Narvik, thanks for your input! Unfortunately I can’t seem to find this Plottet variant. I’m very interested. Could you post a link, please?
The file is for members only, so you need to register and log in at Boardgamegeek.
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/57257/plottet
try this link
If you go to Boardgamegeek and look under the A&A Classic edition, there is a variant named Plottet A&A, copyrighted by Greg Turner, and it have exactly the rules that you are discussing over here. The file even have notepads that you can print out, makes the plotting phase go faster. But you should keep in mind, it was made for the Classic edition that had only two land units, Tanks and infantry, and no destroyer.
You could write 4 Inf, 2 Tanks to Ukr, from Ge.
But used in Global 40, with so many units, and so many spaces to move, and 8 players, well….enough said
But at Harrisgamedesign, the guy that invented A&A, it was a discussion about a semi-simultaneous mechanic a few years ago, that looked promising and simple to resolve.
Each player wrote down their combat moves, and how much IPC they are willing to pay to make it happen. If its a tie, roll a dice.
Ex
German army in Poland want to attack Balticum and pay 5 IPC to do so.
Russian army in Balticum want to attack Poland and pay 2 IPC to do so.
Germany won the bid, pays 5 IPC and do the attack.
With this system, the combat will be resolved in the OOB way, with an attacker and a defender.
. Â So another possibility could be that Germany could decide whether to take Italians, Japanese, or Germans as casualties in a joint operation and Russia could decide whether to take their own or their ally. Â
this is exactly the same problem as you get when you attack a territory or seazone with defenders from several nations. Best way to solve is let Germany and Italy be played by the same person, and USA, France and UK by the same person. Unless you really want a 8 player game.
I think the way to approach this is for all players to resolve their moves in secret (independently of the enemy side) and then all reveal their moves at once.
I love to play Diplomacy, and it use this system. It work because you can only have one unit in a territory at the same time. Using this system in A&A have been playtestet many times, they nicknamed it #Write an Essay# and it is complicated. If you look up the MB Classic at BBG, you will find some house rules using this system. If you buy A&A Guadalcanal, it has an optional naval rule using this system. Both players wrote down on paper the naval moves, and then try to resolve it. The fans turned it down, and that was the easy edition with two player, imagine 8 players writing down moves for hundreds of units. Be my guest
I agree with knp77, Liners should take infantry only. Too much trouble to carry a Tank down the stairs.
I read about this topic some years ago. An infantry division would need more space than an armored division. An inf div have more men. Also, the 1000 horses and tons of hay of an infantry div take lots of more space than the 200 trucks and fuel of an armored div. And that is the reason for that USA in the real war sent so many motorized and mechanized divisions to Europe, they took less space on the trannies. And in the Pacific, the Marine units did not need horses, they got supply directly from the ships.
I read on the Designers forum some years ago, the reason a tranny take one inf and one other land unit, is the designer was afraid that the USA player would stop buying infantry if a tranny could take two Tanks. So, the rational was playability, not historical facts.
About the doubblehits. Bismarck took 800 hits from guns and torpedos and still did not sink, the crew had to open the bottom valves. Tirpitz got bombed and torpedoed many times, and after the last bombing she was so damaged they cut her up for scrap metal, but she never sank. This are the true battleships. As mentioned above, Lusitiana sank by one torpedo, and even Titanic sank by one iceberg. Liners are not unsinkable.
I think that some nations should start with a few liners, since they in fact were confiscated at the beginning of the war. No liners was build during the war.
USA, UK and Ge start with liners. Move 2, carry 3 units, infantry only, debark into friendly territory and during non-combat move only, sink by one hit
I believe the two hits in attack are to model the Panzer attack where Tanks breakthrough the line as a shock wave, surround the enemy and cut the supply line, and make the defending enemy surrender. This way of maneuver warfare would give less casualties to the attacker, compared to the classic infantry charge and artillery barrage, which was a real meat grinder to the attacker.
But when that is said, dug in Tiger tanks defending were in fact hard targets, they were bunkers on wheels with a big gun, so maybe the two hits should be when defending too ?
My experience with house rules are that some people have difficult to accept new abilities to classic units. So maybe the only way is to introduce new units, and keep the old ones at the current system. In that case, the current Tank cost 6, A3 D3 move 2 and Blitz. Then a new heavy Tank cost 8, A4 D4 move 2 and take two hits to kill. This make sense
Next issue.
No Flash, I don’t think Tanks that just were in combat in the first territory got enough power to continue into next territory and keep on fighting. Most of them would have broke down and need to spend some time in the workshop to be fit for next battle. They could need to change tracks for sure. Refuel. Reload. etc.
In the real war, the battle would start with infantry and artillery that engaged the defenders, and make them stuck in combat. Then, when the weak spot was identified, fresh Panzer units that had been kept in reserve, would smash trough as a shock wave and take the fight to the next territory. That is how I imagine it.
Bottom line, Tanks and Mechs that were not used so far, can blitz through newly captured territory and attack the next one. Smooth and don’t violate the classic A&A engine too much.
Netherland and Belgium are together? Not seperated?
Of course, a playable map cant have too many small territories
The basic movement values of land units should be wrecked, because it is nonesense.
All thse units moved at the same rate - that of the trains carry them. When they detrained, it probably took the tanks longer to reach the front than the infantry as they’d have to be offloaded, reassembled (too big to ride trains assembled), fueled and maintainanced; the PBI could jump off trains and march strait to the battle zone. As I said, armoured units can be given an extra breakthrough move after combat to balance the loss of movement points inherant in their cost. Although, frankly, I’ve always considered MI a unit too many, while you can do many things to make tanks more powerful.
I totally agree with the unlimited non combat movement for land units.
Let Tanks absorb two hits like it do with the 1914 rules.
Let Tanks blitz through newly captured territories.
Ex. 4 inf, 1 art, 4 Tanks and 2 Mech start in territory A.
The 4 inf and 1 art capture territory B.
The 4 Tanks and 2 Mechs blitz through newly captured territory B and combat move into territory C.
No more need for another player as can opener. This will be historical correct blitzkrieg.
Now Germany must make an historical correct decision. Go through neutral and light defended Belgium, or frontal against the heavy stacked Maginot Line. The heavy gun in bunker take two hits to kill, just like a battleship, and defend on a 4 or less.
The Maginot line portion would take out some of the scripting from the original game. Â It’s possible that if you get too ambitious (wanting to conquer Normany/Bordeaux in R1, conserve more men for an early Russian attack, or allocate too much air power to destroying the British fleet), you may fail to conquer France on R1. Â Of course this would be disastrous, as France could then build on their turn. Â With that possibility, it makes this portion of the game more intense and less scripted.
The Global 40 map is wrong, it should be based on the A&A Europe 1999 edition map. So I made a suggestion for an improved map, where France proper, with industry, ports and airfields, are protected by buffer territories.
.jpg)
That’s certainly something to watch out for: so the question would be “Is this scripted?”. Â
Don’t take me wrong, I love your effort to make it more historical correct. But I don’t think scripted rules are the way to go.
With scripted rules, I talk about Italy is not allowed to attack UK in turn 1. Why ? What on earth would stop Mussolini from attacking Egypt in 1939 if that was what he wanted to do ? Not some rules in a book, that for sure. In the real war, Italy did not attack Egypt in 1939 because they was bussy elsewhere, not because some rule told them not to do it. If you don’t want Italy to attack Egypt in turn 1, then make Italy weak and Egypt strong, then that attack wont happen, but by rational cases, not by rules.
The other issue I got with you, is the Maginot line. Now Germany is not allowed to attack directly into France, they must go through Belgium because that is historical correct. I hate that kind of scripted rules. If you want a Maginot line, why don’t make it ? Buy the Blockhouse units and minefields tokens from HBG, and place them at the German border. Now Germany will suffer if they make a frontal attack against Blockhouses and minefields. So maybe they move through Belgium, by choice and not because of scripted rules
@CWO:
Another consideration is that the concept of having all the Axis players take their shot simultaneously (while the Allies are in purely reactive mode), then having the reverse situation occur, goes against the house rule’s stated objective of achieving greater historical realism. WWII wasn’t fought that way; for the most part, both sides kept “making their moves” simultaneously throughout the war, though of course not with uniform levels of intensity.
I don’t agree. The western allies USA, UK, ANZAC, Canada and France all had the same objective, to capture Berlin, Rome and Tokyo, and end the war. And troops from all allies did cooperate close in operations from start to end. Even in complex operations as amphibious landings. Ships, planes and troops from UK, France and Poland cooperated in the amphibious attack at German occupied Norway in 1940. Ships, planes and troops from USA, UK, Canada, France and Poland did cooperate in the Normandy landings in 1944. So yes, I believe simultaneous moves are historical correct. I cant imagine USA would attack Normandy alone in the real war, then get kicked out by the Germans next week, then next week UK would attack Normandy alone, and next week get kicked out by Italian units. But then, France would attack Normandy alone, but they don’t get kicked out, because now Germany and Italy were too tired ? So next week Canadian troops can reinforce Normandy easily. And the week after that, some Polish troops. Then USA troops, but now Germany would be ready to attack again. This don’t make sense to me.
Germany and Japan may have different objectives, that is correct, but they play on separate maps. Why cant Germany move units into Ukraine in the same turn that Japan is moving units into Hawaii ? If it is time saving, then why not ? If Japan don’t want to attack Hawaii before he see how the Ukraine battle turns out, then he can just attack something else while he wait. No big problem.
1. All Aligned Nations Have Simultaneous Play
This aspect opens up the possibility of some key events. Â Also, it makes the game much faster and more enjoyable for some of the patience deficit friends I play with. Â The turn order and rules would be:
a. Â All Axis aligned nations play simultaneously: Â Italy may not attack US/UK/France/Russia on R1. Â They may attack neutral, allied neutral, or incorporate Axis aligned nations.
b. Â All Allied aligned nations play simultaneously
c. Â All neutral countries play simultaneously: Â For R1, this is the U.S. and Russia if they haven’t been attacked.
I believe this can work, but rather suggest this >
a. All Axis aligned nations play simultaneously. This is Germany, Italy and Japan.
b. USSR play. This is Russia and a possible Red China.
c. All western Allied nations play simultaneously. This is UK, France, USA, ANZAC and Nationalist China.
USA must play in the Allied group even when neutral, he just don’t take part in combats as long as neutral. USA was never a true neutral, it sent LendLease to UK from day one.
True neutral major nations like Spain, Turkey and Sweden are not players, they just sit there until attacked.
Now I think this is more historical correct than the other suggestion.
I don’t believe simultaneous play will break the balance in the big picture. It will save time for sure, and take away some dead time when five players drink cola and watch TV while one guy makes his moves. I believe it will enhance the game.
But because simultaneous play take away the classic can opener moves, we must add a new Blitz rule. Tanks and Mechs may blitz through any enemy territory that is free of enemy units. Even newly captured territories. But land and air units that is used in this breakthrough attack can not have taken part in any other combat moves this turn. It must be fresh units. This will replace the classic can opener, where two Italian tanks killed the lonely Russian inf in Ukraine, and next a huge German tank stack would blitz through. Now that was not historical correct, but this will be.
and I miss selfpropelled artillery for all nations
The issue with this kind of variants is the game get scripted. Do you want to reenact the historical correct war step by step, or play a game ?
@coachofmany:
All UK Pre-Orders have Shipped, if you did not receive an email confirmation, email us on our website and give us the order number and your name and we will find out for you.
Thank you.
I live in Norway and have not yet got any email confirmation, should I email you ?
If we look at the modern naval history from 1870 to today, I don’t think there was any naval battle that kept on fighting until all ships on one side were sunk. In most cases, the weakest fleet would try to escape ASAP. But according to the A&A rules, the defending fleet is stuck. IMHO its a mistake to treat naval battles in the same way as combat on ground. I don’t think ships at sea could be clearly defined as attacking or defending in the same way as armies on land. Ships sail out at sea, spot the enemy, fight a duel, and then the weak part try to escape. There are no trenches at the sea, no dug-in ships, no borders, just plain water. Naval battles are pure maneuver warfare. Except port attacks. Only ships at port should be defending.
Suggestion.
On your turn, you want to attack some ships in a seazone in the middle of Atlantic, and some ships in a seazone adjacent to a territory, with or without a port.
Lets start with the naval battle in the middle of Atlantic. Maybe there should be a search roll. If the attacker win, then the naval battle start. If the defender win, he may retreat before combat.
Or without a search roll. Everybody must participate in one round of battle, but after each round are finished, both attacker and defender may choose to continue attack or retreat.
But if you attack ships in a seazone that is adjacent to a territory, that ships are considered to be at port, and in that case they are stuck and can not retreat to any place
It was never a problem for Battleships to retreat, just lay a smoke screen, then full ahead. Happened all the time.
And yes, destroyers were fast in calm sea. But a Battleship could sail at high speed no matter how bad the weather was, storm, high waves, wind etc.
It is correct that Carriers preferred destroyers as escort, and not Battleships. The reason is, the planes being the fist of a carrier group, but they need close support protection against subs and MTBs, and a destroyer got better ASW capabilities than a huge Battleship. So no need for a Battleship in a Carrier group. Has nothing to do with speed or range. In fact, the battleship makes for a better habitat to live in for sailors in long time operations at sea.
Great thinking, the black water from A&A Revised ed comes to mind