Posts made by EnoughSaid

Narvik, thanks for your input! Unfortunately I can’t seem to find this Plottet variant. I’m very interested. Could you post a link, please?

Ah hell, while I’m at it… I might as well work out the rest of the A&AG40 kinks. I don’t have the 50AE anyway  :-( .

Scrambling: Gone.
Yay! That was easy!
Er, not quite…
In the Attack phase, players can still elect to have their fighters Defend (and roll with defender values) a sea zone next to a territory under their side’s control by declaring so in the Declare Attacks phase. Other air engagements over sea would be Attacking. This provides for the peculiarity of having fighters of opposing sides both Defending common sea zones such as SZ 110. They’ll both role 4’s. So be it (barring a good idea from you), it’s the best solution I see at the moment. No adjacent air base required.
Tac bombers are not augmented in the same fight unless an accompanying fighter was declared to Attack that sea zone. (Or do you think they should still augment as long as it’s in the same zone?)
In fact, to bring this to balance, all Naval movement needs to be done in the Attack phase, whether it’s intended combat or not. By this logic, you could have a submarine Defend as well, but I’d see no reason to, ever.

Bombing raids:
An extra step and separate before the Declare Attacks phase.
Bombers that are used for a bombing raid may not participate in an attack in the Declare Attacks phase.
Execution of the bombing raid still happens as it does in a normal game.

Politics:
No more neutral powers. America and Russia start out as Allied powers that are not yet at war. When one does join the war, it join the war against all Axis nations, not against one specifically.
This also has the interesting effect of allowing other Allies to move troops into these territories. (This theme is incidentally an upcoming revision in my America-as-Axis variant.)

Defenseless transports:
Not a change, just a clarification. Transports can be destroyed in border clashes, but it’s worth noting that non-carrier Aircraft don’t participate in border clashes. Destroying a defenseless transport with aircraft would happen during the Main Combat. Another way to look at it: this means that aircraft aren’t “faster” than ships. This does however have an effect of making transports more squirrely, as they will be harder to sink with aircraft than before.

And a problem discovered while writing this: Submarines will almost never fight with their defensive value. So submarines need to be changed somehow. Easiest solutions I see are either increase cost, or “Submarines fight at 1 if a destroyer is present.”, which might also require cost revisions.

Did I miss anything?

Black Elk,

I’m a big fan of this proposal and I’d love to try it sometime.

……BUT
Simplicity, please!
@Black_Elk:

In A&A you could break this phase off, and allow a separate, final “Blitz attack” phase, for any Armor, Mech or Air units that were not already moved during the Combat phase.

Giving players a chance to direct their Tanks and Mechanized units after the rest of attacks are declared just adds a second Declare Combat phase, and also probably overpowers those units. It’s simpler to just group them with the rest. If you want to Blitz, that’s what you write, planning an attack under the assumption the territory would be empty. If it isn’t, you fight in the 1st territory. Simple.

Actually, to iron this out, I propose this:
Units utilizing 3 spaces (ships from seaport) move one territory first. Just one. Resolve any border clashes.
Then all units utilizing 2 spaces (other ships and tanks/mechs) move one territory. Resolve any border clashes.
Then all units utilizing 1 space make their movement. Resolve any border clashes.
Air units do not participate in border clashes. (EXCEPTION: Aircraft that departed from an aircraft carrier and that are moving along the same path as that carrier.)
There is no retreating from border clashes.

Since retreating is a mechanic that I think should be preserved, there has to be an order to resolving different combats. So, in what would have been normal turn order, that player decides “let’s resolve this combat next”, irregardless of who is attacker or defender. After one round of combat in the battle, the attacker(s) may elect to retreat. BUT, so as to not have units fight twice, you can’t retreat into a territory that is still under attack and pending resolution. Each attacker retreats individually.
Players pick round robin style what combats to resolve until all have been completed. Then T2 the 2nd player can choose first, T3 the 3rd player can choose first, and so on.

@Black_Elk:

After all Non Com movements are allotted, reveal purchase, place and collect income.

@Black_Elk:

Purchase: ex. At factory A (List Units) at factory B (list units) etc.

I’d be in favor of keeping purchasing and placing the same, and deciding where to place the units after combat. I think it’s fun to be able to operate with more information and options. Knowing an opponent’s buy, although too late to influence your buy, can still influence your attack. And knowing how combat resolved can influence which factory to place units at. Although this creates an extra write-it-down step, it’s one that would be completed very very quickly. This isn’t that big a deal, though, and I can see the game being enjoyed the way you suggested. This is just my preference.

On the topic of Income collection,
It’s mostly a moot point. If all players share the same turn and movement, having it at the end or the beginning of the round makes no difference. They become one and the same.
The only situation it does matter is in the sacking of multiple capitals in the same round. In that case, priority could be determined by the aforementioned round-robin rotation.

What do you think of these proposals?

Ah, shame that. Well a tip of the hat to your gentlemanly self. Good day, sir.

Hello Commando Brado,

A couple questions:
1. Is this the 1974, 1975, or 1980 version?

2. Do you still have the A&A D-Day game for sale?

I’ll PM you with my ZIP code to figure out shipping pricing.
Thank you!

One last thing:

I read that you’re doing this in Norway. A fighter can only scramble from a territory with an active Air Base in it. If you’re in Sea Zone 112 and the fighter is scrambling from West Germany, that’s great. But if you meant it’s scrambling from Norway, just be sure there’s an Air Base there.
If he didn’t build one, you might find landing via Sea Zone 125 and avoiding a potential scramble to be a good choice.

I found another place in the rulebook that specifically touches on this. This is from the Amphibious Assaults section (pg 14). First whole paragraph on top right of that page.

Moving transports and their cargo into a sea zone from which you plan to make an amphibious assault counts as a combat move, even if there are no defending surface warships there…This is also true of any units that will support the assault. Further, if enemy air units could potentially be scrambled to defend the sea zone, additional units may be moved into the sea zone to combat them in case they are indeed scrambled.

That last bit is poorly worded and a little ambiguous though on when you send them. Better English would be “if enemy air units could potentially be scrambled to defend the sea zone, you may send additional units to that sea zone to combat them in advance of the enemy’s decision to scramble.”
The Scramble section of the rulebook (pg 16) clearly states the order of declarations, at least.

You absolutely can.

The poorly worded, but relevant text that indicates this can be found on page 13 of the Europe Rulebook. I’ve edited and emphasized it slightly for better parsing.
Near the top right, 2nd paragaph

You can move units…to hostile spaces during [the Combat Move] phase. However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances.

(in the second instance bullet paragraph:) …A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to am amphibious assault may be treated in the same way as a hostile sea zone…

It’s also worth noting that you MUST send the bomber if you want it to participate in the potential fight BEFORE the opponent declares whether he or she is scrambling. You declare all your attacking and potentially attacking movements first. If the opponent decides to have a fight in what would have otherwise been a peaceful sea zone, it is too late for you to send more units to that battle.

Sounds like a lot of fun to me, Black Elk!

I have to say though, I can’t imagine wanting to do this for G40 (especially for the first time). I imagine the 50th Anniversary Edition would be perfect. Not only is it a smaller board, but it’s also just simpler, without the political situations and scrambling and so on.
If only that elusive game could be reasonably found…

I also think it would probably work well on the New World Order setup. I’ve never played it, but the map looks at a glance to be good for this. It being one theater of war also makes a big impact on my reasoning.

To get extra money, I would suggest a double component. One on luck, and another on gameplay.

For luck,
I remember seeing in another thread here someone used a normal 52-card deck to play games with beginners for additional money to lessen the edge. During each player’s Collect Income, they shuffled the deck, drew a card, and got something along these lines rewarded:
Numbered card (2-10): 8 IPCs
Jack: 9 IPCs
Queen: 10 IPCs
King: 11 IPCs
Ace: 12 IPCs
Joker: 15 IPCs

For gameplay,
So as not to make one that would have to vary depending on map, they could simply be:
2 IPCs per territory successfully captured.
1 IPC per territory successfully defended.
(border skirmishes don’t count)

In his question, FIC is the abbreviation of French Indo China.

…which happens to be exactly where the Complex goes in my games!

Well, I was just going to give my shoutout to the “Strategic outer defense perimeter” NO, but Black Elk here has set me up for this perfectly:

If you remove Gilbert Islands and Solomon Islands from that NO, not only does it reduce the total from 5 territories down to 3, but it eliminates the two with a severe distance from Japan. This makes it exceptionally more reachable. But, are 3 territories (now worth almost 2 each) worth the time to go after them?

Go to the US NO for “National sovereignty issues.”
“5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands.”
To note, Wake Island, Midway, and Johnston Island are the only American territories in this game without civilian populations. Having Johnston Island in a “National sovereignty issues.” NO is off.
If you replace Johnston Island with Guam, then all the territories fit better with the NO theme, and apan and USA have an objective with a shared territory. Japan might well likely take Guam for the real estate and to remove the American bonus. After that, what’s 2 more islands, right? Suddenly, we’ve brought impact to the NO, and hopefully achieved Black Elk’s goal of incentivizing the U.S. a bit more in the Pacific and giving them a territory to fight for.

So that leaves us with these two modified NOs:

Japan

5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, and Wake Island.  Theme: Control of strategic Pacific airfields.

United States

5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Guam, Hawaiian Islands, and Line Islands.  Theme: National sovereignty issues.

Now obviously this is a change benefiting the Axis, which I know wasn’t your overall goal. So it would still go hand-in-hand with your +5/+10 Russia NOs.

This seems cool to me. At the very least, thanks for necro-ing an old topic so I got the chance to see it.

Sure. I think the obvious and biggest differentiating factor would have to be arms. I know in an old A&A game (classic?) transports have a defensive value of 1. You could bring that back, and amend the rules to allow transports to be taken as casualties. While you’re at it, maybe have the regular transports be able to hold 2 non-infantry, instead of requiring 1 as infantry, since it’s a militarized unit. I think the 3 movement idea though for the Liner is pretty excessive, but I could see it being used as an additional differentiating factor.

So I guess they could look something like this?

–Military Transport–
Cost: 8 IPCs
Defensive value: 1
Movement: 2
Cargo Space: Up to any 2 land units.

–Liner Ship–
Cost: 10 IPCs
Defensive value: 0
Movement: 2
Cargo Space: Up to 2 Infantry and 1 other land unit.
Capital Ship attribute (2 hits to kill, can be repaired at Naval Base)
Cannot be used in amphibious assaults, except to capture an undefended territory.
Cannot be the target of a Kamikaze assault.

TUV = Total Unit Value

It took me several minutes to find that.

Russian General to the 18 Infantry on the Eastern front:

“Abandon the East to Japan! It’s only worth about 4 IPC’s anyway! YOU ARE NEEDED TO DEFEND THE PARTS OF OUR MOTHERLAND I CARE ABOUT!”

Black Elk, I like your first of your two suggestions. Simplicity is good.
Noncombat your ground non-mech movements get +1 movement originating from the space.

Limiting it to 3 units seems too low to me, though. 4 seems better.

I like knp’s version, too. It’s “better” in that it’s more rail-y. But Black Elk’s is simpler, and that goes to making it better, too.

All in all, good suggestions.

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

@ Buran

Thanks for the response! 3 IPCs is probably fine. I know the intent is to get more money flowing in the game (with a strategical layer) anyway.
On the transports, it’s possible we’re misunderstanding eachother. A max of 12 IPCs each doesn’t strike me as too much. They cost 7 to build, and possibly more importantly, they take TIME to transport the oil. If I know anything from my games, it’s that time is the game’s most expensive resource!
(I also don’t think the capacity is too little, for clarity. It seems like a good sweet spot to me.)

Again, I find your idea very exciting. I will have to try it sometime.

I agree in that at 6, tanks are a little expensive. But the main power they of course provide is their ability, not their numerical score. And that ability in this 1-round combat WWI game matters. Big time. At 5 they would pay for themselves too easily and be too mass-able.

My friends and I play with them having a defensive value of 2 at all times. It’s not much of an increase, but it’s something. Tanks have their uses, and they’re a much easier to stomach when they aren’t worthless on defense.

Also, Britain can pretty much decide the Ottomans die (faster) by buying some tanks. They always seem super-effective on that front.

Buran,

I like this! It seems especially well thought out.
Did you ever consider 1 oil being worth 2 IPCs? 3 IPCs each seems a little high to me (but that could be your perfectly legitimate intention).
To still make transports as effective, an infantry slot could hold 3 Oil as opposed to 2. Then the transport still holds up to 6 IPCs per slot, allowing you to make the value of oil lower, but not raising the opportunity cost.

Again, I really like what you’ve made (particularly the incorporation into the NOs!). Without any playtesting, I see nothing that needs a change. Just sharing my thoughts.