@Cmdr:
Doubly so since I just thought, why not let Kaitens move during between CM and Conduct Combat moves for America, so they can intercept. Kind of like scrambling for submarines. Perhaps should be limited to 1 sea zone for this move, though Fighters do get 2 moves, out into the sea and back to their landing pad.
Ohmygosh this sounds nothing like a kaiten. It sounds like an uber-sub from WWII fanfic.
I’m very skeptical that your version of the marine is really balanced against your kaiten.
And yes, no one is ever going to build a 6 dollar Marine. It’s hard enough to build tanks. And then what, the BEST trade america is ever going to get, is that when it gets hit by the defender, it can trade a 4 ipc artillery, for a 3 ipc infantry? Lame.
You have trouble building tanks? Jeez. Thats kinda sad.
I think the marine as I propose it would be about as valuable as a tank in an amphib assault. I dont expect anyone to buy a marine just to have a marine, I expect them to use the marine for the specific and for the specific ability it brings to the table. No one would spam my version of the marine (at least they havent so far in the games we have tried) – its a situational unit not meant to replace any of the existing unis, but augment a certain playstyle.
All that said, I could come around to a 5 cost. Hmmm.
@Cmdr:
How so?
Seems pretty balanced, once you add in the Kaitens to rebuff Japan to match America.
Did you read my original post? I state right at the beginning that I dislike an arbitrary increase in attack value for an amphibious assault (and which prompted the post in the first place). I can go into all the historical and tactical hooplah about it, but it boils down to not making any logical sense. Its a poor mechanic for my purposes.
Worse, by your reckoning the kaiten is supposed to balance your mechanic - but that simply adds another rule for a part of the game and history I am uninterested in modeling. I’m very skeptical of the idea that you balance your marine not with cost, but with the introduction of a very fiddly unit. I’m looking to keep this as simple as possible, and the marine/kaiten balance is a lot more complicated and unbalanced than what I am searching for.
@Cmdr:
Marines cost 3, only USA can purchase them.
Special: Marines attack at a 2 or less when conducting an amphibious assault in the Pacific against an island (to include Japan).
Else: Nothing special.
Move: 1
Marines may be paired with Artillery. When paired, Marines attack at 3 or less on the first round.
For each subsequent round, Marines act as per normal Infantry rules.
Yup - that is pretty much the type of Marine that I dislike. Makes little sense and not terribly appropriate for Alpha+2.
@i:
i would say six is way to much, id never buy one costing that much you might as well buy a tank they cost the same, but if they were 4 or 5 it would be much better.
The idea is that they are about as valuable as armor in an amphibious assault. getting that onshore bombardment even after a sea battle is a big deal. So, while they dont have the combat factors of armor – their special ability makes up for their smaller values. The goal is to make a situational unit (attractive when you have an ambphib assault looming and some battleships/cruisers that can help in the combat), not one that is so great that it replaces armor or the INF/ART combo.
Here’s another question to ask:
In an amphib assault what do you want more? A 3 on attack or a 2 on attack preceeded by an onshore bombardment?
I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines. The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assults, didnt ring true to me. Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation? If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”
So, for Pacific40 and Alpha +2 my proposed marine addition is:
Marine
Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1
Cost: 6
Special 1: For every marine unit involved in an amphibious assault the player may use an onshore bombardment even if the bombardment comes from a ship that participated in a battle previously that turn. Thus, if an attacking player has 2 Marines in an attack as well as a battleship and 2 cruisers (and the ships helped clear the way for the amphibious landing), the attacking player gets 2 onshore bombardment attacks (one may not be used since there arent enough marines to get all 3 bombardments).
Special 2: Marines do not benefit from artillery support.
Comments/critiques are welcome. The goal is to make a marine that is tough, and valuable in a unique way to amphibious assaults. The cost is the thing I am having trouble with - and keep thinking a cost of 6 isnt unreasonable. Marines bring a unique ability to the table that is potentially very valuable, so making them cost that much for a aituational benefit seems (possibly) appropriate. Then again, 6 is pretty expensive – maybe 5 would be better?
That’s why I separated china in two forces.
KMT and Mao forces cannot attack or share the same territories.
I also included a partisan rules.
China player can place 1 infantry on a china territory under japanese control.
Thats been something I was toying with as well - how to respresent the Chinese civil war that raged while the IJN was occupying much of the region.
I’ve been toying with a bidding mechanic – where the US and Soviet players make a blind bid at the beginning of the Chinese player’s round to see who gets to build and control China for that turn. I’m not sure how it would work… and think that the extra income the US gets might lead to the Soviet player simply allowing the US control turn-in-and-turn-out. Thats not what I want… I would like a mechanic where the Soviets and US have a friendly competetion to see who controls the Chinese and hopefully lead to a bit of a schizophrenic play-style on the part of the Chinese since they may flip-flop control each turn.
Not sure how to do it, though. Two distinct forces may be the way to go.
To complicated. I also don’t think it is historical. Shagki Shek, (forgive the spelling) never did to good against Japan and his forces often retreated. MAO on the other hand, after the war was well under way did give Japan a run for its money, but they didn’t do all that much deep behind enemy lines.
Your understanding of how Japan and the Chinese fared against one another are very different. Very different.
The NRA was increasing decentralized after 1939 with warlords basically running various regions and promoting partisan activity. The IJN had difficulty controlling and garrisoning China (which was part of the reason they established a series of collaborator governments)… formal battle lines basically evaporated after 1941 especially in the southern regions of China. Both the KMT and the Red Chinese promoted the use of resistance forces, blowing up railways, sabotaging food production, destroying mines… and generally forcing the Japanese to have to fight against a guerrilla force.
I mean, the Red Chinese and KMT thread of a relationship fell apart (finally) in large part because the Communists were co-opting local insurgent forces at a much more successful rate than the Nationalists.
Suggesting that the Chinese didn’t do much behind enemy lines, I think, does a disservice to the efforts that occurred in post-1940 China.
Well, in my perfect world the global game would allow for 2 options: 1 game for 5 Players (each playing the “great” powers) and a game that breaks down to allow for more players/options/phases.
So, it would go something like:
U.S. Player
U.K. Player (including the Commonwealth)
Soviet Player
German Player
Japan Player
If Canada were to be a seperate power in AAE40 I would like them to:
a) have at least 10 IC
b) have a series of NOs for the UK linked to keeping the commonwealth intact. So, As long as Canada, India, ANZAC and S. Africa remain intact the UK gets bonus cash. When one or all fall, their bonus cash (via NOs) evaporates.
That way the designers could allow options for a minor Canada ally while also keeping the UK economically viable (and relaint on its overseas colonies)
No one willing to try this mod out and see if it works for them?
OK, I’ll bite: how do you get 10-15 IPCs?
…and why would the Canadian player/controller place units in Canada unless it was advantageous to them?
My thought is that just about any country is playable at 10+ IC. At 10 IC a lot of purchase options are open. If Canada can make it to 10 IC either through printed values on the map or through a NO bump, then they could be ally to the US and UK.
With 10 IC I could, as Canada I could be building transports each turn and using my starting forces to shuttle over to the UK. I could build a fighter and send it over to the UK or N. Africa. I could build a couple subs over a couple of turns to help sway the battle in the Atlantic.
Basically, with 10 IC Canada has the ability to compliment the Allies plans or reinforce deficencies. So, yeah, get to 10 IC and Canada is viable IMO.
I think that your ideas work better with this game then the similar set that had been crafted for the original AAP. I think that a combination of your new deployment rules, and my alt setup would make China a far more entertaining, important, and historical (always a plus with me :-D) power to play.
Doing both my mod and your add’l troops? Yeesh, that may be a bit much. We’ve had the Japanese player have a bit of a slog in China with only our tweak - add in extra units from set-up and China might become a fortress. :-o
I like it. :-D
I remember years ago a similar set of rules of the orignal A&AP dealing with the gurrilla arimes in China. I have an alternate starting set-up for the Chinese as well, it dosnt dramatically change things or involve the introduction of new game concepts. It dose give the Chinese a bit more focre to start and was really deisgned to stall a J1 attack on the allies. Japan could still advance when and where it wanted to, but it would need to be a more concentrated push then before. I just posted it in the threat Balanced! if you want to check it out or I can post it here.
I saw your rules in the Balanced thread - we may try those out next. I fully accept that my tweaks to China aren’t as elegant as adding more units or going the bid route – but they do make playing China a fundamentally different play experience than commanding as one of the other powers (which is a good thing, IMO).
So, yeah, I like the idea of adding units to China as a way to forestall the Japan push into China, but these proposed rules do the same thing while also changing the tactics and approach to the game by both China and Japan. Same goal for both rules tweaks, different methods for getting there.
This is a balance rules change my group has played with a couple times and had success with. I’d appreciate if someone else out there with some time on their hands would try out the these new China rules and check to see if they offset the Japanese. Its worked in our little group, but as I am pretty sure we are the only A&A players in central Africa I have a limited player base to work with and I want to see if other metas get the same result.
We modified the following rules with the assumption that:
Japan is too strong and their military superiority + potential IC advantages need to be offset and
China isn’t the tarpit it should be
So, we have played with this rule:
China’s turn sequence is modified from that presented in the AAP40 rulebook. In China’s case the turn sequence is now:
1. Mobilize new units
2. Combat move
3. Conduct Combat
4. Noncombat Move
5. Collect income
6. Purchase Units
As you can see, steps 1, 5, and 6 are modified. China now must purchase units and sit on those purchased units in the muster area while all the other players take their turns. Its only when China’s next turn comes around that they may place the units they purchased last turn. Additionally, newly mobilized Chinese INF (and only INF) may be placed on ANY Chinese-marked territory (a territory with the Chinese national symbol). This means that the China player may place newly mobilized units in territories occupied by hostile forces. If China places newly mobilized INF in a hostile territory it is considered a combat move – those units can no longer move and must resolve their combat as normal in phase 3.
This also modifies the very beginning of the game. After starting IPCs are passed out to the players, but before Japan takes their first turn, China has to announce their build for the coming first turn. After China declares their build and places the appropriate pieces in the muster area, play starts as normal.
In play, the modifications to China have led to Japan having to dedicate more resources to the Chinese front. If determined, Japan will still overrun China – but now that progress takes 1 or 2 turns longer. China has the option of screwing with the Japanese behind their lines, popping 3 or 4 INF in unguarded or lightly guarded territories. This, in turn, forces the Japanese to slow any rapid gains in China with bolstering their back lines with 1 or 2 INF to dissuade the China player from “surprise insurrections.” Japan can no longer throw everything they have at the Chinese on turn 1 because leaving places like Kiangsu and Shantung undefended is a very bad idea. Garrisons become very important to the Japanese player. The moderate drain on IC and resources the Japanese would certainly like to get to India or the Pacific has helped counterbalance their other advantages.
And finally, its fun, as the Chinese player, to pop 3 INF into Chahar (or whereever) after the Japanese have moved on to see if you get lucky and can roll a couple 1s to eliminate the garrison.
So, there ya go. Like I said, my little group of 4 players has had good fun with the rule and it seems to help balance the Japanese – but would appreciate it if someone else could try it out. Let me know how it goes.
But it is better to force Japan to spread its DDs over several SZs so that more subs can attack them afterwards. It will increase J losses regarding cost of units.
Oh, I am not suggesting spreading out SSs is a bad idea, but that concentrating the SSs also has its advantages - not the least of which is that you could potentially do a lot of IC damage off the coast of Japan. I mean, thats 11 IC printed on the map right there. The ability to target all that IC, even for a turn, is quite juicy.
cant keep all the subs in one sz. jap will send 1 dd and lots of planes and wipe out all subs in 1 attack. have to keep all subs spread out, force jap to spread out her dd’s.
Not at all. If Japan sends just one or two DDs and a bunch of planes the subs have a good chance to survive. Remember, the subs allocated their hits against the DDs, not against the fighters. So under most normal circumstances the Japanese would only get one round of shooting. The subs would survive, especially if you have more than 5 of them sitting off the coast of Japan.
To really get the subs the Japanese player would have to allocate either a ridiculous amoutn of aircraft to ensure they can kill5+ units in the first round (thats a lot of aircraft) or allocate a lot of other forces (BBs, CAs). Even then, the efficiency by which the subs do their thing would force the Japanese to allocate considerable forces to defend the homeland - forces that the Japanese player would probably like to use elsewhere.
Not a fan of the idea. Bottom line, Canada as an independent power will make the UK less interesting to play. There is already a profusion of new powers to keep the Allies schizophrenic, an indy Canada doesn’t bring anything new to the table.
i am beginning to think that the way to beat jap is with subs. lots of em. 3each turn with the US, and if anzac/uk can spare the 6ipc, have them build some too. start blockading jap convoys. just use 1 sub in each sz. jap will have to buy so many dd’s to kill off the subs, it will slowly bleed them to death. that is unless they go full bore for india.
What about US sub spam, stage in Hawaii, and if the Japanese player isn’t looking, rush them into the waters around Japan? A force of 5+ subs in Japanese waters will do a lot of IC damage. If its a concentration od just subs, the Japanese player may have a devil of a time dislodging them. Its not going to win the war, but it might help swing the balance or at least force the Japanese into a defensive stance.