Topics

1

After Action Reports / Playtesting / 2018 Worldwide Game - Take 2

« on: July 18, 2018, 02:22:13 AM »

John and I started a new WW game last weekend.  We kept the Pacific theater as is - ready to start the Autumn 1941 turn as it was off to a good start and we did not want to replay the pre-war turns in that theater.  So, for the first 8 turns, we were playing Europe only - and then will recombine it with where we left off in the Pacific on turn 9 - Autumn 1941.

The Germans were able to make short work of Poland again in the Autumn, though they did take some significant infantry losses in the campaign (something like 6-7 I believe).  Again, the Germans got lucky in saving the pocket battleship unit from the South Atlantic and got it back to Hanover and under the cover of German airpower by the end of the turn.  The French decided to fight.  The Germans left the Saar relatively weak - with only a fortified corps backed up by an 88 unit.  Uncharacteristically, Marshal Billotte decided to launch a surprise French offensive over the Rhine and managed to seize the territory.  The German general staff berated itself for this oversight and loss of production. . . The BEF landed in France and a German u-boat group was sunk off the coast of Ireland.

2

After Action Reports / Playtesting / 2018 Worldwide Game

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:27:57 AM »

Started a Worldwide game last Sunday and am making the attempt to document turns as we go and provide a play-by-play.

The (massive) set up in my basement:

3

After Action Reports / Playtesting / ConSimWorld 2018

« on: July 02, 2018, 01:29:11 AM »

Had a great game at ConSimWorld 2018 this year - thanks to all that attended and played!
We played a BIG Worldwide game from Monday to Thursday with eight players.  They are (from left to right):
Mark (Russia), Bill (British Europe), Matt (US Europe), Wolf (Japan), Ron (Axis Eastern Europe), George (Axis Western Europe), Reinhold (Allies Pacific), & Dave (US Pacific).

Started a WW 1939 game on Monday morning and played until the Summer 1944 turn Thursday afternoon.  The game was too close to call, but we had to pack it up and had to call it a draw.  Two or three more turns would have decided it - was a close game in both theaters!

4

RULES (UPDATED APRIL 2018) / RULES: WWII Struggle for Asia - UPDATED APRIL 2018

« on: April 01, 2018, 04:49:25 AM »

Struggle for Asia Rules Updated -

Consistent with Struggle for Europe mechanics, special country and unit rules for the Pacific theater, national rules for the global game

5

RULES (UPDATED APRIL 2018) / RULES: WWII: The Struggle for Europe - UPDATED APRIL 2018

« on: March 13, 2018, 03:40:39 AM »

RULES:  WWII: The Struggle for Europe - UPDATED APRIL 2018

Latest rules updated and attached.  Significant changes to naval movement and combat as well as rules clarifications and edits throughout.

6

After Action Reports / Playtesting / October 2015 "Struggle-Con" game

« on: December 01, 2015, 12:17:18 PM »

Finally getting around to posting pics of the big game John hosted in October!  We had 9+ players gather for a big WW game that we played over 3.5 days.  The pic below shows all of the players - going counter-clockwise from the bottom left, we had Jeff and James as the Allies in the Pacific, George as the West Front Axis, Dave and John as the Western Allies, Ron as the Soviets, Craig and Mike as the Japanese and then me (taking the picture) as the East Front Axis. . . . Always fun when you have this many people involved in a single big game!

7

Game Design / Adopting Wolf's Japanese SNLF rule

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:55:03 AM »

We are going to adopt Wolf's SNLF rules into the standard rules for the Pacific in order to enable the Japanese to expand at the historical speed they need to in Winter 1941 / Spring 1942.  The rule is:

26.9 Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces
Japanese SNLF (Special Naval Landing Forces) troops were trained as paratroopers and as special marine landing forces. The have an attack value of 4 for the first round of combat from an Airborne drop or from an Amphibious Invasion. SNLF units may be transported by Destroyers and Cruisers (one destroyer or druiser may carry one SNLF unit). When carrying an SNLF unit, the Cruiser or destroyer forfeit their surface combat value and their ASW value (but not their AA value).  Destroyers and Cruisers may carry SNLF units strategically or tactically.  When moving tactically (up to 3 spaces) SNLF units may disembark at enemy owned (but not occupied) territories without the use of a landing craft (i.e. unopposed landings).

8

Game Design / Sea zone control does not impede non-combat movement - only supply

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:50:26 AM »

considering the change in this rule as well (discussed elsewhere):

20.1.1 Naval units may move tactically (4 spaces) or strategically (8 spaces) on this phase, but must end their movement back at a friendly owned port or in a sea zone containing a replenishment ship naval unit (discussed below).  Naval units may not remain at sea (unless it contains a replenishment ship) at the conclusion of this phase. Naval units may move through enemy controlled and enemy occupied sea zones on this phase to get back to a friendly port.

9

Game Design / Changing the "fly-over" AA rules?

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:48:18 AM »

So - this is what I have done. . .would like to test this out.  I am not including any intrinsic AA just yet, just removing the fly-over AA.

8.4 Flying over enemy AA guns and naval units
Anti-aircraft guns and 88’s do not fire at enemy aircraft that fly over their territory on the movement phase.  AA guns and 88s are only eligible to fire at air units that are either supporting a ground combat in the territory they occupy (as well as at transport planes attempting to drop paratroopers in the territory they occupy), defending against an airbase attack, or defending against planes conducting strategic attacks in the territory they occupy. Naval units also do not get an anti-aircraft shot at planes that are flying over the sea zone that they occupy. Naval units only get to fire AA at planes that are attacking their fleet or are conducting strategic attacks against convoy zones in the same sea zone the naval units occupy.

10

Game Design / Leaders and Nationality

« on: September 17, 2015, 07:46:25 AM »

Is a rule something like the one below needed?  It seems like some funky things can happen without some leadership governance injected into the game:

1.5.7 Leader Nationality and command.  In order for a leader to command units in a battle, at least half of the initial front line units must be of the same nationality as the leader.  If this condition is not met, the leader may not participate as a leader for the battle and remains in reserve (also see 11.1).  For example, Rommel is attacked in North Africa and has 4 Italian units and only 2 German units for his front line forces.  In this example, Rommel is inelligible to command in the battle and an Italian leader needs to be selected.  If 3 German units and 3 Italian units were selected as the front line units, Rommel would be eligible to command.

11

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Counter-offensives

« on: July 22, 2015, 12:02:26 PM »

Suggestion to change counter-offensive battle resolution immediately rather than waiting for the combat phase.  A gamey situation could arise where player A would attack a large army with 1 infantry to force the large army to counteroffensive while moving all of his other armies away in remaining chit draws, before the counter-offensive army can do anything about it.

I think resolving counter-offensives immediately may make more sense and be consistent with things like naval snap-fire.

Here is the working draft of the rule change:

9.2 Counter-Offensives (C-O)
If a territory or sea zone is attacked before the defending units in the space have had an opportunity to move, the defender may declare a “counter-offensive” on the next chit draw that would have enabled him to move his units. Counter-offensives, like naval snap-fire (see 7.1), are resolved immediately at the conclusion of the chit draw that the units executing the counter-offensive move.

9.2.1 A counter-offensive means the defender’s attack values are used & attacker terrain and weather modifiers are applied to both sides.  If the side executing the C-O eliminates all attacking front line units in the first round of combat, the C-O is a successful, enabling the C-O units to move and conduct attacks with the movement chit they drew would allow.  Air units involved in a C-O are allowed to move adjacent again to support any battles the C-O units initiate or move into.

9.2.2 If the C-O is unsuccessful, surviving attacking front line and support units get to fire at the defender units again for free (essentially getting a bonus round of attacks after the defender has rolled).  No leader re-roll modifiers are applied to this special round of combat. After this bonus round, the units are placed back on the battle board for normal combat resolution during the combat phase. Defending units (that attempted the C-O) remain and defend the territory.

9.2.3 If a C-O is declared against an attack coming over a major river, the attacker suffers the attack penalty for a major river on the first round.  The side declaring the C-O does not suffer the river attack penalty on the first round.

9.2.4 Fleets that have not moved and that are attacked may announce counteroffensives as well (same rules as above). If the battle only lasts one round the naval units still get to move their full tactical movement.

12

After Action Reports / Playtesting / ConsimWorld Expo 2015 - June 20-26

« on: June 29, 2015, 03:41:27 PM »

Well, I think all the players from the CSWX 2015 game are still in recovery. . .it was a 4 day slug-fest that started Tuesday morning and went until late Friday afternoon - and it was a BLAST!  Amazing how time flies when you are playing this game. . .

The after action report may take me a while to post in its entirety - but I will get started on it.  Took a lot of pictures - but did miss a couple turns. . .

The ALLIES were played by: Dave Simmons (Britain & France 39-40), Ron (Soviets), Mark (US), George (Allies NW Europe 41-44), Lance (Allies Med 41-44), and Gerry (?) (China).

The AXIS were played by: Dave Young (East Front Axis), John (West Front Axis), Charles (Med Axis), and Wolf (Japan).

No pictures from the first couple turns (I guess we were all anxious to get started!).

The German invasion of Poland went off mostly without a hitch except that the Polish fighter chose to bypass the German interceptors and shot down a Stuka group. . .an ominous start for the Axis.

In the Winter, The Soviets managed to win the Winter War against Finland with light casualties.  A German invasion of Norway was thwarted when the transports shuttling the German invasion force was sunk by a British submarine flotilla off the coast of Denmark. 

The Germans attempted a surprise Winter invasion of Belgium which was stopped cold by the Allies.  The Belgian Army hung on long enough for French reserves to come up and stopped the Bosch in their tracks.

The Italians declared war on the mechanized phase of the first turn of the game, but made little progress.  The French fleet managed to blockade the Italian Navy for the first few game turns.

In Asia, The Japanese made good progress in pushing back the Nationalist Chinese.  Early victories convinced the Army Command to invest more in China and take the production the Emperor needed from the Chinese Nationalists.

So - overall, a bit of a tough start for the Axis, but progress was being made across the board.

In the first picture, the Axis high command plans their Winter offensive into Flanders and the Ardennes.

In the second attached pic, Dave Simmons plans his brilliant defense of Belgium and moves in the French Army and BEF in reserve to halt the German offensive.

13

Game Design / Replenishment Ships

« on: June 04, 2015, 10:54:27 AM »

Thinking of making everyone have to pay to replenish their replenishment ships.  Maybe 1PP for 2 replenishment chips. 
I think it is too expensive for the Japanese to pay 1:1 and it is too cheap to let the US and Britain replenish for nothing.  Maybe a 1 for 2 cost is the right balance?

14

Game Design / Counter battery fire / firing on support units

« on: May 20, 2015, 11:12:32 AM »

After playing with the rule as written for a couple years now - there are some aspects to this that I do not like; namely - too much of an alternative for artillery to fire at support units (especially heavy artillery) and too difficult for planes.

I think planes should almost be able to hit a support unit as easily as a front line target (maybe even easier), but it should be more challenging for artillery counter battery fire. . .(but all artillery should be about the same effectiveness).

So - I am thinking about changing this to planes can target support units and hit them at their bombing face value & ALL artillery can fire and hit support units on a 3 or less - regardless of their printed value. . .

Let me know what you think. . .

15

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Thoughts about an optional US set-up for Pacific?

« on: March 11, 2015, 04:49:43 AM »

Have been giving some thought to an optional US set-up for Pacific.  Instead of the historical US fleet deployment, make it a bit more random, so that the Japanese do not know exactly what is based at Pearl Harbor or elsewhere until they attack.  Maybe there will be carriers at Pearl?   Perhaps something like this: