Cousin Joe, I wrote up a simpler SBR ruleset, what do you think?

Strategic bombardment

These rules replace the strategic bombardment section in the normal rules. AA functions as the normal rules. When attacking with Heavy bombers you now add two to each IPC damage roll instead of rolling two dice.

Intercepting and escorting fighters:
Defending fighters in the attacked IC area are intercepting fighters, but the maximum number of interceptors is the number of attacking aircraft. The attacker may also attack with fighters which then are escorting fighters, but no more escorting fighters than there are attacking bombers.

Air combat:
In air combat, you fight one round only and then proceed to roll for SBR damage for each bomber that has survived. You add the number of aircraft on each side and then roll that number of dice, hitting on a ‘1’. If you have “Jet fighters” you get two rolls for each fighter and enemy bombers no longer get to fire in air combat.

Hit allocation in escorted SBR attacks:
If there are escorting fighters in the attack, the first hit by the defender is always on an escorting fighter, the second on an attacking bomber, and so on.

Hey, IL, we also have a discussion of these things on the thread “Economic warfare expansion…” in House rules.

I think subs should do IPC damage as well as hit transports and this should be a separate attack from normal combat. Bombers do IPC damage but they typically can attack 4-6 times before they are shot down, whereas subs get killed more quickly and should have a more powerful attack.

Cruisers as ASW, not sure. Most escort ships were smaller than fleet destroyers, “destroyer escorts”. And the most powerful escort ship was the escort carrier. In my proposed rules, destroyers and fighters on carriers hit on a ‘1’ and one destroyer enables one fighter to fire. If you allow more ASW than that, I fear subs become too weak! Also cruisers I think should be bought for naval combat rather than ASW, which after all was their main use in the war.

re: SBR
-in principle, I agree that interceptors and escorts should be in the game
-personally, I would probably look at simplifying your method for doing this, particularly air combat

For SBR, there are many options on how to include escorts and interceptors. I remember the few games that I played AAE that interceptors were way too powerful with a ‘2’ in defence. I also wanted not too many kills in air combat but at the same time that German fighters would be tied up in Germany rather than attacking at the Eastern Front in the next turn, hence the turning of interceptors upside-down. The thing about the cap for IPC damage being related to intercept or not I’m not totally sure about. Maybe the AA50 OOB cap is OK if interceptors are available since it reduces SBR effectivity overall.

re: Convoy interdiction
-personally, I would suggest simplifying this as well (I’d probably remove the blocking of unit production and stick with the convoy damage)
-I see that you have gone with a different approach here, focusing the attacks on the actual transports rather than the ICs.  I do like the idea that this is considered a special attack (and thus separated from regular combat)

I modelled it after SBR so that subs can do either normal or economic attacks. Since subs typically are destroyed quickly unlike bombers, they had to have more damage capability and that’s why they sink transports and do IPC damage. As for blocked unit production, this is to protect Germany and Soviet Union, who after all couldn’t be severely hurt by Convoy attacks in the war. Not going for convoy zones is an aesthetic thing since it clutters the map, but it also could become more flexible and fun to play if transports are the points of attack. Perhaps you have the option of autodestroying transports though to avoid some awkward situations when you don’t need transport capability (?).

To make my rule-suggestions more concrete you would for each sub attacking a transport have:

2/6X7 IPCs sinking of transports
3,5 IPCs of convoy damage

5.83 IPCs inflicted damage.

So about equal damage to the cost of the sub. There is some chance your sub is sunk by destroyers before inflicting IPC damage, and also some chance you might survive the attack in the opponents turn against your sub and get a second attack, but it should add up to something around 5-6 IPCs on average.

And I don’t take away the normal sub abilities at all. I just assume that won’t be the reason you will be buying subs, since a destroyer or a fighter for your carrier is better value for money for naval combat. Throwing your subs into naval combat would be a desperate solution, when your back is against the wall.

Nice discussion about subs. I think they were designed wrong from the start and it seems the AA50 changes haven’t adressed the basic problem; subs were never serious battle-winning weapons in World War II, their function was only to sink enemy transports and merchantmen and thus they were a STRATEGIC weapon. That’s why I tried to work out some kind of strictly economic attack use for subs in my very sketchy ideas that are not play-tested. But I think the direction is the way to go;

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12671.0

I there opt to not have convoy zones but instead each transport is a movable convoy zone, both being subject to being destroyed and to be a point to inflict IPC damage. Also, I propose subs should have a move of three for economic attacks. In that way, you can avoid the embarrassing situation of German subs never even reaching the enemy. If they inflict enough damage, the fact that they’re destroyed isn’t a problem. Submarines had the highest loss rate of any units in the war apart from Kamikazes, so their vulnerability is quite accurate from a historical point of view!

Well, fixing subs needs a greater change I think. I’ve been toying with the idea of an expansion to AA50, putting it squarely in the “Advanced” category, even though I’ve been trying to keep changes to a minimum. It also includes Interceptor and Escort rules. To not upset those against house rules threads, I post over at the correct area:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12671.msg349840#msg349840

OK, here goes: an idea for an expansion on SBR and sub convoy attacks for AA50. I was planning to postpone posting this until it could be playtested, but discussions are already starting and I thought I might as well get some reactions here from you guys. The Convoy damage table maybe needs some explanation: I thought that Japan and UK should be more vulnerable to Convoy interdiction since they had to get all oil supplies by sea.

Economic warfare expansion to Axis & Allies Anniversary edition

Strategic bombardment

These rules replace the strategic bombardment section in the normal rules, as well as AA-gun rules when it comes to bombers and fighter doing SBR missions. If the defender intercepts the attack, the maximum possible damage is the IPC value of the area. If the defender doesn’t intercept, the maximum amount is twice the IPC value of the area. When attacking with Heavy bombers you now add two to each IPC damage roll instead of rolling two dice, and  maximum IPC damage is twice the value of the area, even if the defender intercepts.

Interceptions and escorts:
If the enemy has a fighter in the IC area, he may choose to intercept. Turn one fighter upside-down to indicate that it is intercepting. One intercepting fighter intercepts any number of bombers. If there is at least one fighter in the IC area, the attacker may assign escorts to a SBR mission. The attacking player must designate one fighter to escort each bomber doing SBR that turn versus that IC area. An escorting fighter must move together with the bomber, and it can’t make any other attacks. If the SBR mission is escorted, one fighter in the IC area must intercept and the defender may choose to intercept with two fighters. Upside-down fighters may not be used in the “Combat Movement Phase”, but they may still move in the “Non-Combat Movement Phase”, defend normally and intercept enemy SBR. Upside-down fighters are returned to normal in the “Place Built Units Phase” in the controlling powers turn.

Air combat:
There is one air combat per bomber doing SBR. In air combat, you fight one round only and then proceed to roll for SBR damage if the bomber has survived. AA-guns fire at ‘1’ at bombers and doesn’t get to fire at escorting fighters. Bombers and fighters fire at a ‘1’. If intercepting with one fighter, the defender chooses hits. If intercepting with two fighters versus an escorted SBR attack, one of the fighters fire at the bomber and one at the escorting fighter. Jet fighters fire at a ‘2’ and may not be hit by bombers. If the defender has “Radar”, AA-guns fire at a ‘2’ at bombers and at a ‘1’ at escorting fighters.

Convoy interdiction

Instead of normal movement and attack, a submarine may perform a Convoy interdiction: all enemy ships including destroyers are then ignored and it has a move of three. A convoy interdiction is made against a sea zone with an enemy transport. The attacker may also attack with up to one bomber for each submarine doing a Convoy interdiction. Only submarines and bombers may take part in a Convoy interdiction attack.

Convoy combat:
One round of Convoy combat is fought in each sea zone attacked. If there are no bombers attacking, only one fighter for each defending destroyer may take part in Convoy combat. Submarines and bombers hit on a ‘2’. Destroyers and fighters hit on a ‘1’. Each hit versus the defender means one transport is destroyed. When all transports have been destroyed, the defender chooses hits from destroyers and carriers carrying fighters taking part in the combat. Super subs hit on a ‘3’, may never be hit by fighters and add one to the IPC damage roll.

IPC damage from Convoy interdiction:
After Convoy combat, roll one die of IPC damage per surviving submarine. IPC damage from Convoy interdiction is recorded like SBR damage. All Convoy damage must be repaired before specific units may be built. The units that are blocked by Convoy damage are listed in the Convoy damage table (below). If the defender has the “Shipyards” technology, it repairs two points of Convoy damage for each IPC spent. Convoy damage always affects the power having the highest number of transports in a sea zone. If several powers have the same number of transports in the sea zone, IPC damage is taken by the power with the most cash at hand at the start of the attack. The same applies to hits and hits are taken by the next highest IPC power if no units of the highest IPC power are present. The maximum IPC damage per turn is 10 IPCs per transport in the attacked sea zone.

Convoy damage table
Power:                   Unit production blocked:
Japan, UK               Battleship, Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport, Submarine, 
                                  Bomber, Fighter, Tank.
Germany, Soviet Union,  Battleship, Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport, Submarine.
Italy, USA

A&Aeconomic2.doc

Well, to the 9 battleships and battlecruisers of the Royal Navy sep -39 in the Atlantic, there were also 4 at Alexandria for combined number of 13. Barham, Royal Oak, Hood and Repulse were sunk, but the following were added:

HMS Valiant feb -40 (refitting)
HMS King George V dec -40
(HMS Prince of Wales may -41, sunk at Singapore)
HMS Duke of York dec -41
HMS Queen Elizabeth march -41 (refitting)

So in spring -41 RN had: 4 BBs Queen Elizabeth class, 4 BBs Royal Sovereign class, 2 BBs Nelson class and 2 BBs KGV class, as well as 2 battlecruisers.

(In dec -41, two BBs at Alexandria were immobilized by Italian frogmen)

In spring -42: 2 BBs Queen Elizabeth class, 4 BBs Royal Sovereign class, 2 BBs Nelson class and 2 BBs KGV class, as well as 1 battlecruiser.

Even if you rate those of WWI classes (Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Nelson) at 0.75 or something like that, you wouldn’t arrive at 4-6 battleships for one A&A BB. You could argue that UK should have 2 BBs at-start, but that could be a bit too much for play-balance. In AA50, cruisers might represent not just heavy cruisers but also smaller concentrations of battleships, and this would make it logical for UK to have more than one cruiser at-start.

That scale can’t be right for BBs. If correct, UK would have several (they started the war with 9 battleships) and US one on the East coast. It ought to be 5-10.

And CVs can be represented with one or two fighters;

CV + 1 ftr: 2-3 carriers
CV + 2 ftr: 4-8 carriers

Probably we will have one cruiser at East Indies or Burma sea zone to represent Repulse and Prince of Wales at Singapore as well as the five cruisers destroyed by the Japanese in the Battle of the Java Sea and then CV+1ftr, DD, trs at India.

Hey, bluestroke, great work! I think we’re getting close here. I especially want to quote this sentence from one of the “Smorey Swamp” GENCON reports:

China begins the game with one fighter and a respectable number of infantry.

So, maybe even 2 per front territory is too low. I don’t think you will see either a second Japanese BB or a bomber, that would be unbalanced. Cruisers are a safe bet in the Pacific I think, maybe subs as well. The big question is if the UK will get a CV at India. Historically, in early -42 UK had at Ceylon:

HM Battleship WARSPITE, HM Aircraft Carrier ILLUSTRIOUS, HM Aircraft Carrier INDOMITABLE, HM Cruiser CORNWALL, HM Cruiser ENTERPRISE and HM Cruiser EMERALD, plus six destroyers.

Translates to 1 CV+ 1 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 trs, maybe?

PS. This website shows the location of US Navy ships at the time of Pearl Harbor:

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/usf.htm

That US cruiser should maybe be together with the carrier, considering that 6 heavy cruisers escorted them? Yes, I’m getting nerdy, I’ll stop it…  :wink: DS.

The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.

I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.

After looking at the AAP map and the actual historical naval situation, I expect the following additions (now only naval):

East Med: 1 UK destroyer
East Indies: 1 UK cruiser
Caroline Islands: 1 Japanese cruiser
Sea of Japan: 1 Japanese destroyer & transport
West coast: 1 US cruiser

On 1) I would say it changes a lot. In the Atlantic you are more vulnerable to air strikes so a UK CV is now almost a must. You need to keep the fleet together mostly and it’s harder to strike vs. two areas such as Norway and Algeria. In the Pacific it’s even more strong: because your opponent has a CV strike force at his disposal, you must protect your trannies. Typically, Japan has to have a home fleet in Sea of Japan and it also limits the possibility of striking at several islands at once. USA will have a problem moving their fleet forward from the West coats because they can’t build extra transports for the follow-up without a strong protection.

As for the Italy+Germany punch, check out the thread “Italian overrun tactic”!

A DD in the east med would mean egypt is a no go on G1. Also a big change in favour of the allies.

Not quite. You could still attack with a bomber and your transport with some chance of success, but very risky. Actually, this is the change I would be most happy with. It would also make sense since in all other A&A games UK has had ships in the Mediterranean Sea. It was the naval presence at Alexandria that hindered Rommel from getting supplies and to win that battle of El-Alamein, and this would very much improve the historical feel of the game! Actually, the British had something like 4 cruisers, 1 carrier and 3 battleships at Alexandria in early '41 at the time of the Battle of Cape Matapan and this should translate into something! Link:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN09-194101.htm

If you don’t attack Egypt as Germany on turn 1, you would be forced to attack the UK fleet outside Gibraltar with subs and aircraft to protect the Italian fleet from attack and then you wouldn’t be able to wipe out the British Home Fleet. Another good change. If you survive with the fighter in Egypt, you might also strengthen India’s defenses.

PS. A cruiser at India would also make sense, given that HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse were at Singapore in '41. Then Japan would think twice of attacking with just 2 fighters vs. cruiser and destroyer and if they don’t, those two infantry in Transjordan could ALSO be sent to India. DS.

PPS. Check this table of the Pacific at-start ships, at bottom of this page:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN11-StartPac.htm

Considering the amount of cruisers in the Pacific in '41, UK and US should have one each and Japan two (Italy had 21 cruisers at the start of the war, Japan 40, USA 21, UK 35 and Germany 7). Battleships and carriers seem OK but Japan should have one more destroyer at least. DDS.

Well, it’s (semi)-official now: the GENCON pic '41 scenario set-up is wrong. Bad for us who play-tested the GENCON set-up, but maybe great for the game. Let’s start a thread to get the information quicker! My five cents for what’s missing in the start-up, and this is guesswork:

1. 1 inf extra in each of the China up-front areas.
2. 1 Japanese transport in Sea of Japan.
3. 1 ftr in Moscow.
4. 1 UK DD in EMD.

All this would seriously change the game in the Allied favour, but play-testing with the GENCON set-up really has shown the Axis to be very much stronger than in all earlier editions of A&A and this is not what was intended I think.

About the Caucasus situation I think on G2 the best defence is to amass a counter-attack force in Moscow which can retake Caucasus if Germany goes all-in. The Germans actually don’t have that much of a second wave and Italy should hopefully be occupied in Algeria.

This news about the set-up is great, I start a new thread right away and then we’ll maybe get there quicker!

• US: Going pacific (not sure this is actually a good idea…)

The big “if…” is if a US build-up alone can stop Japan from getting their three bonuses and keeping naval superiority. So far, Japan has looked very hard to get at, but we would need a consistent US strat vs. Japan for something like 5 turns to see if it is doable and we haven’t got around to that just yet. If US alone can’t get at Japan we have two options for the Allies:

a) India IC build a must, and then you need Russian support. (I don’t even consider an Australian IC because I can’t figure out how to defend it.)
b) Ignoring Japan and just going all-in for a KGF strategy, hoping to crush Germany before Japan can make an impact vs. Moscow.

I hope we don’t end up in scenario b!

Just my five cents after two test games of AA50-41 with supposed setup with NOs and Techs is that NOs heavily favours the Axis. It is quite easy for Germany and Japan to get all their three bonuses and then they have a heavy IPC-production.

Whereas Germany’s bonuses are pretty much what you go after anyway (ICs on Russian soil), Japan’s bonuses also tends to change game-play since trying for India or Australia becomes more worthwhile than invading Siberia. The only way for the game not to be KGF-biased is to use NOs I think, and I suppose that’s also why they were added.

Thanks JohnBarbarossa for sharing your test games with us! I’ve been playing a bit with a friend of mine (Perry) over the internet and we will be writing up a report soon.

One thing, and this also answers Cousin Joe’s fears, is that there is a possibility to reinforce India with Russian troops and then an IC build IS VIABLE. We tried this in one game and it worked out fine, although Russia was of course slightly weaker. In that game, the Allies balanced the Russian support for India with UK attacks vs. Leningrad. So, while that Scandinavian push might be felt to be a bit ahistorical, game-balance-wise it works out well I think.

A caveat of course is that a maximized anti-Indian Japan strat must be tried out vs. this Allied strategy, and also maximum German and Italian pressure vs. Caucasus. I think the jury is still out if this is possible to pull-off as the Allies without losing Caucasus, which, if not retaken, usually means losing the game.

I think that the best buy for Italy on turn 1 is TRS+1 inf. You need two transports to put up a real threat to Caucasus or in the Med. You need to leave 1 BB in CMD to protect that TRS build from the UK bmb on turn 1.

The problem with combating Italy is that they have such a heavy shore bombardment force, which makes it hard to take Algeria. EGY and TRJ should fall to a combined German and Italian assault in almost every game, the big fight will be after the first 2 turns. I think a stronger concentration of naval and air forces is a better way to bring Italy down than just shipping land units into Algeria. Once that fleet is destroyed, Italy becomes a “sitting duck”. SBR vs. Italy can be effective I think as a preparation for entering the Med. A CV is a good buy for Italy, so preventing that build by using SBR can be a boost for the Allies.

I’m saying that this is what Italy could do after EGY and TRJ have been taken with a combined German and Italian assault on turn 1-2, after which Italy has around 20 IPCs/turn. Going to southern Africa from Sudan and below might not be worth the effort considering what use the Italian units can be put to in Russia.

In the games we’ve played, UK has been attacking NWY, FIN and KAR the first few turns and USA has been busy building fleets vs. Japan. My question is if a more anti-Italian strategy might be preferable, but then you will forfeit attacks by UK in the Scandinavia/Leningrad region and also weakening the build-up vs. Japan by the US.