Hey Chris, I am working with Bud on the rules and we are close to doing a launch. We hope to hear feedback. Our play test is going well with many interesting twists and turns. It is quite different than what actually happened but also plausible. With a complex gaming system, the play testing constantly provides us with new scenarios that we have not thought of before. That is the challenge but also the fun of it.

We have to keep in mind that this is a strategic-level gaming system and despite my attraction of individual tactics and scenarios, some of those are just out of the scope of the game.

Thanks for asking and we hear you loud and clear!

We will keep everyone posted about the final testing phase of this and then get the rules out. It is important to keep in mind that this will not be a “play in the afternoon” type of game but more or less like an RPG that is on-going. It will not be decided in three turns.

We broke down and finally added light tanks too. Just remember the roll to hit on the D20 represents “combat power” which can include a variety of things: quality of unit, tactical leadership, communications, logistics, training and tactical doctrine, etc. It is not “this was a better tank” and so it this piece should be higher. There are many factors that go into combat power.

@sophiedog2:

Have you considered bombing of fortresses and a separate artillery phase, like in inasion of italy?

In terms of bombing fortresses - absolutely we have this as a strategic-phase action which goes before the tactical phase. In terms of artillery, we have considered an artillery phase but due to this being a strategic level game, we have included artillery along with all ground units in that attack or defense. We do have where improved artillery can pinpoint and select targets.

Thanks for asking. We are getting ready to launch the new rules version.

@rohr94:

For facility bombing and saturation bombing do you have escorts and intercepting?  just in general how do you do these two strategic attacks?

We are revamping the sequences here. In short we do have these rules. For saturation this is one of the missions we have. We are adding reconnaissance as a type of air mission in naval battles (remember Strawberry 5 in Midway finding the Japanese Navy?) I know it has been awhile since we have posted but we have play-tested a version but have needed to make some revisions. We are adding new weapons development and timetables for producing units (as suggested by you and others) as well as a few new types of units (militia/auxiliaries) and medium bombers. We are increasing maritime movement. We are adding weather as a significant factor (after all weather played a factor in countless engagements including D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and Stalingrad and Russia in general).

The hardest part is set-up. Not every unit listed in the beginning of the game is mobilized on the board. Some of it is in process. The French army is not quite ready. They boast 5,000,000 in Reserves but these will be designated as auxiliaries and not as good. These nuances will help with the realism in determining combat power. We are adding Industrial complexes in the US as well as railroads in Europe.

We are typing this up. What will be needed to play is Global 1939 with all the necessary parts.

@rohr94:

three more things.

1. what kind of map changes did you find necessary?  i have heard several people talking about the way turkey is divided up, and just based on historical knowledge i have of the region i could see a different design making sense.  i personally so far have divided western poland into 3 zones to better deploy the polish armies to their respective historical regions.  in addition i’ve divided reims into three zones, east reims, i.e. the maginot line section, the ardennes section which is where the main german mechanized advance occurred because french and british theoreticians didn’t believe a large mechanized force could make an assault through the dense woods, and west reims where the bulk of the french forces were located to advance into the low countries where it was believed the Germans would attempt to recreate the schlieffen plan from the first world war. these are the only territory modifications i’ve made so far because i havent set up my game and looked at what areas need to be adapted to better suit a 1 month turn.

2)  i realized that earlier when i mentioned counter battery fire and you asked a question about how often this happened i never replied. i personally am a history major at UMBC and my area of interest is military history in the first half of the twentieth century.  I’ve read a lot more scholarship on the first world war compared to the second one. and just based on both German and allied powers artillery doctrine from that war, counter battery fire was very important and for the Germans very successful. so i dont think that allowing for counter battery fire in the strategic phase at a lower combat value then what artillery usually fire at in the tactical phase would be too far off.  the lower combat value would represent the increased difficulty in firing at hidden artillery positions compared to infantry in the open.Â

3)  my goal in trying to develop these rules is much like yours.  i want to create a game that is fun but where events in the war can actually occur.  my main issue with the current a & a game is that france always gets pwned which isn’t very accurate.  the guderian thrust towards the channel could have just as easily been thwarted by allied efforts. however the french government believed that all hope was lost, and in churchills eyes he’s not going to continue to help defend a government that has already given up.  hence the allied retreat at dunkirk.  so i think to accurately represent these kinds of issues political situations would have to be very in depth.  i also was toying with the idea of grand army movements.  so for example you could attempt an encirclement movement and if successful an entire army could be either captured or prevented from retreating and hence completely destroyed.  i think success would have to be determined by a dice role which would be effected by certain modifiers both positive and negative.  what do you guys think of this kind of idea.

p.s. sorry for the rambling nature of my posts.

These are great ideas. I will examine the map changes you refer to when I get a chance. I could see that spacing may be a problem though I like the Ardennes idea. Those nuances are important. You certainly know your history. I can see why you say the things you do because of the study of military history. Most of my own studies centered on the Eastern Front. As Tigerman77 indicated, realism and playability do not always mix unless you have the time and space to leave the game set up and return to it. It does take days!

We address the grand army movement in terms of encirclement with surrender roles. If a territory is surrounded and attacked by one who wins the initiative, there is a greater propensity to surrender for the defender. Generals and air power also affect surrender roles as well. Recreating France with its military power is so difficult, because we all know they could have put up a better fight than they did. We may need to address morale as another factor to add to the mix. Thanks for your important contributions.

Tigerman77 you are correct. I know that for many, AA needs to be completed in a long afternoon as the game is designed. However, Bud T and I leave the game set up and come back to it week by week. This is simply unrealistic for many. There are ideas about establishing victory conditions for shorter gaming. However, as we continue to play-test these rule changes it is quite enjoyable. It is almost a new genre of board gaming in some sense, much like when someone does campaign mode on the Xbox and comes back to it when they have time. They save where they left off. The complexity allows for much variation in play. One will never play the same AA game twice! Thanks for your input and your achievement in the map.

I am the “other designer” for this working group on the Alternate Version with Bud T. Thanks for the many questions and comments on this board that help us develop these rules. I think the Global AA map is an excellent start. The alterations we have suggested are key: terrain, a few spaces added in land areas, and some adjustment of sea spaces. We have altered the movements of ships for combat vs. non-combat movement to address realistic timeframes.

One area of concern for us is this: can planes and ships during a month complete a strategic mission AND a tactical mission on the player’s turn? In other words is there evidence that a bomber group based in England did strategic bombing raids and then perhaps went on a sub-hunting tactical mission in the SAME month? Right now we have gone back and forth with having a strategic mission OR a tactical mission but not both. We tried having both and it was not a great example because in our current test two of the countries have heavy bombers which were very advantageous to use in both a strategic and tactical manner.

It is hard to determine the size of a “bomber plane” on the AA board. We perhaps consider the plane to be approximately 500-1000 planes depending on quality, pilots, types, etc. If any of you find some historical examples, let us know.

Game set-up is a huge issue for us right now. The problem is that the game will never completely recreate World War 2 as it was. The idea of “Blitzkrieg” is very suspect in 1939 and even in France and Russia in 1940-41. German armor was of poor quality in the beginning of the war. It is hard to translate this into “tank” pieces on a board. Russia had 19000 armored vehicles in 1939. But in game terms this is not 19 tanks or even 10 tanks. The T-26 was not a great tank nor was the BT5 or even the KV1. The T28 was better but was slow. But German armor was not that good either. PZI’s and II’s and even III’s were not that effective. The Czech armor was better. But a “tank” on the board has a number of factors we are considering: number, tank design, mobility, range, skill of crew including leadership, communications, logistics, and especially tactics. In the beginning of the war in 1941 the Soviets fielded large numbers of tanks but lacked critical areas. So did the French (like not having radios in their tanks). German tactics and training and especially leadership (who can compete with Heinz Guderian?) were a large factor in Wehrmacht success.

During the Winter War with Finland, it took the Soviets at least 4 months (4 turns) to really take the small area east of Helsinki and maybe a northern part. They had 600,000 casualties. The Finns about 65,000. Recreating this in game terms but unit placement in the beginning of the game is one of our greatest challenges.

There are peculiar aspects as to actually what happened in the War that may be just lucky instances that are hard to recreate in the game. Almost 2.5 million Soviets surrendered in 1941. This is almost as many men as the US put in Europe in the entire war (combatant and non-combatant).

One other thing: what do you guys think of this? Mobile artillery gives infantry OR tanks +1 on offense? Tanks attack on 4. Too much?

The balance between realism and playability is always a factor in Axis and Allies. Bud T and I think we have struck a good balance.

The best part of the new system being developed is that due to strategic and tactical initiative, you will never play the same game twice. There will never be static “moves” that previous masters have developed because the game will change due to turn order and the variables in dice-rolling. This is an advantage to players of all levels of mastery. Sure, the set-up for each game is generally the same but outcomes will always be different.

Realism is key. Terrain matters. Sometimes units surrender. Generals in the field make a difference. Weather is a factor. Industrial complexes can be destroyed.

We are playtesting now and should have more updates soon.