Rounding out the cities on the map, which will be small(ish) circles.
DK, may I ask how you added roundels to the map? I’ve found a few online, but the resolution is ruined when I try to paste them into Paint or PhotoShop. They also usually come with white or dark backgrounds that must be removed or painted over.
DK, by helping me out in Photoshop, you just made my year. I’ve been trying for months to figure out how to make my draft map print-ready. Thanks again!
So long as nobody has to play those nations, complaints are at a minimum. :)
Caesar Seriona, the transports were revised to have 0 defense because otherwise it is possible to build so many transports that other ships become worthless. Build enough transports, and the odds will ensure that you hit hard every round of combat. Argothair taught me that.
One solution I came up with, borrowed (I think) from HBG’s 1936 Global, was for transports to have a single shot against attacking aircraft but no naval defense. This discourages lone fighters from trying to pick off large fleets.
Terrific stuff! I am adapting some of your rules, along with the rules layout, for my games as well. I also love (and subscribe to) your YouTube channel.
How did you figure out how to properly scale the map for printing? I have got a map of my own but can’t determine how to figure out proper dimensions so that it will scale to the right size when printed in a larger scale.
Great discussion topic.
Some thoughts below from my recent implementation of a Global War variant.
As usual, both Argothair and CWO Mark are on-target. In light of similar concerns, I’ve developed and tested a number of new mechanics to make naval warfare more interesting and useful.
First, convoy zones are boxes out at sea rather than in coastal zones that can be easily defended by aircraft. A player that wants to prevent convoy raiding must devote naval units to defending these boxes, which represent merchant sea lanes.
Second, aircraft stats are revised so that each unit has separate attack and defense factors for ground/sea and air targets. Players declare which targets their air units are attacking or defending against before each round of combat. Fighters are medicore ground attackers, whereas tactical bombers excel in that role but have a measley 1 defense against aircraft on a 1d10.
Third, I added significantly more sea zones and adjusted movement capabilities so that the greater relative speed of cruisers and destroyers gives them added versatility over heavier battle wagons.
Fourth, I added both Naval Combat Search and Evasion mechanics. Would-be attackers must first search for enemy vessels in a hostile sea zone before combat occurs. On a failed search, both players occupy the same space but nothing happens that turn. A search can be improved by bringing along air units, especially sea planes. Evasion works in reverse: a player seeking to move through a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat must perform an Evasion, with bonuses granted to submarines.
Naval Combat Searches add a terrific element to gameplay because they impose greater risks on those who choose to attempt combat without imposing too steep a cost (since an attacking fleet would presumably have the advantage over a putative defender in the first place).
Fifth, I added an AA mechanic to cruisers and battleships, which now fire against enemy air units on a paired basis, hitting on a 3 or less. If a cruiser is in company with a capital ship, it can Support, raising both unit’s air defense values to 4.
Sixth, I gave carriers an anti-air defense of 3 but zeroed out their defense against other sea units.
Seventh, I added battlecruisers, which are superior to cruisers but weaker than battleships in terms of defense values (6/5 versus 6/7). Battlecruisers may move 2 spaces, while battlecruisers move 3, cruisers move 3, and destroyers move 4. Fleet carriers move 2, whereas escort carriers move 1.
I may have mentioned it previously, but I will be bringing my new unit rules, plus the new setup, along with the HBG Global War and Global War 1936 maps, to NashCon next week.
Ichabod, you are correct that even Axis & Allies Global 1940 2e is at the Strategic or Operational level of warfare, depending on where one looks. You get things like army groups and fleets in some territories, but independent commands below the division level in others (e.g., Hong Kong at game start).
I have decided to accept board clutter as the cost of adding so many new things. I am working on a much larger 4’x10’ map to partially offset this.
From the strategic perspective, you are correct that the new unit rules are an awkward mix of operational- and tactical-level factors for a game that, overall, tries to be strategic. Again, since the objective is to play with more little plastic pieces, I’ve accepted the risk.
Neat idea about minors receiving weaker or less mobile pieces to reflect older equipment and lower standards of training.
The map is still in flux. I misjudged how much work would need to go into developing something of high quality.
While we have a draft prepared on MSPaint, I’m not sure how to determine what resolution is appropriate for printing. The immediate next step will be to figure that out, then print on very cheap paper and play some games as a proof-of-concept for both the rules and territory placement.
The MSPaint draft, when compared to a .gif of the Global War map, is significantly smaller in size. Does anybody have any ideas about how to proceed?
Another option, and one I’d like to implement, is just to buy a very large fold-out map of the world and draw borders and sea zones by hand. I am totally open to that, but I’ve been unable to find such a map.
If you really consider to give a defense value to a Tranny, then we are back to the classic A&A issues. There will be no reason to buy surface warships. I only need to buy a stack of Trannies, and all the one eyes they roll will sink all the attacking battleships, for a cost of some cheap Trannies. This is the reason that A&A Trannies have no defense today. And even worse, if Trannies got a defense value, you can use them as cheap fodder. There are no excuse for a unit with combat value to be taken last as casualty. A game changer
That’s a terrific observation. I think, on that basis, they can be reduced to 0. I certainly don’t want roving wolfpacks of transports.
1. ARTILLERY - I think regular artillery and self-propelled artillery should attack at the same die level. The increased cost for self-propelled artillery should only be a direct reflection of the 1 extra movement point.
From a realism perspective, the guns are normally the same caliber. Only when you get to the category of “Heavy Artillery” are they required to be pulled and are rarely motorized.
think if you say you had two types of artillery, regular OOB, and self-propelled, you could add an extra 1 IPC purchase cost. I thought about doing this for Axis and Allies Global 1940 2nd edition. It would fill the empty 5 IPC slot. Just like mech, I’d say that self-propelled artillery could blitz when paired with a tank.
You won me over with the argument on caliber. I had originally looked at it with the perspective that a more mobile gun was necessarily more effective tactically as well as strategically, but I think they can be put on par. Gives folks more reason to buy Heavy Artillery.
I am also happy for SPG to be allowed to blitz with armor.
2. TOO MANY CATEGORIES: I think 3 categories of artillery is a lot. You only have 2 categories of armor. 5 categories of infantry is not worth it. How about normal infantry and marines but with a paratrooper rule. That’s plenty? I suggest only 2 categories of infantry, artillery, and armor (if you so desire to add that extra layer of complexity). Otherwise, I think the board would get too busy with 3 different types of each. Global 40 is already very busy on the board as it is.
Variety is a basic objective of mine.
3. PLANE TYPES: What is the difference between a “Pursuit” and a Fighter? Is it really necessary to differentiate and add another category? I thought the normal 3 categories were plenty (fig, tac, bomb). At the same time, I always thought perhaps another plane type, transport, could make for some interesting roles like dropping paratroopers or transporting infantry to a forward location. So, I do like how you listed Transport Plane as another plane type.
Minor nations start with Pursuit Planes. Major nations start with Fighters.
That is indeed how I intended supply columns and fleet trains to work – locally.
Transport ships were historically slow, so I need to keep them at 1 or 2 speed.
I really appreciate all the feedback. Special thanks to Argothair for that detailed analysis!
I’m inclined toward a d10 base for two reasons. First, as Baron points out, players can easily calculate their odds. Second, it still offers an appreciable chance to hit for units at 1 or 2. I am worried that a d12 base would make A1 or A2 units all but worthless and cause the game to grind to a halt.
Argothair, how about the following?
1. Eliminate the ability of Light Infantry to be supported. If that isn’t enough, scale their attack back to 1.
2. Increase the attack value of Marines by 1. They are not the only units able to make amphibious assaults, but they don’t suffer penalties for doing so.
3. Increase the cost of transport planes by 2. Perhaps shorten their range?
4. The cargo transport should cost more than the troop transport. That was an error on my part.
I plan to introduce a supply system that limits the number of moves that a player can make in a turn. The supply points will be prorated based on the strength of a power’s economy. Building supply columns and fleet trains can increase the supply pool, but they can be captured.
I’ve downloaded the module for TripleA, but have not yet had a chance to play.
Hi, all. As you know, I am working on a modification of the basic Axis & Allies game concept not unlike HBG’s Global 1936.
I would be very grateful if folks on this board would take a gander at the proposed unit selection, stats, and abilities. I welcome feedback on balance. I know that some of you are quite good at determining whether or not particular units are worth the cost versus others, so I welcome that kind of in-depth analysis in particular.
The game that I envision is not for commercial development and is intended to be played by a particular group of people on a 4’x10’ map. For reference, the distance between the American Atlantic coast and the western coast of Ireland is 5 sea zones.
The base die is a d10.
Land combat proceeds up to 3 rounds before a stalemate results and units remain in place until the following turn.
Naval combat must be preceded by a Naval Combat Search, during which fleets attempt to locate one another using a modified die roll. It is theoretically possible for one fleet to pass through or by another in the same Sea Zone. Aircraft dramatically increase the probability of detecting enemy fleets.
The GoogleDocs link is HERE.
Cheers!
Have modifications to the rules for the cruiser already been discussed?
Would there be any benefit to adding naval mines to G1940?
The Grafton Axis & Allies group uses a house rule allowing players to distribute up to 4 entrenchment tokens per turn. They are passive pieces that can absorb hits during combat.
Maybe strengthen the Dutch garrison in the East Indies?
Fantastic find, Imperious Leader!
I really like adding third party minis to my Axis & Allies games, both to represent new unit types and add additional flavor.
Note that 1:72 does not always mean compatible with OOB units in terms of scale. I have the HAT WW1 Serbians, for instance, and they are about two or three times the bulk of OOB pieces despite being roughly similar in size.
Ah, I see. Thanks much!
Those maps are all gorgeous.
Looks like that one, or a variant of it.
You’re right! I have an earlier version. I didn’t know they’d revised.
Those are mainly aesthetic choices, finding a functional world projection is clearly more challenging. A&A is considerably more distorted than Mercator, which already heavily warps the world to make Europe appear larger than it is in reality. Basically you have too big balloons, one on Europe and one on the South Pacific, everything else has to twist and bend to make those regions work.
What about insets around the edge of the map? The Big Game does that, and it addresses some of the problems of clutter while allowing a more accurate topography.
Another option, of course, is to restrict the map to Europe, North Africa, and things east of Suez, west of San Francisco, and north of Darwin, Australia. You effectively do away with central and southern Africa, Central and South America, and the southern Indian Ocean.
It all depends on whether somebody wants to play a simulation of the Second World War that follows the historical path more or less precisely, and whether somebody (like me, for instance) is interested in seeing the game expand to other fronts, such as South America.
It really is indeed all about table size. I purposely chose a living space that could accommodate a very large table, with inserts.
Fair enough.
It does depend on scale.
I’ve always chosen to believe that, in Axis & Allies, each individual land unit corresponds to a small army corps, or approximately 20,000 men, with some exceptions made for independent commands such as colonial garrisons (e.g., the 2 British INF on Hong Kong or the 1 INF on Malta).
Individual naval units seem to correspond to squadrons or flotillas, but on occasions a lone cruiser or destroyer might stand in for a small fleet that included one or two capital ships only, such as the Siamese navy.
Individual air units appear to correspond to wings.
Small detachments of Royal Marines were posted to vessels of cruiser size or above, and sometimes to troopers or fleet auxiliaries to round out the gunnery crews. Traditionally, Royal Marines crewed at least one of the gun turrets aboard ship.
For special operations such as at Madagascar, a smaller vessel might be used to convey marines to a landing point.
If an amphibious landing was required, several of the larger ships in a squadron would combine their marine detachments into a battalion for that purpose, subject to command by the senior marine officer present.
In my opinion, the size of marine detachments aboard navy ships during the Second World War were far to small to justify allowing them to be carried by or land from ships other than transports.