I got the A&A50 thinking it would be the ultimate wargame.
But i have just finished ordering Wargame WWII,and it seems to be what A&A50 was now.
The Idea of Spain and the other noncombatents actually getting intoit seems great but the only problem i have is it does not have a Cruiser mold,and it’s all the same,just diffrent colors.But the quallity of them is A#1.
The map looks very nice,and haveing France in the fight makes it all the better,aswell as China not being someones you know what.
When Lions Roard
This movie lets you see and feel the struggles the Allies had to put up with in WWII.
I prefer the Axis haveing the advantage,it gives the allies a challange.
The allies such as U.S.S.R and U.K were shakein in there boots durring the first couple of years in the war,even us here in the U.S had to work hard to get our warmachine up.
I find that it really depends on player skill to determin who will win.
The first 2-3 turns will see maney German and Japanese victorys i can asure you that.
ps….Im looking for a place/site that will Laminate my board,if it’s going to be of value in the future should try and insure it’s integrity.
I must say that if the Japanese attack on pearl had destroyed the American Carriers (which at the time were on practice runs in the South pacific) then that would have been one more card out of FDRs hand,as well if the Battlewagons that were sunk in the harbour could not be resurfaced then the odds for japanese victory would have been greater.
With out the carriers the battle of Midway would prolly not have taken place which means the Japanese would still have all of theres.
just my 2bits
@Anonymous:
It is of course very interesting to indulge in these ideas but I would like to be the bucket of cold water here.
It was attributed to Stalin (rightly or wrongly) that the Soviets brought men to the war, the Americans equipment and resources and the British time. This was an acknowledgment of the fact that in summer 1940 it was only Britain and its empire and the commonwealth which stood against a German dominated Europe.
The point which I think is to be kept in mind is that it was, of course, the Germans who declared war on Russia in 1941. As is sort of suggested in the first piece, Stalin was hoping to have time to build up.
Another aspect to be considered is that whilst many talk about those terror weapons and new technologies remember that it was only at the end of the war that some of these began to come on line. Hitler had dismissed rocket projects in 1940 as he believed the war would be over before they could be employed. This went to the extent of sending the various technicians and scientists into the army to serve as soldiers.
It was only after the war had expanded to include the USA (on whom war was declared by Germany) (again taking the initiative) and the USSR that the Germans began to track down their former experts (some of whom were serving on the Eastern Front as infantrymen so not exactly a recognition of their potential war-winning skills) and kickstart their program back into life again. Remember also that Hitler continued to interfere throughout. When the very effective Me-262 was looking like a viable jet fighter (in 1945 a group of these planes caused considerable damage to a USAF bombing group which had massive fighter protection and yet still took no losses themselves) and yet Hitler requested it be changed into a plane with bomber characteristics to be able to attack England. This hindered and delayed development.
However, this notwithstanding, clearly it was the weight of the Soviets which prevented the Germans from deploying themselves totally to the West. But evenso, it was again Hitlers desire to hold territory in the East rather than withdraw. It was his wish to keep most of the German army in Russia.
The personality of the fuhrer and his interference is what prevented many of the programs taking place. Of course, would there still have been a war without him is something else entirely.
As regards Japan. Well, yes they certainly enjoyed great success. But again we are ignoring one factor: in 1941 the USA had an army of 170,000 and still had huge numbers of unemployed. As I understand it, its economy had not properly recovered from the Depression either. There was enormous capacity in the USA. This should not be underestimated. At wars start the USA had a handful of carriers. (About 9). By 1945 there must have been at least 40 in the Pacific alone and all the time production methods were getting better, industry was turning out more and more and more. THis was something the Axis powers could not have hoped to compete with. What they needed was a USA which would have no stomach for a long fight. Thank goodness they were wrong.
As for an Italian carrier and that German fleet which is very interesting by the way, I’m not at all convinced they would have been able to have executed a link up in the first place.
Ok, thats my killjoy bit done.If the ME-262 was used as a bomber in england then that would have been very good,but yes i would have to say it would be better used as a fighter/intersepter.But if they could have used it as a strategic bomber of there own it would be almost perfect because of it’s highspeed and it could be loaded down with HE/IN weapons and used on English Industrie.just useing like 20 or 30 of them for this perpose would be a good research project for Germaney.If Germaney was able to develope a early kind of SAM and have it in position near the German front lines this could both protect German forces and there people.and use the ME-262 for bombing then this would have been a problem in it’s self.
ok two things that could have turned the war into an Axis victory….
The big one was never built…
and if Rommel had taken the North Afrikan oil fields.
nuf said. :-P
@Imperious:
take total IPC divide by 10= national morale. Each territory you lose subtract one morale point
If you lose your capital you lose morale value of half the IPC value of territory, example losing Germany loses 5 morale points
If you go into negative numbers in any turn, you can face a collapse of your government. Roll one D6 using the modifier of negative net morale value and if the result is zero or negative, you have lost the game.
there done.
Well this is sounding a hell of alot better then what i came up with.
So you would Divide by 10 for each Nation?,and if so where did the 10 come from?,or am i just not reading you right? :?
And where can i get my Board Laminated? :?
It’s pissing me off getting a whole bunch of pizza/beer stains on it.
Well i have printed out 3 Generals for each Nation except Italy(I could not find a pitcture of Italian Generals so i got a picture of Mussolini who looks very much like Nicolas Cage) and ran a game with them,it seems like a good idea but it needs work.I do not want to make it to complicated because then people will say screw it and rip the cards after trying it.
I will playtest some more tonight and get back to you.the site was down for apart of the day i think.
@Rakeman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_Waffen-Grenadier_Division_der_SS_(1st_Russian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Totenkopf
Also take into account that the entire organisation was declared a criiminal organisation by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremburg Trials. There’s more than enough blood on the hands of the SS to paint the whole damn lot with the same brush.
thank you. some one with some sense. all nazzi’s are evil. anyone who commits or supports genocide is evil. communist russia was 200 times better than germany. the still wouldn’t be able to take over such a large country.
You um, do know that, the Communists under Stalin killed much more civilians in mass murder and extermination purges than the Nazis ever could have killed? A modest estimate puts the death toll at 20 million, but estimates range from 12 million to 40 million it seems. Yet, “all Nazis are evil” but Communist Russia ain’t so bad. Makes perfect sense… since the victors write history.
That is very insightful Rakeman. My opinion exactly. “All Nazis are evil” is a sweeping and uneducated generalization. The Nuremburg trials were successful at giving justice to many Nazis that were absolute monsters however the rest was a witchhunt. They put to death military commanders who were no where near the death camps. Just generals of the Weirmacht that thought they were doing the right thing by serving their country.
It should also be known that the Weirmacht were disgusted with the atrocities they knew about. They actually filled grievances that went to Hitler himself. They filled report after report of violations of Human rights and unethical and criminal behavior. Soon Hitler grew so angry he replaced the Weirmacht General with an SS one who the complaints went directly to so they could be torn up.
Early on in the war, some of the the SS Honour Brigades that knew about the atrocities commited by the Einzatsgruppen were secretly leaking information to Jews in Germany to warn them they probably needed to flee immediately.
The Luftwaffe were not war criminals and most of them had no knowledge of the camps. They were simply pilots defending their country. So you call them Nazis and therefore, criminals. An uneducated sweeping generalization.
It sould also be noted that their was only one news source in the Reich. A certain camp was liberated by the US. The mayor and his wife of a nearby town hung themselves because they could not believe murder was happening so close to their home and they had no idea.
This is a great example of how close these camps were in certain cases, to other military units and civilians and their being no knowledge of what was going on. I don’t believe in “guilt by association” in these cases. Men were drafted into the military and were fighting a war. That is not a crime. What the Einzatsgruppen units did was a crime. What SOME of the SS units did were war crimes.
I have yet to know what Goerrings charges were at the Trials of Nuremburg. He was the Luftwaffe leader and had no part in the holocaust. His men commited no crimes other than flying planes against the Allies. My theory is, he was sentanced to death because he stould up for hitler in court. He could not believe that Hitler would have ordered “The Final Solution.” He simply could not believe it and he told the courts that he believed it was done without Hitlers knowledge. He was working with the Allies to help smooth things over when Germany surrendered. His death sentance has no legitimate charge other than being a high ranking Nazi officer. He should have been charged as an art theif. Which should not warrant an execution.
I HATE how the Russians “labor camps” (ie: concentration camps) and all their horrific atrocities are completely overlooked because they were our allies. Anyone that says “All Nazis are evil” is completely uneducated on the 3rd Reich. It’s not that simple. Why don’t to just call all black people the “N word” becuase of the violence black gangs are guilty of?
Get your history down and read all sides. Find the truth and stop making predjudice remarks about anyone affilated with the Nazis (IE: AMOST EVERY GERMAN) After all, doesn’t that make you as predjudice some of them were?
props mate
Paint ball all the way…
I was on a team a few years ago back in high school with my crazy friends,It’s much more satisfying popin some kid in the face with paint :evil:
No pain no gain i alwase say :-D
Well im thinking that whole “Political Leader” thing should go because it makes things a bit to complicate.I want to keep the General/Admiral thing going aswell as the Supply pools,it makes you have to slow down your game and get ready for two or three turns in the future.
Im play testing as we speak with my buds so i will report back in an hour or so.
well that was intresting to say the least.
I made the General/Admiral cards and we had three of each for each nation.I looked on the net for small pictures of the Generals and Admirals and glued them onto a 3X5 indexcard.
I had Erwin Rommel,Von Manstein,and Paulus for Germaney
I played a friend of mine,I was Axis he Allies,1941 setup no and techs
I gave Rommel infinite inishitive and 3o Risk,meaning he dosent have a limit on how maney rounds of combat he can make on one offensive.He was in comand of my German/Russian front and the way i could tell what units he was in command of i wrote down on a sheet of paper the territorys that were under his diristriction.I made a two pronged attack on the Russians caped Karilia and Baltic states and Ukrain turn 1.I put Paulus in command of the Garrison forces in Germaney,France,and Norway(because he has an Inishitive of only 5 and Risk of 15).And Von Manstein in command of the North Afrika corps.
Japan was doing text book manuvers in the pacific not much of any thing to speak of really.
Russia got bad dice rolls and fell on turn 4 and so Axis won by VC(Minor victory)
wel also implemented the Moral pool and it worked out nicely,as long as you keep a nice neat sheet of paper to keep track of it aswell as useing Generals/Admirals.
I shall be wanting to do supplylines next tommorow.
please see what you all can add/subtract from these things.
Well im thinking that whole “Political Leader” thing should go because it makes things a bit to complicate.I want to keep the General/Admiral thing going aswell as the Supply pools,it makes you have to slow down your game and get ready for two or three turns in the future.
Im play testing as we speak with my buds so i will report back in an hour or so.
Another thing i would really like to get started is a good system for supply lines.
i think that type of a system could work, i would use colored token’s for each supply point, the token’s could be free, determined by the i.p.c. value of the territories that are controlled by the national power, the movement cost could be fuel point’s, a convoy could be mobilized from an i.c.,
here is an idea for a general card/ability, inspiration, when attacked the defender can use their attack abilities during a number of combat round’s
I do not much understand…I think i already said this for when a General is attacking he has an Inspiration stat thst will determine how ever maney times he can press the attack,…after hes pressed it fo that maney of times his remaining forces are called back to the territory they originated from.
Another thing i would really like to get started is a good system for supply lines.
I typed this once but lost it do to power out so it may have holes sorry.
Useing the Generals rule i made up this can be made simple.
There are three trypes of supply.
ASP/Amunition supply point
LSP/Logistics supply point
FOP/fuel oil supply point
They are all produced from an IC.you buy them in groups of 5,each group will cost 1 IPC
Each General/Admiral has a pool of all three,keep track of this on a sheet of paper and use pencil so you can keep changeing it,and try and keep it neat. :-D
When a General(you) decides to make an offencive you must first make sure you have the resources to carry it out.
After the General(you) has taken the territory you will subtract one ASP/LSP(and if you used airsupport/Tanks/mech you subtract one FOB|)for each one,from the General/Admirals pools.Territory that has just been caped can have supply moved into it durring noncombat.more on this in a sec
Look at the territory your men are in,the Industrial value of that terrtory is even more important not because they can be used as marchalling stations for an offensive.What ever the value of the territory is the nummber of units you can keep there with out haveing supply trucked in. Example:France has a value of 6,this means Germaney can keep a combination of 6 units there with out truckin supply,any more then 6 will have to be supplyed from truck.
There are four means of moveing supply.
1.Horce drawn wagon,move your supply one space durring noncombat.
2.Truck,load up to 2 units of supply as well as one unit of Infintry/Artillery onto your truck and move it 2 spaces.you can not move Infintry/Artillery into a newly caped territory just supply.
3.Air,Use a Bomber and load up to 3 units of supply and move it 5 spaces.(saveing one for landing)Air is the only way to supply surrounded units.If units are surrounded and you have no more supply with them then you lose all of those units except for what ever amount the value of the territory can support.
4.Sea,Use a Transport ship and load 4 units of supply and a combination of 2 ground units and move it 2 spaces.(Transports are the only sea units that can load supply and offload it,they can resupply other fleets/taskforces/ship squadrons)
remmember that they are not objects,they are written down on paper with the General/Admirals total supply pools.And you subtract one unit of supply that is USED away from your pools that is used ether at the end of your combat move or at the end of your noncombat move.each and every unit uses LSP even if they did not make an offensive,but AST and FOP are only used if you carryed one out or moved units into an unocupied territory.
Example:Germaney has taken Egypt,Germaney takes it with 2Infintry 2Tank and 1Artillery.And lets say that Rommel was in command of them and so you would look at his supply sheet and subtract 5 LSP,5AST,and just 2FOP(he only had 2 FOP useing units which were the tanks).what ever nummber you have left is the supply he will have left,so you would think….do i have enough to take the rest of Africa,you will prolly get no which will mean that you will want to have the Suez canal inorder to ship supply from Italy to support the rest of his efforts.
Now this is what i think we will do for supply for the Navy…
Admirals will need supply for there Naval engagements and the most obviouse way it to have a few Transports stick together loaded with supply for the fleet,but the warships will carry supply with them aswell.
Example:Yomato has a fleet in the south pacific outside of Iowjima.His fleet consists of 2BB,2CV,1CA,3DD,and 2 Transports.
Here is a list of how much supply each warship will have.
BB/5AST/4LST/5FOP
CV/6AST/4LST/6FOP(Half the AST and FOP are used for the fighters)
CA/4AST/3LST/4FOP
DD/3AST/3LST/3FOP
SS/3AST/3LST/3FOP
So lets total up what supply Yamoto will have…so he has 35AST/28LST/35FOP
Now that is more then whats needed for offence but it can go down fast and thats why your going to want to make Naval bases on Okinowa and Iowjima so you can keep that pool up.To resupply your fleet just go to an island or the mainland and you will instantly be refited.but that takes away from what ever supply you had there.
It still needs more help and tweaks but it seems doable,please tell me what you all think and put more into it or take from it and play test it some your selves.
Well im trying to get some new new units to use that have got more detail then what A&A50 fist gives.so alot of what im thinking is trying to implement “mechinized” units into my game.
Such things like wheather conditions,supply lines,and General cards would be great…but it is above me on how to implement such things.Some one made a post that was somewhere on the lines of “Mega games” where you have poloticians and Navy/Army commanders corrdinateing with each other,this was very interesting to say the very least.
If we could have a system of appointing both commanders aswell as poloticians into the game this would open somaney doors.
Say for example…befor you start a game you roll a dice,if you roll a 1-2 you get Hitler,3-4 some old fat dude,5-6 again some old fat dude.Eachone would have stats such as personnality,honor,foreighn reltions ability so on so forth.IL has made a post somewhere that intrested me very much that went around the lines of public moral,the nations president,prime minister what have you will have a large impact on your countrys moral levels.For instance Hitler would regretibly be the best for Germaney just because of his personality alone,his tough agresive military moves and the quick victorys he atains the way he has them good speachs,he puts bread on the table for the Germans when they were down on there luck.So he would give a nice boost to the total moral.
Each country would start out with a pool of moral which are as follows.
U.S.A /22
England/ 20
U.S.S.R /10
Germaney/22
Japan/20
Italy/10
once the political leader has been apointed he will come with a +in moral this will need more thinking on as to what the other 2 leaders are and what each leaders stats are and what they do.
we could have a stack of cards that come with each leader each turn the player playing that power would drawl a card and it could have anything from assasination :evil: roll a new leader to a allinspiring speach +4 Moral.
Now there could be repercosions(spelling mistake im sure) for haveing low moral.Because whatever your moral is is also your production level. Example:Germaneys production level on G1 is 10,it’s moral is 22 so it can produce it’s max production of 10,if it’s moral was 6 then it can only produce a combination of 6.
Also if a country loses like lets say 10+ moral in just one turn it can make a forced surrender of that country and it’s assets to which ever country took the most of it’s moral.
Now we cound have 2 diffrent stacks of drawl cards for each country one being drawn if the country loses 5 moral by the end of one nations turn,this card will have some kind of a negitive effect on it Example:can only produce upto 4 tanks next turn.And the positive stack being drawn at the begginning of the users turn with an effect like Example:your workers are striveing higher to achive your goals,Berlin IC production increaced to 12.
In order to lower your enemys moral your take territories,this will be like winning military victorys and thats alwase good.
but winning a non VC territory will increace your moral pool by +1,loseing a non VC teritory will decrese it by -2,winning a VC will increase it by +3 and loseing it by -3
Now the Army Generals and Navy Admirals will be the big kicker. :?
Haveing them not get along would similate the problems that camealong with the Japanese Naval/Army comanders.Maybe have like 6 Generals/6 Admirals for each nation,they like the political leaders would have stats Example:Inishitive,Risk,Respect.Inishitive can be compaired between the opposeing General/Admirals inishitive and that will determine how much more he will want to keep pressing the attack.In other words a General such as Romel would have higher inishitive then Paouls(or what ever his name was) and so he would be able to press the attack longer then Paouls giveing him more of a offensive edge and so Germaney would want to appoint him in comand of the easternfront and not to a garrison force on the western front.But Paouls would have some better defensive qualities about him….i will go into this more in depth soon.
Now the stat Risk will determine a total combination of units the General/Admiral will be willing to risk and allocate twords an offensive action Example:Lets say that Stalin can be a General aswell as a political leader and so he would have an infinate amount of Risk"you can not expect to have great victory with out great risk".Meaning Stalin would be the one you would have in command of the German/Russian front because he has an infinite command limit and with russia you will more often then not have massive infintry core armies.
RESPECT….Respect will be tricky,im thinking useing it as an advantage to your units because he can aspire his men to victory.Or in other words he can get his men to push forword when if under the command of another they would not Example:your men will follow you to the bitter end-Units under this General/Admiral can choose to push and attack into another territory/seazone after engageing in another.(this could lead to be overpowerdness especially on the German/Russian front with germaney being able to push straight into moskow but just means the russians will have to crush them befor they can reach Moskow).
Now inorder to to tell what units are under a General/Admirals command we will have to wright it down on a small notpad or sheet of paper,or use the marshaling cards from A&AR and put your men on it and the General/Admirals card under it.
Getting some 3X5 index cards and printing pictures of the generals and cutting them out and glueing them onto the card then below it wright his stats should do nicely i shall think.
Now these two or three things i would like to see tweaked and critisized by you folks and see if we can get some good things going and work with them together so we can get the best out of A&A50 :-D
P.S keep your pimp hand strong :mrgreen:
@Imperious:
Ideas from elsewhere under consideration:
Bonus: When defending a victory city (that has never fallen), you can choose one round (per battle) where your infantry defend on a three. (dig in and hold to the last man).
-or-
When defending a victory (that has never fallen), on each round of battle after the first, you may add a virtual infantry to the fight (If you control at least one infantry and not a virtual infantry already). This one makes them much harder to kill if you don’t bring in a significant force. I really like the Stalingrad effect on this one.Penalty: When you lose a victory city that has never fallen, for your next turn, all your units have an attack factor one lower than usual (ones still hit). This one seems brutal, but really interesting. Talk about codifying national despondency.
How about an idea stolen from some other games where you have some sort of national morale? When you lose a victory city that you start the game with you lose 2 national morale points, lets say. When you capture one back you gain 1 morale point (the city has been devastated). You also get 1 national morale point for capturing an enemy objective and lose 1 if you lose it again. Each nation has a track and when their morale drops below a certain point their nation sues for peace and leaves the war.
The point is over time your national morale would drop if you weren’t defending your home territory very well, and eventually your nation would withdraw from the war. This is more or less what happened historically, after all we never did invade Japan. Given the ahistorical balanced setup of the game, if the real war had been more like that severe war weariness would have been much more likely to set in and the war would have been more likely to end in a settled peace. Even many of the Allied economies were shattered by the end of the war, let alone the Axis powers.
This would force players to defend victory cities “to the death” because they can’t afford the drop in national morale. If you wanted to flesh out the system further you could add addtional effects after morale has dropped below certain points but before a nation has left the war, similar to the situation with Italy at the start of 1943 where its troops had virtually no motiviation to fight anymore.
I love this one +1
I would like to start a think tank here for house rules that can be used for A&A50.I have been thinking about useing such rules as Fog of war(Recon aircraft,ships,infintry to go with),supply lines and the corisponding units to support it, Resources(such as Fuel/oil,Ammunition,General supply needed for all units),Fortified territories.Generals(individuel Core groups).
I have been looking around on this forum for house rules such as this and have found just ideas that would be nice but the topic dies shortly after it’s started.
It would be nice to have one topic thats full of completed ideas and not a bunch of incansistant reposts.
@Cmdr:
Wouldn’t the desperate nature of almost being obliterated by a race of men who wanted to murder all of you drive recruitment up, not down?
Anyway, not saying you are wrong, just wondering what drugs Larry was taking at the time and where I can get some.
Well with the saying “Asia for the Asians”,I think the higher up japanese leaders did not want to kill em like dogs.
I think Italy has been done well - it’s a very hard country to bring into a game as frankly, they sucked compared to the Germans or Soviets.
From a wargame perspective, Italy is usually a liability than an opportunity - so it’s difficult to make it an ‘equal’ partner in a six player game of Axis and Allies.
My own view is that Larry has done a great job making them ‘fun’ to play… is their role in the game historic? No, I think they are somewhat overpowered compared to the other nations - but then, no one would want to play Italy under those circumstances, and you might as well include them with the Axis powers.
Given that Axis and Allies is first a game rather than a simulation, I think the inclusion of Italy has worked really well - and I am a sceptic who has been won over.
When I mod, I like to try and introduce the history at the higher levels - I took part in a simple wargame, as in the mechanics were about the same level as Axis and Allies - but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings… I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.
There is so much that can be done with Axis and Allies - it’s a reall cool base game in that respect, and Italy throws a whole new load of possibilities into the mix.
This would be a awlsome idea i think….it would be a huge change of rules but it would be cool if troops that have been in combat would have a advantage over ones that have not.and if there ws a way to have rawl mats in A&A50 that would be sweet,