Posts made by Narvik

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.

@iwugrad:

The Maginot line portion would take out some of the scripting from the original game.  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.  Of course this would be disastrous, as France could then build on their turn.  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.

@iwugrad:

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.

@iwugrad:

1. All Aligned Nations Have Simultaneous Play
This aspect opens up the possibility of some key events.  Also, it makes the game much faster and more enjoyable for some of the patience deficit friends I play with.  The turn order and rules would be:
a.  All Axis aligned nations play simultaneously:  Italy may not attack US/UK/France/Russia on R1.  They may attack neutral, allied neutral, or incorporate Axis aligned nations.
b.  All Allied aligned nations play simultaneously
c.  All neutral countries play simultaneously:  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

….and your suggestion for a house rule was ?

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

Wait    waitttt forrrrr ittttt     waitttttt forrrrrr ittttttt

Now how is that possible ? Germany is not allowed to stack units there after it is taken ?

@ghr2:

What is the russian incentive to take east poland?  What makes taking it better than letting germany deal with the 4 units there?

In the real world, the Russian incentive to take East Poland, Bessarabia, the Baltic and the Finnish borderland, was for protection. They wanted a buffer zone, where they could stop an attacker.

The same should be true in this game. If Russia don’t take East Poland, then the German tanks are one space closer to Moscow. This could be decisive.

I think this thread should be a poll, and that’s IMHO.

I pick nr 3, an initial air to air combat phase before the regular land combat, inspired by both the A&A 1914 game and the SBR dogfight.

My experience is, that if you want other people to play by your houserules, they cant be too alien and strange to the A&A mechanic.

The initial air to air combat phase to gain air superiority before a ground operation is what I figure match and model the real war in the best way. This is how it was. I think all aircrafts should attack on 1, and only fighters should  be allowed to intercept and defend on a 2 or less. Defending Bombers are supposed to be stuck on the airfields, and sittin ducks. Now people must learn to not park their Bombers close to the frontline, and not in a territory that is soon to be attacked. And the Fighter unit will be more distinctive - as a fighter.

But I am not sure this air-to-air should go before naval battles too ?

Maybe differ land and naval combat ?
The air-to-air combat in a territory goes on until total air destruction of one side, and then the land combat can start.
But naval battles are different from fighting on land, so in this case I go for nr 2, Fighters must target enemy aircrafts inside the regular combat phase. Targeting is not alien to A&A, since the Kamikaze fighters have been allowed to target capital ships a long time. So lets say, the Kamikaze is not a fighter, its a Tac bomber. Now all Tac bombers are allowed to target ships, any ship they want. Then Fighters can target any enemy aircraft. And let Heavy Bombers target subs. This makes sense.

Naval battles will be
Subs roll preemptive surprise dice, only blocked by a matching destroyer. Lets just imagine that a single destroyer blocking 1000 subs would be seen as derogatory in the real world.
Then attacking aircrafts roll dice, and target casualties
Then the ships roll dice, owner choose casualties.

This feels correct

Well, we could imagine that an A&A Bomber unit is 50 real Bombers, and an A&A Fighter unit is 500 real fighters. The combat value of a fighter unit represent so much firepower by machine guns and cannons, and the combat value of a Bomber is so much destruction you got from a bomb load

The same with inf. A real German inf division had 4 times more firepower than a Russian inf division, but the A&A inf have the same cost. So since all A&A inf units have the same combat value, its obvious that the German unit represent 100 000 men, and the Russian 500 000 men. You are paying for the firepower, not the numbers of men or planes

OK, now you got 2 +, is that demand enough ?

@Der:

By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?

In that case, Tanks and Mechs should be more efficient in combat and blitzing.

Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1

Before naval and land combat can start, there should be an dogfight phase, that continue until one side retreats his planes or are free of planes, like there is in the A&A 1914 game.

There are two ways to solve this air to air combat phase. The OOB way
Attacking aircrafts roll 1
Intercepting fighters roll 2 or less
in this case defending Tacs and Bombers should not roll, just be sittin ducks and either be taken as casualties or survive to next phase.

The other way is to let all planes keep their set combat values for simplicity, even in the dog fight. In that case, Bombers will be stronger than fighters in dog fight, which is very historical uncorrect.