Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. mAIOR
    3. Posts
    M
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 2
    • Posts 42
    • Best 10
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by mAIOR

    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen I won’t go into a discussion about why the Japanese didn’t attack the fuel facilities and the submarines but it was not in their immediate strategic goals for a reason.

      Even if you go a full combat round without retaliation in A&A you will still not achieve the immediate result.

      A&As scale a fleet being in port on in the adjacent sea are doesn’t really matter. There are other battles we can use to fine tune naval combat like Coral Sea or Midway even but each has their own particularities. The role of Naval intelligence was huge (hence this all began for me with adding a roll to see if you even find a ship or not).

      But even in a pitched Sea Battle, a Battleship ability to swat an air wing out of the sky was certainly not as high as it is represented in this game. Neither should strat bombers attack on a 4.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen The other reason to represent ships on a 2:1 ratio is that that was basically what a Battleship or Carrier division was. So you get ar,y corps on land and fleet divisions on sea. Heavy cruiser divisions were also 2 or 3 heavy cruisers and light cruiser divisions were 4 light cruisers. At Pearl Harbour there were 6 light cruisers and 2 heavy cruisers so that is roughly 2 cruiser fleets (since two of the cruisers were lead ships of DD flotillas) and if I don’t abstract the DDs, 2 DD flotillas… That might be a good scale) for the American side and 6 fleet carriers for the Japanese (3 carrier figures).

      the math would be:

      8 BBs on a A:4D:4 2 HP
      2 Cruisers A3D3
      2DDs A2D2
      (and an air wing AND AA defense but I won’t even deal with that for now)

      vs

      6 fighters A3D4
      (9 fighters at 3 per carrier division)

      So that makes it on average:
      3 hits or 4.3 hits for the japanese and six or nine hitpoints

      6.3 or 7 hits for the Americans and 8 or 10 hitpoints of which 4 are “free”.

      This means that on average, you would not destroy a single ship while you would get swated from the skies.

      If you allowed air wings to take two hits, the combat would go a second round but you would never get the results obtained historically.

      The idea of a -1 bonus to die rolls for surprise attacks is a cool one and I might play around with it.

      With my changes so far, what you would have on average for the combat however:
      American Fleet:
      4 BB Divisions each rolling 2 D6s for air defense (hit on a 1)
      2 cruisers rolling 1D6 for AA
      optional (though I do like the representation of DD flotillas at this scale) 2 DD flotillas rolling 1D6 for AA

      you would get 1.6 to 2 hits from AA

      6 fighters rolling on a 2 would be 2 hits. 9 fighters would be 3.6 hits.

      This still feels a bit low so a bonus from carrier based planes against naval targets could be an option.

      It would still not be enough to get an historical result but it is getting there. I can either lower the AA value of BBs to one D6 ,which would remove 0.6 hits so it would make the American fleet get one hit or 1.3 hits Depending on DDs being there or not.

      This would make it so that planes would suffer one hit on the AA barrage, and damage 2 to 4 BBs… Second round of combat could see the naval forces destroy another plane and suffer another 2 or 3 hits… This would make that you could destroy one BB division (2 BBs) possibly but of course, a savy player would allocate hits to cruisers or DDs. So the Japanese would damage BBs and destroy a single ship on two rounds But lose as much as half their striking force (2 or 3 planes) and now things would continue to worsen.

      The removal of the extra defensive die would also make other fleets more vulnerable to air attack but again, I need to revise OOB on the other theaters which I didn’t get around to yet so I will have to do a bit more work I guess.
      This would get us closer to the result.

      Anyway, if planes had the ability to soak some hits as well (becoming disrupted and attrition) this would be different and probably a lot closed to the historical result. The Japanese are unlikely to suffer any losses until round 4 or 5 and even with six fighters rolling on a 2, you would get 8 hits in four rounds. That would make the enemy fleets lose a lot of ships. But now the Japanese are a bit too strong as That would wipe out basically all cruisers and DDs and leave the BBs with one health. For no immediate losses or maybe one aircraft loss (and we still need to add the aircraft and the base AA to the result).

      If we had objectives to an attack (like, the Battleship moorings were an actual objective for the Japanese fleet), we could say that the Japanese player has one hit choice or two hit choices or something.

      I will game this out
      but it looks like it is on the right track imho. Then we can play around with surprise attack rules (like enemy units do not get a defensive shot in the first round of combat) and see how it goes.

      But that is basically the reasoning behind my proposed changes.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      IMO, Axis and Allies is much more pleasant as a tabletop game because of eye candies it provides with all these little sculpts. Especially warships and aircraft on carriers.
      On land, I usually use chips for Infantry, MechInf, Artys, but not Tank, when there is enough room in the TT. However, in SZ and Naval, I will never use chips. Just the sculpts.
      My personal taste would be to rather increase the number of units but not going into damaged units besides aircraft or Battleship.
      US and IJN have a limited numbers of Carriers and Battleships, per se.
      These number might provide a level of individual unit which remain manageable.
      At Pearl Harbor Raid time, there was no more than 8 US Carrier with various aircraft capacity (before Essex was launched) . I noticed that Light Carriers or Escort Carriers were able to carry around 30 aircraft while Fleet was around 90.
      So about one third. For me, this provided the ratio: 1 aircraft on light Carrier, then 3 aircraft sculpt on a US Fleet Carrier.
      So, all sturdier aircraft carriers might just hold two. It works on the table top. The only issue is about TcB scultp. 3 does not hold on a Carrier, but 2 TcB and 1 Fg can be put on a Carrier sculpt.
      If this can be your starting point, then think about 1 aircraft Carrier unit figures for about 4 or 5 Carriers. Take a look at how many Fleet Carriers were available for Japan.
      For instance, 2 US Carriers (for 8 to 10), if IJN gets 5 Carrier sculpt then would signify around 20 to 25 Carriers.
      This might come handy if you want to set an adequate numbers for each sculpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II

      A certain level of abstraction is needed of course but I went with a 2:1 ratio (fleet carriers to light carriers) for flexibility. I am not considering escort carriers as they were not used in fleet to fleet action. Although some could carry 30 aircraft others could carry a lot less and they were not suitable to military operations.

      Pearl Harbour is the next scenario I am intending on “gaming” and it would include 3 Japanese carriers with 6 fighters on top vs 4 American BBs and 2 Cruisers (with a similar conversion of 2 Light cruisers to a single heavy cruiser and DDs abstracted).

      This will be a great balancing scenario I believe as regular Axis and Allies would not be able to give you historical results regardless of what you did (4 BBs would take 8 hits to destroy and would defend on a 4 so fighters would go down faster than anything).

      Regarding damage, a simple solution could be allowing units to retreat battle to absorb hits. So after a round of combat and damage assignment, if there were no hits left to assign and units had their HP depleted, they could chose to abandon the Sea Zone instead of being destroyed. Units in bases would be the exception.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      What ever you feel is historic. Basically you looking for correct hit status based on Divisions or corps like you mentioned. Ground is a different animal a bit.

      hmmmm I am not sure about naval hitpoints. I mean, I keep going backwards and forwards and sometimes I step dangerously close to a CRT… Because I just find the overall attrition rate too high. Star Wars Rebellion does this with the hit markers under each ship but I also find that not very elegant. For instance, things like the sinking of the Bismark or the Hood were not that common and results like the battle of Riverplate were more common, I want there to be a chance of back and forwards and a single battle not being a monumental victory or defeat like game most of the time represents them (kind of because you then get the insane rebuilding economy). What I am trying to achieve (naval for now, land for later) is a sense of strategic warfare like A&A sometimes gives us but other times fails to do.

      Anyway, I am sure I will reach a solution… Not sure it will be as simple as I want it to be.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen It has to do with scale. I Don’t mind the micro so much as long as we can get a more accurate representation of the back and forth of a battle. So far testing has been ok. Haven’t done as much as I wanted but so far I like the results. There is a lot more of backwards and forwards and fleets that might have been defeated will come back and haunt you if you don’t follow through.

      Some of my early findings:
      Submarines 0/1 costing 4 work well. Surprise attack 2 at 2 dmg per hit is also interesting.

      DDs… might lower the overall attack to 1. With their special ASW roll they work as a great hunter killer unit and fleet protection… Although, there is an argument to be made in order to abstract destroyers played this way and just give BBs and CAs inherent DD cover (like WiF does for instance) and use the DD purely as hunter killers and convoy escorts. Like a strategic unit you can place in sea zones that can make the submarine rolls harder.

      Now that is an idea. They wouldn’t count for fleet vs fleet action and only count as ASW units (DDs and CVEs).

      As I was testing, a submarine could get destroyed on a convoy attack as soon as escorts were available but what if with one DD in the same sea area, instead of on a 1, you have to roll a 2? That would increase submarine atrition nicely which was something that I was struggling with (too easy for Germany to just build up inordinate ammounts of subs while not sacrificing resources elsewhere).

      So basically, all sea units would have organic ASW instead of just DDs so when a sub tries to attack a lone BB or a carrier, it has to go through an ASW check and if detected it could be either pushed back or destroyed (will have to test to see what works best. Remmember, each sub is not just one sub so outright destruction might not be the correct way to do it).

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen Hmmmmm… I have issues with that. As I said, I don’t want a single hit to completely remove aircraft. And remember that I am considering that each carrier figure represents 2 fleet carriers or 4 light carriers so capacities are similar. Carriers outside of the US at this scale will have half capacity and maybe an extra hitpoint (because they had armoured decks).

      As I said, I will try this over the weekend and will get some results for Monday.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      Right on. I got ya now. You’re trying to decide how many dudes a unit represents. Kinda ? Anyway, you’ll still use the minatures to represent. Looking forward to what you come up with.

      Yeah. I feel it can make the game more consistent. One thing that always bothered me was the on off combat system for instance where you “killed” a unit in combat in one hit. These units are meant to represent divisions or something (I think corps is the better scale for this game) a division or a corp doesn’t disappear in one hit. And ships being fully destroyed was not that common either and neither were air wings. You could damage it but more likely than not it wouldn’t be all the planes in a wing would be shot down.

      So yeah, trying to make it more consistent and then balancing it around it.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      right on. I kinda got the abstract thing it was the other that threw me. How’s the playtest going ?

      Early days. I hope to get the brunt of it done over the weekend with proper 10k rolls and stuff like that. So far it feels good.

      Submarines seem to be useful for hit and run tactics if they can escape. I ended up choosing for naval scale, BBs represent 2 ships and CVs represent either 4 light carriers or two fleet carriers (so that the air wing size of 100 planes makes sense).

      I am redoing OOB in my spare time for the game as well so we have a more accurate force composition to the situation in 1940.

      Oh and I think only Japanese and American carriers will be able to load 2 air wings at the start too. British and German carriers had quite smaller air wings (but had armoured decks so maybe an extra hitpoint?).

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee Yes, I was asking if they were a real unit ^^

      I was thinking about ways of abstracting them into DD squadrons as a form of general ASW units or fleet destroyers depending on where they were placed.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee Do you explicitly have escort carriers or do you abstract them?

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @SS-GEN Yeah… Did some limited testing. Combat mechanics only, not tried the economical changes. Really liked the new submarines. Did a sneak attack on the British fleet in Scapa flow and sunk a BB (with 2 points of damage per hit and target selection for submarine sneak attack). Subs got caught afterwards and failed an ASW roll so they were sunk. Still, pretty good result!

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee WiF is the best game I never play ^^
      Seriously, the game is very good. But I never play it because, if you think Axis and Allies takes long, WiF, with all bells and whistles, can take literally months. As in LITERAL monthS<— .

      I do still have a copy of 1942 all the way back in Portugal (one of the reasons I sold my Eur+Pacific copy) but that is a bit far away hence thinking about rebuying global. The Anniversary edition looks like a good compromise but of course it starts in 1941 not 1940 and it is a smaller map. Though it has Italy and China which are two powers that make things interesting.

      Basically I want my changes to make Axis and Allies a proper strategic game.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @barnee I am testing using TTS (it is easier to replicate these changes). I did not know of HBG but the map looks amazing. The rules… I have my issues with them (lack of scale consistency being the biggest one). And I want to make these changes to regular A&A so I guess Global it will be (not to mention having to source every single piece for the armies is more work than it is worth… If they ever make bundles I might consider it).

      Not to mention that claiming to have the biggest wargame of the genre when things like WiF (which I own) and War of the Pacific are around… hmmmmm

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      @mAIOR
      I see where you are going. Redesigned developed a Strategic bomber with no combat capacity at 5 IPCs, D6 damage and works quite well, based on various playtest. Tactical bomber replaced it as the actual combat unit, but with a lesser range 4+1 instead of 6+1 with Air Base.

      It can be possible to imagine Subs A0 D0 Cost 5 or 4 with special damage on Convoy.
      What can replace Subs? IJN Subs were not much assigned to sink civilian cargos. US Navy ships were prioritized by Subs, for their demise.
      What kind of naval battle do you see in Atlantic? What will replace combat active units, traditionally U-boats were a major part in it?

      You can still take a surprise attack roll against surface vessels so if you want, you can risk your submarine to do that. Maybe an unescorted BB is spotted or a carrier unaware. Of course attacking a fleet with DDs or a hunter killer group might not be in your best interest but you can do that if you so chose. I am thinking of leaving doctrinal issues for the player including Japanese player choosing to begin using convoy system or target american convoys (maybe a political roll is in order… damn it… You made me think of yet another thing).

      I see the battle of the Atlantic as being a tonnage war as it was in real life. German U-Boats were not really focused on targeting the Royal Navy. Again, if you spot a wild Battleship unescorted, go do your surprise attack and sink it

      I am beginning to regret coming here XD I came here with a few simple ideas and now my test list is already 3 pages long…

      Great ideas though and I see them as being in line with what I want for this game.

      @SS-GEN Very interesting idea. I will try it out. Again, it seems to go in line with what I am thinking for the game. I was thinking in more abstract terms but this is very interesting as in no planned convoy routes and you just do a roll anywhere to see if you find convoys or not. Truth is, sea areas are so large that pretty much all areas in the game board would’ve seen convoys (coming from America, Coming from the med, etc).

      One practical question:
      I was looking to buy a physical copy of Global 1940 again since It is easier to play testing a physical board than it is on a PC screen. However, the Anniversary edition caught my eye. It seems to have most of what I need but it is cheaper and it comes in one box. Do you guys think Global is still worth it (for me the 1940 start date is more interesting but it is not a deal breaker)?

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @SS-GEN That map is awesome!

      Regarding subs:
      Yeah, the idea is that they have no fleet use and are purely strategic weapons. If they can surprise fire at a battleship, they can. But if they get discovered in an ASW sweep, they are gone. I want attrition and for them to be cheap. I honestly tried the idea of naval searches being a thing and it works quite well. Since Britain’s initial fleet survives more often than not. This leads to Germany never being able to get off the back-foot naval wise unless a serious investment is made (and to be fair, this game starts far too late for a proper naval development cycle. We needed a game that would start at least in 1935 or 1936 for Germany to properly invest in a surface fleet but that of course brings other implications and this game is definitely not prepared for that yet).
      I always wanted proper submarine and anti-submarine warfare in this game that would translate the strategic impact of the battle of the Atlantic. D-Day wouldn’t have happened if the German submarines weren’t pushed back and I would love to be able to represent that in this game… For now, I am happy if the battle for the Atlantic becomes one of the main focus for axis players instead of an afterthought.

      EDIT: Regarding history, the Japanese did not use convoys. Hence the success of the American submarine campaign in the Pacific. The way I am thinking of implementing it is really to give a bonus in submarine warfare against the japanese.
      Instead of finding convoys on a 3, it could be on a 4 or even a 5.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @SS-GEN That map is awesome. Where did you get it?

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen All ships will get prices adjusted. I just haven’t worked out other vessels yet. Submarines seem alright on a 3 or 4 cost. Their attrition is also higher. If they are found they will get sunk most often than not.

      But you raised an interesting point. I need to probably lower their attack to zero. Submarines were mostly strategic weapons not operational and a submarine caught in the open by any military vessel was as good as sunk.

      I didn’t read all threads on convoys no. These were ideas I came up with through playing and getting frustrated with the game. I find the convoy boxes that come with the maps really poor. In fact, they are in the worst possible place for subs as they are within air cover range which would make subs extremely vulnerable. As I said, I want to recreate the mid Atlantic gap and force the allies to deal with it or risk suffering moderate boxes (since escorted convoys would be a dangerous beast). I have begun designing some individual faction sheets with space for unit upgrades and I am adding a convoy box there. that way we can have some political decisions that happened in the period in a more abstracted way (convoy for bases).

      @SS-GEN Do tell me more about cargo ships. That was my idea generally. Start with a bunch of counters that represent tonnage (UK fleet had about 30 million tons at war start) and my idea was that you needed at least 1/3rd of that in order not to suffer severe IC attrition and you need to spend IC to replenish it. So it mimicks the having to rebuild your merchant fleet to remain in the war and having the Americans have to provide for the slack for them to build merchant ships AFAP. This will mean that submarines will have a more strategic role. I was actually going to ignore the global convoy boxes as that would be the worst place to hunt for convoys as you would be under the air cover umbrella. You could intercept convoys anywhere in the North Atlantic provided you passed a check to find them and a check to evade escorts that can kill you). DDs as Hunter Killer groups would be another idea for extra ASW (basically abstracting carrier escorts).

      EDIT: Oh, I haven’t thought about other versions… Funilly enough, I sold my Europe and Pacific copies a while ago (just wasn’t playing it and needed the space for other games) and still own my copy of 1942 which I hardly play because (and this is the same issue I have with global hence wanting to structure my house rules in a more concise fashion) it takes way too long for what it offers. I mean, for the time I can play a full A&A game (if I find people to play it with) I can do a game of Twilight Imperium or War of the Ring or Cataclysm…

      The reason A&A pulls me back though… is that it has moments which are just brilliant and unique.

      Like I remmember this 1942 game I played with some friends. I was the USA and I was focusing on Germany. And the Japanese player who was fumbling about the entire game makes this weird move where he moves an Aircraft carrier a cruiser and a couple of DDs with transports to Midway and I was left paralyzed.

      I didn’t have enough strength to outright push him out and he was in striking range of continental US and I needed to deal with that but it was going to take me ages to mass a fleet where I needed it to counter it and of course I could just “waste” a build turn and just build a fleet from scratch to take him out but then the European theater would suffer and then Russia might really get into trouble but if I didn’t the Japanese player could probably reinforce the fleet and make it harder for me to boot him and I needed to reinforce the west coast anyway because he could strike with some half decent force but I also needed to keep pressure on Germany and, and and…

      And that was one of the best gaming moments I ever had. It was borne out of complacency since the Japanese player was not very good and I was in a good position overall but it really felt “strategic” then.
      So I don’t mind if my changes end up adding 2 more hours to a game as long as it keeps me hooked with more moments like this and it feels like there is more choice and player agency to it.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

      However, the Triple A mechanic was done so each TcB and DD gets 1 roll @1 prior to Subs surprise strike to act like active AntiSubmarine patrol both air and sea. If missed, means Subs has passed through the net. And only time DD get their opportunity to fire at them is after Subs revealed themselves through a Surprise attack of torpedos. However, if DD or TcB get a hit during this AS Patrol, it is like a AA gun. Subs are not able to roll at all. It is like they were caught off gard at surface and DD or TcB depth charge and sink them.

      Yeah… My idea for my rework revolved around DD making an ASW check if subs decide to do a surprise attack. If successful, the submarines will be sunk.

      This will tie in with a change to the convoy system as well. I like the convoy system in global but I think it doesn’t represent strategically what the opposing forces were doing.

      I like the idea of having a “convoy” unit representing merchant fleets and have different nations having to contribute to build up that force or risk shortages. The UK had about 30 million tons of cargo capacity at war start and needed about 1/3rd of that capacity at sea to keep fighting at full capacity iirc (They needed around 30 million tons a year of imports so with 1/3rd of the fleet at sea we get about that yearly).

      So I want to have the ability to spend money on convoys and escorts and the uboats reducing that amount with successful attacks. Kind of bringing a bit more of the strategic humpf to this boardgame.

      I like DDs with a 2:2 value as I think it is fitting. Submarines are downgraded to 1:1 but they will also cost a lot less like 4 or even 3.
      Their impact will also be more over time than immediate.

      Sooo many things to try out…

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @SS-GEN Thanks a lot for the info. I don’t want to use different dice than the D6 as one of my points with my mods is that it can be done by anyone (hence wanting to stay away from new sculpts).

      I don’t mind fighters/CAS to be seen as worse than infantry. Frankly, they should be. They should be a force multiplier that can be called upon from further away and temporarily increase the fighting potential of the infantry. If you build more infantry and give the opponent air supremacy then you get punished.

      But I am getting ahead of myself here ^^

      For now I am going to focus on the Naval aspect. Finding fleets, new movement and convoy raiding, revised stats and costs and time to build.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      @baron-Münchhausen Yeah… 1 Might be enough. It depends. It depends on the size of each individual unit. It might be better to give more AA dice to Battleships and carriers since these ships usually had quite a decent AAA complement.

      Aircraft on the other hand (besides strat bombers) are too expensive imho. So it might be interesting to lower their prices.

      Hmmmm…
      Maybe fighter/Cas have a 2:2 value with no malus on air superioriry, TAC a 3:3 but 1 in air to air operations and Strat have no attack value but a defense of 2 in air operations (a box of B-17s was a tough nut to crack).

      Yeah, I think I will playtest these changes as well. Writting a small piece of software so I can make this easy as possible.

      Is there a kind of calculator like this already made? it would save me the trouble.

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mAIOR
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 1 / 3