Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. KurtGodel7
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 17
    • Posts 1,080
    • Best 1
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by KurtGodel7

    • RE: Advanced Rules Set

      @Emperor_Taiki:

      I like Italy, but the way you have incorporated Finland and Romania/Hungary is very unhistorical.  all of norway the baltic states and greece were under direct germany control and this was also true for most of Yugoslavia.  having obviously ahistorical rules in your game is just out of place.  I like the idea of adding Finland and Romania but lets not put them on steroids.

      I’ll agree that putting Norway and the Baltic States under Finnish rather than German control is . . . a bit of a stretch. I had three choices here:

      1. Give Finland one territory (itself) and one manpower point.
      2. Carve the map up into smaller pieces than I’d originally envisioned
      3. Stretch things a little to make Finland a little more important.

      I chose option 3, at least for now. I’m open to suggestions on how to improve that aspect of it.

      I’ll grant that most of Yugoslavia and Greece were under German control. However, Romania and Hungary were independent. “East Balkans” is my euphemism for Romania, and “West Balkans” means Hungary. If the map were carved into smaller pieces, then Germany could be given the Yugoslav and Greek portion of the Balkans, and Romania could be given the Romanian and Hungarian portions.
      @Emperor_Taiki:

      also i think the rule set would have a lot easeir time of catching on if it had a different start date. the beuty about a spring 1940 start is that you have avoided all the scripted and boring moves of 1939, but it is still early in the war. Also if your going to go through the trouble of changing all the ipc values and adding new resources to the game, you might aswell add some new territories and France

      I hope that people make a lot of mods for this game. Different maps. Different techs. Additional nations (such as France). Modifications to existing techs and existing units. New units.

      For example, someone could throw in a torpedo bomber: a plane that’s better against naval targets than a fighter bomber would be, but less good against land targets. Or a medium bomber: kind of a hybrid between a fighter bomber and a strategic bomber.

      I have the feeling that whatever default version of the game I create will not necessarily be the best possible mod.

      To address your specific suggestion–I’ve played an Axis and Allies variant which includes France. It’s an excellent variant, but adding in France doesn’t help that much. Germany has to take it quickly, because otherwise it’s doomed in the long struggle against the economic might of the Allies. Taking Paris very early on has become a routine German move. My map treats France as a single territory, so the battle of France would be considerably less interesting than the variant I’ve played. Considering all the economic strength I’ve given the U.S. and U.S.S.R., Germany’s need to quickly conquer France would be at least as great as is the case in the variant I’ve played.

      But while I don’t see a way around these problems–at least not now–someone who puts enough time and thought into creating a good 1940 scenario might. If you want to develop a scenario with France, don’t let me stand in your way. I can’t possibly think of every viable mod, and I love the idea of other people experimenting with the basic rules concepts to create things I hadn’t thought of.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Advanced Rules Set

      @Emperor_Taiki:

      another idea, have you thaught about adding rules or a unit for airborne operations since they were one of the major new developments in warfare. perhaps you could have an airborne units or tech to illistrate this.

      also what about having a tech for increaded mechanization in the different armies or some way to simulate how the way armies moved was different and changed over the course of the war

      I’d thought about the idea of airborne tech, which I think would be appropriate for a map carved into very small pieces. I could envision some little place–such as Crete or Cyprus–taken over by paratroopers. The map I envision would have roughly as many territories as AA50; which may not be quite small enough to justify paratroopers. But I’d have no objection to having it included as an optional rules variant.

      As far as increased mechanization–I’d love to be able to figure out how to include that in a way which did not unduly complicate my rules set. (You have no idea how many good ideas I’ve discarded in order to get things as simple as they are!) What I’d like to do is create two additional kinds of resources: raw materials and oil. The amount of oil available would determine the optimal level of mechanization for your army. Of course, a nation with little available oil, such as Germany, should be able to build synthetic oil manufacturing facilities.

      Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to translate this into game terms. Which may not be a bad thing, because the Axis has enough problems already, without the Allies’ oil advantage being thrown in for good measure.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Advanced Rules Set

      @Emperor_Taiki:

      have you thought about starting the game in early 1940 and perhaps adding France or Italy to the mix.

      I have always wanted a 1940 axis and allies type game with Panzer IIs tearing up the french country side,  i think it would increase the distictivness of your game.

      anyways i also like how all of your rules feel hisotrical and i can tell you have a good understanding of world war II, yet you also leave room for intersting varations on history like a nazi space program!

      I’ve thought of a variant which involves the addition of Italy, Romania, and Finland. Italy has four or five manpower points, but it’s plagued with the “light infantry” “light tanks” and “inefficient manufacturing” techs. Romanian and Hungarian infantry are lumped together in the Romania category (no offense to Hungarians intended!) and are roughly equivalent to Soviet infantry. I’ve lumped the Baltic States and Norway in with Finland, and have given them infantry roughly analogous to Germany’s. None of those three nations are allowed to send lend-lease aid to anyone, and they are considered “close allies” of each other and of Germany.

      I hadn’t considered a 1940 variant, but if this rules set catches on, hopefully someone will implement one. Game balance might be tricky, but could potentially be addressed if the U.S. stayed neutral throughout the game. (Or it could just be a passive source of lend-lease aid.)

      Edit: I just updated the Flames and Steel website to include an optional variant with Romania, Italy, and Finland as separate nations.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • Advanced Rules Set

      I just finished creating a website with an advanced rules set for a WWII strategy game. Notable differences between this rules set and Axis and Allies:

      • Instead of having offense and defense values, units have anti-land, anti-naval, anti-air, and anti-industrial combat values

      • Fighters are specialized for anti-air, fighter bombers for anti-land and anti-naval, and strategic bombers for anti-industrial attacks.

      • Fighters represent the main defense against enemy strategic bombing attacks.

      • Individual nations have unique advantages and disadvantages, based on my interpretation of their historical strengths and weaknesses. Discussion about my interpretation of those strengths and weaknesses is welcome.

      • Each nation has its own list of technologies available for research. For example, the T-34-85 tech is only available to the Soviet Union, the jet can only be researched by Germany, and the Superfortress can only be discovered by the U.S. Technologies are researched by paying a set price, not by buying dice and hoping for good luck.

      • Territories change in value throughout the game. Industrializing a territory increases its value; while starvation, scorched earth tactics, and strategic bombing raids are each capable of permanently reducing its value.

      • Many kinds of units have multiple hitpoints. However, once you have allocated a given category of hit to a unit (anti-land, anti-air, etc.), you must continue to allocate that kind of hit to it until combat ends, or the unit is destroyed.

      • Tanks are intended to absorb enemy punishment, while artillery is good at dishing that punishment out.

      • Infantry are produced by using manpower points and a small number of IPCs; whereas other units are purchased strictly through IPCs. This forces nations to employ most of their IPCs to non-infantry purchases.

      • The Allies have a large advantage in available manpower points, as well as in industrial capacity. I’ve had to fudge other aspects of the game in an Axis friendly way to create a balanced game that’s still relatively consistent with the overall historical feel of WWII.

      • Nations are required to retain transports in specific sea zones to avoid economic penalties. This means that the U.S. cannot simply abandon the Pacific, unless it is willing to sustain a massive reduction in its income. Britain (Indian Ocean and Atlantic) and Japan (Pacific) are also vulnerable to commerce warfare.

      Available technologies and other advantages and disadvantages mean different nations are specialized in different things. Germany and the U.S.S.R. are the best at land war; though the United States can close much of that gap later in the game. Germany has the best air units; though American units are second. In many ways, American air units are actually superior to their German counterparts. Japan is relatively unimpressive at land war, but (initially) has good technology for waging an air/sea war. However, improvements to Japan’s naval and air units are less dramatic than analogous improvements to their British and American counterparts.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Avoid China

      @Funcioneta:

      Then, the game design is flawed, even before knowing the true setup. China not allowed go out of China (and the whole minor popping inf status) is bugged. Minor popping inf status leads to some minor bugs involving conquered ICs and aa guns (but at least it will happen few times)

      China not allowed attack Japaneses leads to avoid China strat. What if Chineses conquer both Manchuria and Kwantung? OK, it’s 11 IPCs less (6 for lovers of only-mandatory-stuff) , but you would need about the same amount to fight the chineses with uncertain result. Now you can focus in any IC UK could buy (Australia or mainly India) without caring about Chineses. Evacuate both territories J1 and aim for USA or Moscow (your choice, if allies try ignore Japan strat) or simply Moscow if allies go global war strat. What about VCs? Well, allies need more than 2 vcs to win and anyway you have India and Australia at your reach. Simply conquer Moscow or California and it’s game won for axis anyway, you don’t have to care of china in all the very game

      Only Hong Kong could do anything, but it would need a IC  :-o, a succesfull tech roll on improved industry and then start building ships there  :-P. But many will not allow tech  :-P and still the deploy of this strat (another bug, by the way) would cost at the very least 20 ipcs and any costly ships you could buy (ships that can be destroyed easily by Japan’s navy unless they are beaten anyway)

      The best and simpler is mod that buggy rule: change “China cannot go out China” for “China cannot enter allied territories but they can attack axis territories at pleasure”. Or, of course, make China a normal playable country with normal IC and such, as should.

      I think at least some players will try avoid China, think how many players ignore Japan now (and Japan can go out Japan, opposite to China   :-D ). Modding is needed I fear.

      I was one of the people who played this game at GenCon. I controlled Japan. I felt like I was under pressure everywhere, and therefore not in a position to deliver decisive pressure of my own.

      J1: My starting income was only 17 IPCs, so I felt I had to expand quickly to have a chance to keep up with the Allies over the long term. The most obvious expansion opportunity was Pacific islands such as the Philippines and the East Indies. The need to take those places meant that early on, I was sending fewer troops to the mainland. Also on J1, I focused on taking Chinese territories, and on sinking as much of the Allied fleet as possible.

      J2: By now there was a factory in India. Because I’d focused on increasing my income in my previous turn, my units were not in a position to threaten the factory. In any case, I decided China was a more urgent priority than India. My plan was to eliminate the Chinese problem first, the Indian problem second, and somewhere in there start putting pressure on the eastern Soviet Union. My ability to execute these plans was hampered by my low income, and by the fact that the U.S. player was pumping all his resources into the Pacific.

      J3: I think this was the turn that Greg moved a large Soviet force right next to the Manchurian border. (Or maybe he waited until USSR4.) I destroyed this force, and I think I obtained a favorable exchange. I was left with a relatively small force at the end. Those few remaining units were able to slowly push westward. However, I wasn’t in a position to send very many additional units to that theater, because my strength was very badly needed elsewhere. China was proving to be a more lingering problem than I’d anticipated. Bad die rolls cost me some battles I should have won. This meant that China received more infantry than should have. There were times when China was able to use large infantry forces to retake weakly-held Japanese territories. (Some of this was my fault for not making those territories stronger, and some of it was dice.)  I was becoming bogged down in China–and the Chinese player receiving too many infantry–at the very time when I most needed to be applying decisive, crushing pressure in that theater. I simply wasn’t in a position to send more strength there, because of the need to counter the U.S. naval threat, and because of the pressure Britain and the Soviets were applying.

      J4: It was either by J4 or J5 that I began devoting a large portion of my production to naval units. I had to have a stronger fleet than the U.S. fleet, or else I would have started losing my income-producing islands. I was too weak economically already, and the loss of those islands would have been devastating for me. (Bear in mind that we were playing without the national advantages–a fact which probably unbalanced the game in favor of the Allies.) I’d made some progress in gaining income, both with islands and on the mainland. But the American income, alone, was higher than mine, and all of it was being thrown against me. Add to that the Chinese infantry that kept regrowing each turn, and the three units Britain kept pumping into India, and it was clear that the Allies were building up their strength in that area faster than I could build up mine.

      Nor were things going well elsewhere. The Soviet Union had initially given some ground to the German advance. But the Germans reached a point where they could advance no further because there was too large a pile of Soviet infantry in the way. Then, the Soviets began grimly pushing the Germans back. This wasn’t so much a case of big battles being fought, as it was a case of the German player realizing that he was overextended and needed to withdraw westward a territory. Then a turn or two later he’d be forced to withdraw westward by another territory. It was clear that, eventually, the Soviet Amy would push all the way to Berlin.

      The lone bright spot was that when the game ended, the Allied resistance to an Italian conquest of Africa had basically been eliminated. Africa would likely have gone over to the Italians, providing the Axis with much-needed income. But it wouldn’t have been enough.

      The first point I’d like to make with all this is that you are suggesting a rules change that would benefit the Allies, and I’m firmly convinced that’s the absolute last thing this game needs. (To anyone who thinks the Flying Tigers shouldn’t be destroyed on J1, the same thing applies: the Allies have it too good already.)

      I made mistakes early on, such as buying two research tokens when I should have been building units. I also built more transports than I needed. With the increased size of the gameboard, I had assumed I’d need the mobility that only transports can provide. And that was true to some degree, but what I really needed more of was brute force, especially in China. I also should have waited a turn before shifting my focus over to naval units. Together, these things might well have allowed me to eliminate China, thus eliminating one of the three sources of new Allied units to my theater (the other two being the India factory and the U.S. West Coast factory).

      Suppose instead that I had taken your advice, and had evacuated from China. This would have lost me the China income, plus the income from Hong Kong, Manchuria, and Kwangtung. Under this strategy, my main short-term goal would obviously be to take India and the Pacific Islands. The long-term goal would be to have an income greater than, or equal to, that of the U.S., to prevent the long-term economic/naval domination by the American player. (If the American player can afford to spend X IPCs in the Pacific, the Japanese player had better be able to spend at least X, or else over the long term he is doomed.) To obtain that >U.S. income, I would need South Asia + Pacific islands + some Soviet territory. Without looking at the gameboard, I don’t know whether this would be enough.

      Withdrawing from China does have one advantage: it allows you to simply ignore the 10 - 14 Soviet units (I don’t remember the exact number) that would otherwise be in a position to threaten Manchuria. You’d just let them sit there over the short term, while focusing on conquering British territory and Pacific islands. This accomplished, step 2 could be a massive invasion of the eastern Soviet Union. (Unless of course you chose to let that force continue sitting there while invading from the south. An Indian Ocean focus would also position you to go after Africa.)

      I’m not yet sure what Japan’s best strategic move is. All I know is that in my one and only game of this, I simply didn’t have the strength to accomplish everything I set out to achieve. Instead of the “conquer everything at once” strategy of Revised, it may be necessary to focus on obtaining overwhelming local supremacy in one theater after another–especially if the U.S. is throwing everything it has into the Pacific. The Axis starts off at a severe economic disadvantage. I suspect that over the long term, it may need the China income if it is to overcome that disadvantage.

      Some of the ideas I’ve read on this forum make sense. For example, Japan would be much better off conquering India on J2 than it would be in conquering the Philippines on J1. If Japan can prevent the U.K. from building a factory in India (or else immediately take the factory if built), it would solve a lot of the problems I encountered that game. With no new British units in that theater, and with the extra income from India, Japan would be in a strong position to deliver decisive force to China and that large eastern Soviet force. If the first domino (India) falls, China and the eastern Soviet Union are very likely to follow. But if the Allies can hold onto an India complex early game, and if they can bog down Japan’s advance into China, and if the U.S. devotes everything to the Pacific, things would look very grim for Japan.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      To add to what Tekkyy wrote, destroyers and cruisers serve as escorts under my system as well. Anything which can hit a capital ship can also hit an escort ship. Hits are allocated to escorts before they’re allocated to capital ships; so your battleships and carriers can’t start taking hits until your destroyers and cruisers are all dead. I realize the current system is a little more realistic–ships choose their targets, then escorts interpose. But this added realism makes the system somewhat more cumbersome; especially if it were to be computer-based. In a sea battle where each side had ten sea units, the computer would have to ask each player for 10 different targeting decisions. That would be very cumbersome. The changes I’m suggesting would be much more acceptable from a GUI standpoint, while retaining most of the realism of the current system. I admit my system makes escorts a little too good at shielding capital ships, but it’s worth that price to obtain dramatic simplification of the GUI.

      Imperious Leader raised a good point about the differences between a Japanese (carrier-based) Val dive bomber and a German land-based Stuka. Germany did not complete construction of any carriers during the war. But there were one or two partially completed carriers. The plan was to equip the carriers with aircraft that had been modified for carrier use. (There wouldn’t have been a huge difference between the carrier-modified version of these planes and their land-based analogues.) For simplicity, my suggestions interpret all nations’ planes as though they had been modified to land on aircraft carriers. I suppose if I wanted to be 100% realistic I could allow players to choose between land-based and carrier-based fighters, dive bombers, and maybe even torpedo bombers. The land-based versions of these planes would be either slightly cheaper or a little more powerful; but it wouldn’t be a huge distinction.

      The real strategic decision that had to be made was the intended function of the planes: should they be designed to kill other planes, land units, naval units, or for strategic bombing raids? Hitler believed Germany’s economy was too weak to sustain a long war; and so built dive bombers to try to win a decisive victory in a short war. The U.S. and Britain decided the war would last a long time, and built strategic bombers to destroy Germany’s industry and cities. Japan’s Kate torpedo bombers weren’t designed either for land war or strategic bombing runs, but were good at attacking enemy ships and subs. Fighter planes couldn’t do much against most land or sea targets, but were very good at shooting down enemy airplanes. WWII’s participants had to decide which categories of targets were the most important for their own planes to kill; and they had to produce accordingly. This, I felt, was at the core of WWII airplane construction strategy.  My rules set fully captures the four major airplane construction choices, while ignoring the more minor decision of whether to go through the (mild) pain of carrier modification.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      @Imperious:

      Our Fighter-bomber is what generically the variant treats all these types of dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Simply stated its too many types of units to deal with and Fighter-Bomber is the generic term that can encompass all these types into one UNIT. A Soviet dive bomber was used differently than a Japanese, while a Torpedo bomber is way too specific to be in such an abstracted game.

      I found it rather dull to have just “fighters” and “bombers” in the game. I felt the player should be forced to make a strategic choice. The dive bomber is available to the player who wants a jack-of-all-trades plane. But I also wanted players to be able to build specialist planes for specific roles: fighters for air superiority, torpedo bombers for naval combat, and strategic bombers for strategic bombing raids.

      By adding two extra plane types, I’m able to make the purchase decision far more complex and involved. Under the Revised rules set, the thought process is this: “Planes! If I build planes, they can help me in both naval battles and land battles.” I want to see that thought process replaced with the following: “I’m preparing for a big naval battle, and torpedo bombers can best help me with that particular battle. But most of my combat will be on the land, where I’d much rather have dive bombers. Then again, I could always build fighters with which to shoot down the other player’s torpedo bombers or dive bombers. Hmmm . . . tough choice.” The player will once again be presented with a difficult decision during the battle: should he or she lose torpedo bombers (which will be most useful when the battle is still raging) or dive bombers (useful for future land battles)? This type of painful decision adds a lot more to the depth and richness of the game than it adds to the game’s complexity.

      With the naval fighter option, you’re already looking at three different aircraft types anyway. If you get rid of naval fighters, and add in torpedo bombers and dive bombers, you can really add some strategic depth to this game. Four plane types instead of three isn’t too bad, is it? Granted you’re giving up something with the loss of the naval fighter, but in some ways the torpedo bomber fills that niche.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      I’ve decided that Imperious Leader was right: my earlier system was too complicated and involved. Below is version 2 of the naval combat. Compared to version 1, this system preserves most of the paper-rock-scissors, while significantly reducing its complexity.

      Rules about hit allocation:
      1. Whoever is receiving the hits gets to allocate them, subject to certain limitations.
      2. Hits must be allocated according to the following order of loss:
        (1) Escorts (cruisers and destroyers)
        (2) Capital ships (battleships and carriers)
        (3) Subs
        (4) Aircraft
      3. Hit allocation is subject to restrictions on specific units. Battleships, for example, can kill anything except a submarine. Someone receiving hits from a battleship would have to lose all his or her category (1) units first, then the (2) units, then would skip to the category (4) units.
      4. Planes fire using their naval combat values.

      Battleship

      • Naval combat value: 5

      • Cost: 22

      • Takes 2 hits to kill

      • Can kill anything except a sub

      Carrier

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 16

      • Takes 2 hits to kill

      • Can kill anything except a battleship, carrier, or sub

      Cruiser

      • Naval combat value: 3

      • Cost: 10

      • Can kill anything

      Destroyer

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 7

      • Can kill anything except battleships and carriers

      Sub

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 8

      • Can kill any surface ship

      Transport

      • Naval combat value: 0

      • Cost: 8

      • Cannot be used as cannon fodder. If you win a sea battle, each of your surviving units gets a free shot at enemy transports. Anything which can hit an escort ship can hit a transport.

      Dive Bomber

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 10

      • Can kill any surface ship

      Strategic bomber

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 15

      • Can kill any surface ship

      • Is the only type of plane that cannot land on carriers.

      Torpedo bomber

      • Naval combat value: 4

      • Cost: 12

      • Can kill surface ships and submarines

      Fighter

      • Naval combat value: 2

      • Cost: 10

      • Can only kill other aircraft

      Jet

      • Naval combat value: 4

      • Cost: 10

      • Can only kill other aircraft

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      @tekkyy:

      fighters can’t do much else besides dogfighting
      I am reserved about that, did they have air superiority fighters back in WWII? I was under the impression they were general war planes

      During WWII, Japan used Kate torpedo bombers and Val dive bombers to attack American ships; while using Zeros as air superiority fighters. The U.S. used Devastators, Dauntlesses, and Wildcats to achieve much the same effect. Zeros and Wildcats weren’t armed with torpedoes or bombs, so the best they could do was to strafe enemy ships with their guns.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Having Italy as the 6th player in revised axis and allies

      @Imperious:

      They had twice as many “add in any type of equipment you want to list” because Stalingrad had already happened and Germany had failed by July 1943. Your dealing with a period of History that the game allows either player to control. Thus those military balances have no meaning. The only value is what each started with in the spring of 1942 when the game begins. What happens latter is totally in control of the players and how they perform.

      It’s true that a German army was encircled and forced to surrender at Stalingrad. But a number of large Soviet forces had also been surrounded and forced to surrender. I’m almost certain the Soviets experienced significantly larger losses (in absolute terms) than did the Germans.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      ***Fighter: dogfight combat values higher than land & naval combat values

      ***in AARHE land & naval combat values for air units comes into play after air superiority
      ***is it your intention to model fighter killing other fighters easier than bombing tanks?

      Yes. Fighters were designed to kill enemy aircraft. Strafing enemy land units was just a bonus.

      ***what happens when a Battelship and a Destroyer attacks a Carrier and a Cruiser?

      Round 1: The battleship and carrier fire at each other, because they are both capital ships. The destroyer and the cruiser fire at each other, because they are both escort ships. The battleship gets a hit, damaging the carrier. The cruiser gets a hit, destroying the destroyer.

      Round 2: The battleship continues to fire at the carrier, and gets one more hit. The carrier is now dead. The carrier and the cruiser fire at the battleship. Between the two of them, they manage one hit.

      Round 3: The damaged battleship rolls two dice against the cruiser, getting two hits. The cruiser’s casualty shot misses.

      ***Do you choose a target so you know which value to use?

      No. If there are any enemy capital ships present, your own capital ships MUST fire at them. The recipient of the fire gets to allocate hits among his or her own capital ships. In other words, the category of target is automatically decided by the rules set, while the specific target within the category is chosen by the recipient of the fire.

      ***how does it fit into the existing hit allocation scheme?

      This rules variant would require a new hit allocation scheme. But I’m not wedded to this exact set of rules. Mostly, my goal was to create the following:

      • Battleships are good at dealing with other capital ships, good at shooting down planes, and GREAT at dealing with escort ships. However, they’re expensive, and can’t sink subs.

      • Destroyers give you a lot for your money if you’re trying to deal with planes or subs. They’re inexpensive. However, they can’t sink capital ships.

      • Cruisers are mostly useful for sinking destroyers and other cruisers. They also give you good anti-air, and some ability to deal with capital ships and subs.

      • Subs are useful because few unit types can sink them. They’re cheap, and reasonably good against either escorts or capital ships. No air defense though.

      • Fighters are good at shooting down other airplanes, but can’t do much else.

      • Dive bombers are mostly for land combat, but can also sink surface ships.

      • Torpedo bombers are great at naval combat, and can sink either surface ships or subs. They’re lousy on land though.

      As Imperious Leader pointed out, the rules set I developed could use a little simplification. But I think it’d be really cool if we could come up with some kind of rules set that preserves the above paper-rock-scissors.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      @Imperious:

      Yea… that alot of things to remember… one of the goals was to not make the variant “out of reach” for people to try… if it had too many of those ideas… i suspect it may suffer from idleness.

      I agree those rules could be a little overwhelming in the board game. But if they were in a computer game, players could focus on the paper-rock-scissors aspect of both sea and air units; while letting the computer work out the details. Expert players would of course know those details by heart, but you wouldn’t have to be an expert to grasp the general idea.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Having Italy as the 6th player in revised axis and allies

      @Imperious:

      what then is a better starting point IYO? production of tanks in 1944 is not the answer either…

      I agree 1944 is not the answer. But in the major land battle of Kursk (1943), the Soviets had twice as many cannons as the Germans, over 2.5 times as many tanks, and roughly as many aircraft. Even assuming that 15% of the Soviets’ equipment came from lend-lease, and even allowing for the fact that the Germans were fighting an air and sea war in the west, you’re still looking at a production advantage for the Soviet Union.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Having Italy as the 6th player in revised axis and allies

      @tekkyy:

      Historical Military production does gives some hitorical hints. But it is after all based on historical decisions.

      One thing the game shouldn’t do is to enforce historical decisions. We want the historical background not the historical decisions otherwise there would be no game ?  :wink:

      Military production “capacity” would be be better. But not prefect. I mean how hard is it to open up new tank factories and close down a few fighter factories?

      I agree with you about military production capacity . . . we shouldn’t be forcing the German player to build U-boats if he or she would rather have tanks. I was merely using those production data to get a general feel for each nation’s productive capacity.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Having Italy as the 6th player in revised axis and allies

      @Imperious:

      I don’t agree with that premise. The total production of war material remains very linked to the ACTUAL outcome of the war. So if the axis get off to a great start… you suddenly got alot of numbers having no meaning at all, because now say the Germans are camped in Moscow and the Soviets are weaker. Additionally, the cost of producing a tank in one economy is not the same as another. Example: German tanks were made up of many more parts than the Soviets and even when these tanks broke down a part from the same exact model tank would not be a fix… They in many cases had to be custom made. The Soviets metal was very poor grade, while the early German armor was exceptional grade. Late German armor was totally horrible because the metals used ‘filler’ metals to make up for scarce raw materials.

      GDP is the best starting point for addressing the economics, while the starting forces that were historically available would be a better guide to address setup problems.

      But in the end it all depends on game balance… or the game will play the same result everything and soon become a chore.

      There are a host of problems involved with applying GDPs to a game like this.
      1. Different nations devoted a different portion of their capacity to the war effort.
      2. As you explained, varying degrees of reliance on mass production gave some nations an advantage over others.
      3. The way GDP is calculated is . . . less than useful for a game like this. Woman A takes care of her own children. Contribution to the GDP: 0. Woman B provides babysitting services for someone else’s children. Those babysitting services are factored into the GDP. Moreover, suppose an American woman and an African woman both make money by babysitting children. The American woman earns ten times as much per hour. I’m pretty sure that the American woman is contributing ten times as much to her country’s GDP as is the African woman. The logic is that, since the free market valued the American woman’s babysitting services ten times as much as the African woman’s; the American woman’s are ten times as valuable. Obviously, this logic leads to an inaccurate comparison between the services provided in poor countries vis-a-vis those in rich countries.

      Problem 3 means that GDP figures tend to overstate the production differences between rich countries and poor countries. The average German had a higher standard of living than the average Soviet citizen. That difference caused Germany to have a higher GDP than the Soviets; but it didn’t cause Germany to produce more tanks.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      Unit definitions

      Battleship

      • Anti-capital ship value: 4
      • Anti-escort ship value: 4 x 2
      • Anti-aircraft value: 4
      • Takes 2 hits to kill
      • Cost: 24

      Carrier

      • Anti-capital ship value: 1
      • Anti-escort value: 3
      • Anti-aircraft value: 3
      • Takes 2 hits to kill
      • Cost: 16
      • Movement: 2

      Destroyer

      • Anti-escort value: 2
      • Anti-sub value: 2
      • Anti-capital ship value: 0
      • Anti-air value: 2
      • Cost: 6
      • Movement: 2

      Cruiser

      • Anti-escort value: 4
      • Anti-sub value: 1
      • Anti-capital ship value: 2
      • Anti-air value: 3

      Sub

      • Anti-escort value: 3
      • Anti-capital ship value: 2
      • Cost: 8
      • Movement: 2

      Transports: no combat value.

      Fighter

      • Dogfight value: 4
      • Land combat value: 1
      • Naval combat value: 1
      • Cost: 10
      • Movement: 4

      Jet

      • Dogfight value: 6
      • Land combat value: 1
      • Naval combat value: 2
      • Cost: 10
      • Movement: 4

      Dive bomber

      • Dogfight value: 2
      • Land combat value: 3
      • Naval combat value: 2
      • Cost: 10
      • Movement: 4
      • Does 2 IPCs of damage on a strategic bombing run

      Strategic bomber

      • Dogfight value: 1
      • Land combat value: 3
      • Naval combat value: 2
      • Cost: 15
      • Movement: 6
      • Does 4 IPCs of damage on a strategic bombing run

      Torpedo bomber

      • Dogfight value: 2
      • Land combat value: 1
      • Naval combat value: 4
      • Cost: 12
      • Movement: 4

      Fighters, jets, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers can land on aircraft carriers. Ships use their anti-escort combat values when shooting at transports. Planes use their naval combat values when firing at ships, and their dogfight values when firing at other planes.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

      I developed a new naval combat system, and I figured I’d throw it out there. If you guys want to use some of this for AARHE, great.

      Categories

      Capital ships

      • Battleship
      • Carrier

      Escort ships

      • Cruiser
      • Destroyer

      Subs

      • subs

      Transports

      • Transports

      Planes

      • Fighter
      • Jet
      • Strategic bomber
      • Dive bomber
      • Torpedo bomber

      Capital ships
      1. Kill capital ships
      2. Kill escort ships
      3. Kill planes
      4. Kill transports

      Order of destruction: escort ships
      1. Kill escort ships
      2. Kill subs
      3. Kill planes
      4. Kill capital ships
      5. Kill transports

      Order of destruction: subs
      1. Shoot at transport ships before the battle begins (the presence of an enemy destroyer negates this)
      2. Kill escort ships
      3. Kill capital ships
      4. Kill transports

      Order of destruction: fighters and jets
      1. Kill enemy planes
      2. Kill enemy escort ships
      3. Kill transports

      Order of destruction: dive bombers and strategic bombers
      1. Kill escorts
      2. Kill capital ships
      3. Kill enemy aircraft
      4. Kill transports

      Order of destruction: torpedo bombers
      1. Kill escorts
      2. Kill capital ships
      3. Kill submarines
      4. Kill enemy aircraft
      5. Kill transports

      Note that only destroyers, cruisers, and torpedo bombers can kill enemy subs.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: Rule files

      @Imperious:

      A few comments…

      If your goal is to make an advanced variant of Revised, then obviously there’s not much you can do to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies Revised poses. Since that’s the case, I’ll simply appreciate AARHE for what it is, which is a very good rules set. That said, I wish there was some other rules variant out there that managed to combine game balance with an historically accurate depiction of the USSR’s and USA’s military production.

      When you were a kid, did you ever see those commercials for Frosted Mini Wheats? Each mini wheat had two sides to his personality: the whole wheat, serious side; and the frosted, fun-loving side. Well, the frosted, fun-loving side of my personality likes the idea of having Italy in the game. From the point of view of game mechanics and making the game more interesting, Italy adds an extra something. But the whole wheat, serious side of me hates everything about the Italy inclusion. To lump Romania, Bulgaria, etc. in with Italy implies that those nations were more closely aligned with Italy than they were with Germany. A German promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that you’d get a solid, strong protection effort. An Italian promise to protect you from the Soviets meant that Italy would send some soldiers to your border, they’d eat your food for a while, and then they’d run away once the battle began to get intense. Eastern European nations largely understood this.

      There were a number of reasons for Italy’s military failure. Mussolini probably came into power prematurely; and he lacked the popular support Hitler had in Germany. Unlike Germany, modern Italy lacked a strong military tradition. Mussolini was unable to correct the Italian military’s fundamental problems. Laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness in carrying out commands–these were the hallmarks of the Italian military. These things alone meant that the Italian navy was far less useful to the Axis than its tonnage would seem to indicate. In addition to those problems, the Italian army lacked proper equipment. In the desert war you mentioned, Italy only used “light” tanks that couldn’t damage British Matilda tanks. Italy’s infantry lacked mobility. Rommel recognized that mobility was the essence of desert warfare. A large, slow force (such as Italy’s infantry) could be easily outflanked along the south; then cut off from its supplies. It was exactly this technique which allowed Britain’s tank force and mechanized infantry to force the surrender of much larger, non-mechanized Italian infantry forces.

      Italians became increasingly cynical and disillusioned about Mussolini’s plans for a new Roman Empire. His grandiose ambitions appeared to be more and more out of touch with reality. Few Italian men were willing to die for someone else’s fantasy; which is one reason why Italy’s armies typically chose to run away or surrender rather than fight.

      You point out that Italy’s forces started fighting a lot better once Germans took over the leadership roles. But to me, Germans taking command of those forces at least hints at an integration of German and Italian military forces.

      I’ll try not to harp on this, especially if the issue’s already been decided. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: Having Italy as the 6th player in revised axis and allies

      @Biofury:

      Here’s another roughly accurate source of of GDP listings through-out the ages.

      Thanks for that information. But while GDP figures are a useful thing to keep in the back of one’s head, I prefer to rely on military production figures for game design purposes. Below are some military production data for World War II.

      Tanks
      Soviet Union: 105,000
      US: 88,000
      Germany: 46,000
      UK: 28,000
      Canada: 6,000
      Japan: 3,000
      Italy: 2,000
      Hungary: 500

      Artillery
      Soviet Union: 517,000
      US: 257,000
      Germany: 159,000
      UK: 125,000
      Japan: 13,000
      Canada: 10,000
      Italy: 7,000
      Other Commonwealth: 5,000
      Hungary: 400

      Mortars
      Soviet Union: 200,000
      US: 105,000
      UK: 103,000
      Germany: 73,000
      Commonwealth: 46,000

      Machine guns
      USA: 2,680,000
      Soviet Union: 1,477,000
      Germany: 674,000
      Japan: 380,000
      UK: 297,000
      Canada: 252,000
      Other Commonwealth: 38,000
      Hungary: 5,000

      Military aircraft
      US: 325,000
      Germany: 189,000
      Soviet Union: 157,000
      UK: 132,000
      Japan: 76,000
      Canada: 16,000
      Italy: 11,000
      Other Commonwealth: 3,000
      Hungary: 1,000
      Romania: 1,000

      The Soviets produced 2.3 times as many tanks as the Germans, 3.3 times as many artillery, 2.7 times as many mortars, 2.1 times as many machine guns, and 83% as many military aircraft. It’s true these numbers don’t capture the fact that the Germans devoted a greater portion of their output to naval spending than the Soviets. Also, some of these differences are due to Germany’s late-war production problems. But Germany arguably reached its production peak in 1944; so its late war production problems only explain a modest portion of the production gap between itself and the Soviet Union.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • RE: AARHE: Rule files

      This is my first time posting here. I can see that a lot of thought and creativity has gone into this effort. This team has done an excellent job of making the game more realistic in a tactical sense.

      That said, very little has been done to correct the strategic historical inaccuracies of Axis and Allies Revised. Which is fine, but if you’re calling this rules set “historical” it may as well live up to the name.

      During World War II, the Allies produced over four times as many tanks as the Axis, over twice as many military aircraft, five times as many artillery, over three times as many mortars, over four times as many machine guns, and over six times as many military trucks. In the pivotal battle of Kursk (1943), Germany had 900,000 men, 10,000 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 2,000 tanks. They’d denuded their forces elsewhere along the Soviet front to achieve this concentration. The Soviets had 1.9 million men, 20,800 cannons, 2,000 aircraft, and 5,100 tanks. They achieved this without accepting weakness elsewhere. The Axis and Allies Revised map dramatically understates the scale of Soviet and American military production. This inaccuracy is not corrected in the AARHE rules set.

      An additional problem the Axis faced is this: in the real war, Japan’s army was engaged in an unwinnable land war in China. Japan simply didn’t have the available men to launch yet another land war against the Soviet Union, or to take India. In A&A Revised (and AARHE), Japan can mop China up quickly and relatively painlessly; and India typically gets abandoned.

      Finally, making Italy a separate power is a bit of a stretch. The Italian military lacked proper equipment, training, motivation, leadership, and morale. When Italy declared war on France, a large Italian force was defeated by a French force only a fraction of its own size. The same thing happened again when Italy attempted to invade Greece. In North Africa, massive Italian forces surrendered to much smaller British groups. The Italians lacked the proper equipment to fight a desert war. Italy’s obsolete tanks couldn’t even damage British tanks! By 1943, the Italians had lost whatever willingness to fight they might once have had; and eagerly surrendered to any available Allied force. Including Italy as a separate power implies that Italy was more useful to the Axis than were nations like Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, or Hungary. This simply wasn’t the case.

      I realize the changes I’m suggesting create game balance issues. If you bog Japan down in a painful and largely unwinnable land war in China, and if you accurately portray Soviet/American military production, the Allies should always win. But I’m sure that this team is clever enough to find some advantage to bestow on the Axis that will balance out what you’ll be giving to the Allies. Just about anything will be more historically accurate than sweeping the Allies’ industrial advantages or the China war under the rug.

      posted in House Rules
      KurtGodel7K
      KurtGodel7
    • 1
    • 2
    • 50
    • 51
    • 52
    • 53
    • 54
    • 54 / 54