Posts made by Der Kuenstler

I like your ideas except the FW 190 - you have:

Axis Fighter = German FW-190
Alternate Axis fighter. 3-3-4-9

Wasn’t the FW 190 superior to the ME 109? I’d make it 4-5-4-11.

This is what the costs are already in the later versions of A&A, except destroyers cost 8. Looks like you are on the right track there.

Thanks to all responsible for making and maintaining this great site!

As a new person here I would like to see some kind of filter where you can click on “show unread posts since last visit” and not have to sift through all of the private forum games going on between individuals. There may already be something like that but if not I would be for it.

We have also tried a variation of this where you don’t use a chart - you try to roll doubles, and if successful, the price of the territory is whatever doubles number you rolled X territory value. (Roll boxcars = 6 X value) By using this method there is only about a 15% chance of it working, if you like lower odds. With the chart its more around 40% odds. I personally like the chart better because it gets money flowing in the game quicker.

This is an alternative to use with neutral territories. It works well with maps that have economic values printed on the neutrals.

You must be able to occupy the neutral territory with at least one land unit before negotiating with it. You can only negotiate with each territory once per turn. This is done before the “Purchase units” phase.

Roll two dice and consult this chart:

“Face Value” = the economic value printed on the territory. According to the dice roll, the country may refuse to talk to you or may even join your cause for face value with a boxcar roll. So if you were to negotiate for a territory with a value of “4”, and you rolled a “9”, you would have to pay the bank 16 IPCs for the country to join your cause. It would be up to you whether to pay that amount or break off the negotiations until next turn to try for a better result. If you accept the terms, pay the bank, move at least one land unit into the territory and place your flag there.

This also works well if you have fewer players than you need for a full game. Just make the extra nation(s) neutral, and every territory within the nation an independent neutral. Then each individual territory can be negotiated for. (you’d have to adjust your setup for game balance issues of course)

I would download the pdf rules available for the earlier editions of Axis and Allies and incorporate some of them - the rules have gradually gotten more complex since the '80s.

Yes I love Hearts of Iron - I’ve thought you could develop the powerful weapons like an atomic bomb in steps - perhaps make a chart with a progression on it. The more game-changing the weapon, the more steps it would take to produce.

Good idea - it doesn’t make sense to make no progress at all when you’ve spent money on a project.

@Deaths:

I love Free for alls, My most favorite way to play A&A

5 countries, all territories with a name are neutrals with 2 inf. in each except capitols

Sounds fun - but when we’ve played it’s been hard to keep one guy from getting ganged up on.

Interesting. Have you seen the email going around of how good Hiroshima looks now compared to US cities like Detroit? Reminds me of that.

Right - but using the latest rules for straights - you can make a rule “subs cannot conduct convoy raids while inside protected straits” - so the subs would have to come out to make the raid and remain in that zone for the rest of the turn.

OK here’s what I’m going to try next game. Before you turn your noses up, keep in mind I am using a Spring 1942 map that has no convoy zones marked on it, and I am using mostly the original strategic bombing rules.

I purchased some special D3 dice that are marked 1-3 twice. (picture attached) These will be my “economic damage” dice.

1. Subs must be within three zones of an enemy factory to conduct a convoy raid.
2. These convoys are assumed to have built in ASW protection. Defender rolls one die for each attacking submarine - remove a sub for every “1” rolled.
3. Roll one D3 die for every remaining sub and add - the result is how much economic damage is done by the convoy raid.
4. 0ther surface vessels and planes do not do convoy attacks. IMO they make subs redundant and add more confusion. (all classes of ships and planes doing the one die roll damage?)  I know surface raiding happened in the war, but Hitler recalled his surface raiders later because of their relative ineffectiveness. Axis and Allies, because of its scale, paints with a wide brush - so for the sake of simplicity I’m going to try making subs the convoy attack specialists.

For strategic bombing, do exactly the same thing except roll 2 D3 die per bomber.
With this system, the odds will play out like this:

Every six convoy attacks, you will lose an average of one 6 IPC sub for every 10 IPC damage done. Every six bombing runs, you will lose an average of one 12 IPC bomber for every 20 IPC damage done - exactly double the investment and double the return. The limiting factor of economic damage possible is not the economic value of adjacent territories, but rather the losses you are willing to take in subs and planes to hurt the enemy.

This system is:

1. Uncomplicated. Planes and subs work the same. No bookwork adding up economic values of territories, etc.
2. Variable results every time, plus the risk of losing your sub(s)
3. Russia has fewer ICs within range than other nations so will suffer less convoy damage.

Because paying to upkeep a unit is different than paying to deploy a unit or build a facility.

Well, hopefully everyone who likes the basic idea can adapt it the way they like. I think you are envisioning more elaborate things like concrete bunkers with fixed guns which would require some economic investment, where I’m thinking more of just ordering infantry to get their shovels and dig trenches and tunnels.

I’m happy to see some people like the basic idea and are getting creative with it!

@knp7765:

@Der:

We play where subs do not attack one another or have any effect on one another on the map or on the battleboard.

What if you have a naval battle involving two large fleets with subs on both sides?

You just say “subs can’t hit planes OR SUBS” and play it out. If there ends up being only subs left, the battle ends - put the subs back out on the map.

1945 February 6- The Royal Navy submarine Venturer became the only submarine to sink another submarine while they were both submerged when she sank U-864 off Norway. In all the naval action of the whole world war this only happened once! I think you could say realistically it shouldn’t happen on the scale od Axis and Allies.

As far as limiting the subs, IMO they should be limited. Their primary role historically was convoy raiding, and they now only cost 6 IPCs.

@Vance:

but no more entrenchments in a territory than there are infantry?

I’d say as long as there is one infantry in there you can be entrenched up to a certain cap level. Too much bookkeeping otherwise. A small force can hold up a much larger one quite a while if entrenched enough.

@Gargantua:

Kuenstler.

Your logic is sound.

It’s the same logic as “Infantry are already considered entrenched, that’s why they have a defensive value of 2”.

Right - that’s why you can’t let it take over the game. Infantry are already entrenched - but are they entrenched the same everywhere in the world? Isn’t there a difference between infantry who just found a log to lay behind and those who have been there long enough to build tunnels? Isn’t it different to be entrenched in a destroyed city like Stalingrad than in open Farmland?

Adding one entrenchment per turn to a key area just adds a little more strategy to the game.You put out your new units, you put out your entrenchment chip where you have had inactive infantry since the beginning of your turn. Done. Simple.

@MacNaughton:

@Der:

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.

But using that reasoning why don’t we have to pay for the gas when we move our armor? Or pay for the bombs we use in strategic bombing?  Or pay to fix battleships and carriers?

My original concept of entrenchment was not things like blockhouses or shore guns that would cost IPCs - it is just giving an infantry a shovel and saying “here -  dig in.”  For example - how much economic cost was involved in the Japanese tunnels at Iwo Jima? I’d say it was 90% shovel work.

By limiting the digging in to one entrenchment chip per turn, a limit is already imposed. Why impose a financial limit also? But each person can implement what they want with their own game. To me you are not actually producing any new weapon - you are just digging holes to hide in.

@Clyde85:

why fix what aint broke?

Surface ships can blockade for 1 point of IPC , while Subs can raid for 2, seems pretty simple to me.

It is simple but too predictable and formulaic. There is no variation in damage. Did the sub commanders historically say “well there are two of us here so we are going to sink exactly 4 points worth of ships tonight, and every night we are here.”

To me the old strategic bombing rules were very simple and elegant. Odds were for every $12 bomber you lost, you could do about $17.5 in damage. It was self-regulating because no one was able or willing to buy and lose enough bombers to bankrupt the enemy country, with other concerns to spend on. I’d like to see some simple convoy rules that mirror that.

Now in convoy raiding you have to think about what countries you are next to and their economic value, what surface ships are with you, blah blah blah - too complicated = not fun!

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

I’m unsatisfied with the different convoy rules I’ve read so far. I’m hoping for:

1. Uncomplicated - preferably mirroring strategic bombing somehow so as not to have to learn another system.
2. Variable results as with strategic bombing - (the rule saying all subs cause 2 economic damage and all surface ships cost 1 leaves the exact same results every time - unrealistic.)
3. A cap on damage which is historically different for each nation. (you’re not going to hurt Russia as much as Britain with convoy raids.)

Anybody have any house rules like this?