Topics

1

Game Design / Naval Air Units

« on: July 17, 2007, 01:33:03 PM »

Here's a set of ideas to introduce a naval air unit to the game.  Playing the U.S. in the Pacific at Origins got me thinking...

Naval Air Units

The American Dauntless, Helldiver and Avenger, the Japanese Aichi and Nakajima, the Italian Sparviero, the British Swordfish and Beaufighter are some examples of WWII naval aircraft.  Their primary role is to attack enemy shipping of all types, including submarines.

Naval Air units would cost 8 production points to build, the same as fighters.  They hit in air to air combat on a 2 or less, hit surface naval units on a 3 or less and have a ground support value of a 1.  They may conduct strategic attacks against convoys centers doing 1d6 damage, but they have no strategic attack capability against enemy production centers.  They may operate off carriers as well as land bases.  During a strategic naval battle against enemy submarines, naval air attack on a 1 or less and defend on a 2 or less.

If naval air units are to be added to the game, the following additional changes are recommended to current set of rules:

1. Naval air are the only units capable of landing and taking off from aircraft carriers. 

2. Fighters have no attack capability against naval units, including submarines.

3. Bombers, including Stukas and Sturmoviks, only hit naval units, including submarines on a 1, instead of a 2 or less.

4. The British Swordfish and initial Italian fighter units become naval air units.

5. The American and Japanese fighter units that start the game based on carriers become naval air units.

2

Reviews / Origins Rematch

« on: July 17, 2007, 01:14:02 PM »

Thanks to all for an enjoyable, well played game!  It was definitely the highlight of my Origins 2007 experience.  The pictures shown in the After Action Reports under the heading Origins Grudge Match show the players and the turn by turn action. 

I am looking forward to our next match.  Perhaps a road trip to the New England area will be in order.

Until next time,

Eric

3

Game Design / Unconditional Surrender

« on: March 05, 2007, 12:54:44 PM »

Under the rules, Great Britain and the Soviet Union never surrender and continue to wage war until one side or the other is victorious.  On the other hand, Germany and Japan surrender at the end of an Axis turn in which the Allies occupy their respective capitol with 5 or more ground units.  Due to the Allied demand of Unconditional Surrender along with Hitler's will to defend Germany to the last German and the Japanese culture that preferred an honorable death to surrender, wouldn't it make more sense that neither would give up just because the Allies had captured their capitol?

I know that the war in Europe was ended when the Soviets captured Berlin, but nearly all of Germany was in Allied hands when the Battle of Berlin commenced.  Although the Japanese main islands were not invaded by the Allies, the invasion of Okinawa gave the Allies a taste of what the Home Islands would be like.  If Truman had decided to invade rather than drop the bomb, the Japanese would have most likely fought until the end.

I propose that Germany and Japan surrender only after the Allies have captured all the flagged production centers in their respective home country.  Austria would not need to be captured for a German surrender.  Because of the national build limits, it seems to me that the Allies could easily concentrate on building a large land force stack and drive hard at Berlin and/or Tokyo thus knocking Germany and/or Japan out of the war without having to fight a lot of battles along the way.

Was the decision for German and Japanese surrender conditions based on game balance?  Do you think it would be either too difficult to capture all the Home Nation production centers or take too much time in game turns?

4

Rules questions from first edition / Panama Canal

« on: February 24, 2007, 03:57:00 AM »

I could only find one reference to the Panama Canal in the rules.

"Only Western Allied naval units may move through the Panama Canal, German, Italian, Japanese and Soviet naval units may not move through the Canal.  For game movement and supply purposes, the canal is the only sea zone that connects the two edges of the map board."

In our Detroit Game #5, the question came up whether the Soviets could trace supply through the Panama Canal.  A group of Soviet units are in White Sea area and are cut off from all land supply routes.  The Italians captured the Suez Canal and control the sea routes around South Africa.  The only possible supply route left for this Soviet group would be the Panama Canal.

Would it be a correct interpretation to say that since Soviet naval units cannot pass through the Panama Canal, neither can a Soviet supply route?

5

Rules questions from first edition / Mechanized Air Movement

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:24:48 PM »

In the the Mechanized Phase section of the rulebook it states that air units may only move their tactical movement range of 2 spaces (for fighter units) or 3 spaces (for bomber units).  Does this mean that a fighter can move 2 spaces to join a mechanized ground combat and then move an additional 2 spaces to land into a friendly space?

If you are moving a fighter during the mechanized phase to another friendly space, not joining a mechanized ground combat, would the fighter be allowed to move up to 2 spaces or up to 4 spaces?

6

Game Design / Axis Minors - Turkey and Spain

« on: February 03, 2007, 10:13:53 AM »

As experienced in our last few games, if the Axis get lucky on their activation die roll and bring either Turkey or Spain onto the Axis side, a close competitive game can quickly turn into a rout.   The addition of the German units, the extra PP and the opening of key strategic locations creates an immediate imbalance to the game.  Triggering Spain opens up Gibraltar while triggering Turkey opens up access to the Black Sea, Soviet Caucasus and the Middle East.

I would propose a more graduated process triggering of Spain and Turkey.  For example, when the Axis capture both Greece and Crete, instead of a 1 in 6 chance of Turkey joining the Axis, Turkey gives 1 PP to Germany.  This is similar to getting the 2 PP from Sweden when capturing the two Norwegian territories.

This could be continued such that for each additional 1 in 6 chance of a die roll trigger, Spain or Turkey sends an additional PP to Germany.  If they are already giving all their PP to Germany the next step would be the allow Axis naval units pass through the Bosporus in the case of Turkey or allowing Axis units to rail adjacent to Gibraltar.  Any further triggers after that would bring Spain or Turkey completely into the war on the Axis side.

7

After action reports from first edition / Detroit Game #5

« on: January 27, 2007, 02:38:56 PM »

Last Friday we started another game with the following lineup.

Dan    UK/US
Martin Russia/China/France
Craig  Japan/Italy
Eric     Germany

We are going to give another go at it to see if we can get past 1942!

8

Game Design / Naval Fog of War

« on: November 06, 2006, 08:59:17 AM »

I wanted to propose an idea to simulate naval fog of war into the game.  The ability to detect and determine enemy location and strength was often critical during WWII.  This was especially true for both the Battle of the Atlantic and the massive naval engagements in the Pacific.  This game as well as many other WWII games, eliminates the fog of war by placing all units with their exact composition and location on the map.

My proposal is to use hidden task force markers.  The top side of the marker would have the national symbol or flag while the flip side would have a number on it.  These markers would be put on the map in place of the naval units.  On a card kept off the map would be a card with a matching number and the naval units within that task force.

Whenever one side completes its movement, naval combat would need to be resolved in all the sea areas that contain task force markers from opposing sides that are at war.  The identity and composition of the naval task forces would then be revealed when resolving naval combat.

Another option would be to allow active players to use aircraft units within their tactical ranges to perform recon missions to sea areas to discover the composition of an enemy naval task force.  Each naval task force would have to include at least one naval unit.

The naval units of neutral nations such as the US would not be hidden until they are at war.

This would add a fog of war element to the naval element of the game without adding too much complexity.  This should perhaps be an optional rule used by players that have a fair level of experience with the game.  Most of all, this could provide the game with some exciting naval strategy opportunities and battles!

9

Rules questions from first edition / Rules Update Summary - Errata

« on: October 25, 2006, 03:57:00 PM »

This section of the forum contains a fair amount of rule clarifications and/or corrections from questions that have cropped up from recently played games.  How about putting this information into a summary document that could be downloaded and used as a reference while playing?  There seems to be a growing number of them, especially from that Yoper fellow.    I just wanted to put forward the idea.

Eric