hate adding to the long list here if I don’t need to.

That idea definitely isn’t for me. As many stated there, that’s a pretty involved set of rules just for partisans. I agree with what you and others said there as well about the scope of the game. It probably is at too much of a macro level to be able to sufficiently show things like partisan warfare, but I thought this was a pretty straight forward idea that doesn’t involve too much, or completely wreck the Axis.

Hey all,

Been trying to think of a easy way to add partisans to the game that would have some kind of an effect on Germany/the Axis.

One thing this game doesn’t show (and really couldn’t from a playability/marketability standpoint, I get that) is how big of a role partisans played behind enemy lines. German logistics were incredibly hampered on the Eastern Front in part because of this, and the French Resistance is largely known in the western world.

I thought a way to show partisans would be to have it affect the Germany economy.

Each occupied country would get a D12 dice role after Germany’s (or whichever Axis player occupies the country) non-combat movement phase. I thought a D6 would be too powerful with this, as will seem obvious below. Each country would role the dice and compare it to how many IPC’s the country is worth. If the number showing is less than or equal to the total, you place one partisan unit/marker on the country (or in the case of France, in the France/Paris territory). It would shake out like this:

France: 9 IPC’s = 75% chance of a partisan appearing.
Holland Belgium: 3 IPC’s (including this despite Germany owing at the beginning of the game = 25% chance of a partisan appearing.
Denmark: 2 IPC’s = 16-17% chance of a partisan appearing.
Norway: 3 IPC’s = 25% chance of a partisan appearing.
Yugoslavia: 2 IPC’s = 16-17% chance of a partisan appearing.
Greece: 2 IPC’s = 16-17% chance of a partisan appearing.
Poland: 3 IPC’s (counting both Poland and Eastern Poland here, despite Germany owning Poland at the beginning of the game = 25% chance of a partisan appearing.
USSR: Same sequence, but you just keep adding as more territory gets taken.

The same would apply to any neutrals that were taken, and to the UK of course. African colonies, and non-home country territories generally, were left out intentionally.

The Axis can help prevent this by keeping units in the territories. So for each Axis unit present, add one to the total of the dice role.

Once you place your partisans, they would act in the same way as convoy disruptions. Role one dice per partisan during the occupying powers’ Collect Income Phase, if the total is 3 or less, take that much income from Germany.

I realize at some point, assuming Germany gets rolling, they will have more than 12 IPC’s worth of territory in the USSR. Well, then you just automatically place a partisan in one territory of your choosing each time.

The Axis can eliminate partisans by attacking in the same way as is normally done. Partisans cannot move, have no attack value, and defend on a 1.

This could weaken German/Axis advances by either taking IPC’s away from them, or forcing them to garrison areas they may not have otherwise.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Currently reading Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front, 1941-1942, by Robert Forczyk.

Not too far into it yet, but it’s a great read so far. The author is an ex-tanker, so he adds some nice flavor to the reading into what the tank crews themselves had to worry about, mechanical errors, etc., that we might not think about while reading about events from a much more macroscopic look at them. He’s certainly done his research as well.

@Herr:

@Chris_Henry:

While it’s true that historically France was essentially a non factor in the war, we must remember that this game starts in 1940 BEFORE France was at war.

The game starts with the Netherlands and Belgium under German control, but France still free. Because the 1940 German operation known as Fall Gelb attacked all three countries (and Luxembourg) simultaneously, and France had already declared war on Germany in 1939, France was definitely at war at the point in time depicted by the start of the game. Also, by the time the Germans had taken Belgium, they also held northern France. I’d say that the game starts in late May, 1940, before the fall of Paris but with France already in deep trouble and on the verge of military collapse.

True. I guess I should have clarified this in game terms again, and I certainly did not mean to say before they were at war, since they had been at war since 1939, poor word choice, and not at all what I meant, sorry for the confusion/misleading quote. What I had meant was before they had been taken out entirely. I’ve studied WWII history a bunch, so I am certainly aware of the timing of the low countries falling with the attack of France! �  :-)

Based on the map given, it looks as though for gaming mechanics France has yet to be attacked. I’d assumed this was done for gaming simplicity, but you could very well be right in that perhaps the starting troop numbers are designed to help show that France was on the verge of defeat. I just read the rulebook preface, and it does state that the start of the game is supposed to be at Dunkirk, which of course would help to show that France was on the verge of collapse.

My post was on an assumption of French military strength being still largely intact, and had assumed a gaming mechanic of an un-invaded France as of yet, in a quasi-alternate history sense if you will.

Regardless, the point of the post still stands, in that the contributions of France in the war/game outweigh those of the smaller nations mentioned to the point where France is the first country to be looked at for adding house rules of this sort!

I will preface this post by saying the below is by no means a perfect idea, but is something I had thought about a while back also.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36528.0

I made that on the overwhelming feeling on these boards that the Axis have an advantage OOB, so certain things could obviously be changed, like letting Axis units enter Vichy territories for example. I didn’t want to change a lot from the game format, but also thought this added some flavor to adding Vichy, while still also making the Free French kind of playable still.

While it’s true that historically France was essentially a non factor in the war, we must remember that this game starts in 1940 BEFORE France was at war. I point this out only because not a single power at the time would have predicted such a swift French collapse and defeat, and were largely seen to be a formidable foe. This is a game after all, not a historical simulation where France HAS to be relegated to pointlessness. I’m just seeing the comments on here of people being worried about having to give Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and any other country on the map the same powers, but that’s unrealistic. All of those smaller countries generally WERE non-factors in the war, and no one was really worried about them. Obviously every nation contributed manpower and what not to help either side with the war efforts, but on a game scale like this, we really don’t need to worry about having exiled forces of these smaller nations shown. France is certainly different in that aspect in my opinion at least.

Point being, I agree Charles de Gaulle, this is certainly a house rule worthy to be looked at!

@The11HP20:

Now to ponder the impact on Italy and Japan.

Good point! That would be interesting. I think Italy is easy enough to figure out though: they wouldn’t have done a thing.

Up until Italy invaded southern France, the UK and French were still doing everything in their power to keep Italy out of the war, and even had mild hopes of Italy joining them (though that was more of a stretch considering the fascist regime). That’s why Italy was given such a free hand in invading Abyssinia. True, the western allies condemned the invasion, but they ultimately didn’t want to piss off Italy to do anything more to make them align more with Germany.

One reason why I really have mixed feelings on the Taranto/the UK being able to attack Italy first move in AA 1940. Historically, there’s almost no way the Allies would have attacked Italy first, since they didn’t want Italy joining the fight against them in the first place.

Japan is a different matter. They were still at war with China regardless. It’s hard to see them attacking the US, Dutch, French, and UK, knowing that the whole might of all of them could be brought to the Pacific without any worry in Europe. That being said, with a Germany power vacuum, I wouldn’t be surprised to have seen the USSR become aggressive and take territories in eastern Europe.

We’re getting down the historical fiction hole a lot now though!  :-)

There is a lot to consider in this question, a lot of what has been touched on above.

We first need to look at the time frame. WWI was still very fresh in everyone’s memory, the Western Allies at least wanted to do everything they could to avoid another war of that scale, and so were willing to appease Hitler, continually believing his lies that he just wanted “a little bit more”. Sacrificing Czechoslovakia for European peace was worth it to them. Same goes for the Rhineland. The other part of this is that no, the Czechs would probably not have been saved had the Allies acted, for very similar reasons that Poland didn’t survive. Geographically speaking, there was nothing France or the UK could do to realistically help the Czech’s and Poles out. Theirs were alliances in name only really. The UK would have taken months to get troops to the mainland, as it did in after Poland was invaded. France also was woefully prepared for war. While they had a large standing army, it was not well trained, and France politically had only recently (finally) backed partial rearmament.

True, the Czech army would have put up a fight, but the other factor here is the incorporation of the Sudetenland. That part of Czechoslovakia was ceded to Germany initially, and had a lot of ethnic Germans. This was the area that also contained the large majority of the Czech border defenses, which largely contributed to the ease in which they were able to take the rest of the country, and why the Czech government knew resistance was futile at that point. Unless of course we’re talking about before the initial Sudetenland cession, then I’d say there was a fighting chance.

I hate to be the guy that bothers you for your progress on this, but I was just curious to check in and see how your development has been going? This game certainly had a ton of interest for me!

Hope everyone enjoyed the holidays, and will have a great New Year’s!

Chris