Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Axis & Allies Europe 1940» Forums » Variants

Subject: Combined Rules Strategy/Shorter Game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Justin Royek
United States
Cochranton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
I have a new idea for the game that might shorten it. My only concern is that the game takes a long time to play because of the individual turns for individual countries.

I have decided to condense the turns into two collective alliances. Axis & Allies of course.

Turn 1 Axis.
Turn 2 Allies.

Individual countries will have individual incomes. One country may not share income with another member of their alliance. All incomes are separate. Ie Germany may not share income with Italy or Japan.

On the Axis players turn, all Axis countries will purchase their countries respective units at the same time. Players can purchase as many units as they want. They may not swap units for an equivalent unit, nor may they share units with another member of their alliance. Nor, may they purchase units for another member of their alliance.

The Axis players do not share incomes, but they all purchase units at the same time under the Axis turn. Like Britain having a Pacific and Europe double income. It's like that, only with the Axis and Allied players having it.


After purchases are finished, they are placed on the mobilization zone portion of the game board.

Combat movement. The Axis forces during the Axis turn will all move together as one. Same with the Allied forces. Germany, Italy, and Japan all move at the same time during the combat movement phase.

When attacking an embattled territory together, players must decide among themselves who will initiate combat movement into that territory. This determines who will take control of the territory when it is captured.

The attacker may attack with other units of another power in their alliance in an embattled land territory or sea zone. They may attack together.

When conducting combat, the attackers will still roll for their respective countries. For example if Germany has 3 tanks and Italy has 3 tanks in the attacker column, The player that represents Germany rolls for those units, and the Italian player rolls for their units.

When being paired with artillery. If there are 3 Italian artillery and 3 German infantry, then the infantry are paired with Italy's artillery. Players must agree on which infantry or mechanized infantry will be paired with another player's artillery.

Combat proceeds as normal. Then, after combat is finished. And the attacker has any land units remaining. The player that decided to initiate combat in that territory takes control of the territory. The other units in their alliance are along for the ride.

However, this can change under different circumstances. For example, if Italy attacks a territory with Germany and Italy has the only land units the attacker has left and Germany has air units, even though Germany decided to initiate combat, then Italy gets control of the embattled territory

Or if all of Italy's attacking units are wiped out during combat and only Germany's attacking units are remaining, then Germany takes control of the embattled land territory.

When the attacker retreats, all attacking units that attacked together during the attack, must all retreat together as well.

Players may pair units of their alliance with another member of their alliance during the attack.

If Japan has 3 tactical bombers and Germany has three tanks, the Japanese tactical bombers are boosted up to a 4 or less, as if they were paired with another member of their alliance.

I've played it and it works beautifully.
Players will still have to move their pieces. All the members of the Axis alliance or Allied alliance must all conduct combat movement at the same time during their respective turns.





The incomes are like UK Pacific and UK Europe. They are separate, but together. Like regional capitals. They are not separate players, UK Europe and UK Pacific. They are part of the same United Kingdom. Germany, Japan, and Italy are grouped together as the Axis with separate incomes, but not separate turns.


I am a FIRM believer in combined arms tactics and better teamwork in the game, instead of everyone acting alone.

I LOVE teamwork.


When placing new units.

When units are places, players may not share industrial complexes or place their units in another industrial complex owned by a member of their alliance. For example, Germany may not place its purchased units in an industrial complex owned by Japan or Italy. Russia may not place its purchased units in a territory owned by the United States. Players must place their pieces in one of their own industrial complexes.

The incomes of all the Axis and Allied players are separate, but the turns are not.

Players must keep their incomes separate at all times.

This will be a TRULY global game.

Japan may conduct conduct combat in the Pacific at the same time Germany and Italy conduct combat in Europe. It is not limited to a certain spheres of the globe.

Like UK Pacific and UK Europe moving forces. The UK Pacific player places their purchased units in India or in territory owned by UK Pacific. UK Europe places it units in Europe in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the UK Europe board.

Germany places its units in Germany or German-held industrial complexes. Italy places its units in Italy or Italian held territories. Japan places its units in Japanese held territories or Japan itself.

This should be a game of alliances. Isn't about time, it started acting like one? Instead of a game with separate countries with separate territories.





Players may choose to attack a territory together or not. The attackers must decide among themselves who will initiate combat and how many units will be used during the conduct combat phase.
The choice is still open for those that want players to attack together.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I absolutely love this idea and I have to confess that I was thinking along the same lines for A&A42.

I think it is how the game should have been.

Quick question: you said you have tried this. Does it really shorten the game? Our big global A+3 games have been running about 8-10 hours and frankly, they are exhausting ordeals after about 4-5 hours of play. I would love to know if this actually shortens the game (as I have mused it would in my mind).

I love the game, but I hate the length of play. Even shortening it to about 4 hours would be such a welcome relief!

I'll say it again...I LOVE THE GAME...but it is very hard to block off that sort of time to play it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damo
Australia
Hobart
Tasmania
flag msg tools
Look Up! Stay Alive!
badge
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like your idea. It'll definitly change how the game runs. I'll give it a go.

There is one rule that I don't agree with (though it's me being picky more then anything else):

Patchman123 wrote:
Players may pair units of their alliance with another member of their alliance during the attack.

If Japan has 3 tactical bombers and Germany has three tanks, the Japanese tactical bombers are boosted up to a 4 or less, as if they were paired with another member of their alliance.


Communications between different forces during WWII were very poor. I'm not confidant that Japanese and German forces would be able to communicate easily enough to be effective together in a tactical situation.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Royek
United States
Cochranton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Damjon wrote:
I like your idea. It'll definitly change how the game runs. I'll give it a go.

There is one rule that I don't agree with (though it's me being picky more then anything else):

Patchman123 wrote:
Players may pair units of their alliance with another member of their alliance during the attack.

If Japan has 3 tactical bombers and Germany has three tanks, the Japanese tactical bombers are boosted up to a 4 or less, as if they were paired with another member of their alliance.


Communications between different forces during WWII were very poor. I'm not confidant that Japanese and German forces would be able to communicate easily enough to be effective together in a tactical situation.



This is just an example I cited, if Japan and Germany are on the same part of the world. Players are still limited by rules limiting movement of units on the board and Germany does not control the movements of any of Japan's units or Italy's units. Germany, Italy, and Japan still control their own respective forces, but they still all move together as one force during combat movement phase.

Individual players will still control their own forces, but will be all turns that are normally individual turns for individual countries, are grouped together as one turn.

The Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, ANZAC, and France all move at once during the Allies turn.

Germany, Japan, and Italy move all at once during the Axis turn. These countries are still controlled by individual players, but are part of two powers.

The Turns are grouped together as Axis & Allies turns, with countries not being restricted individually by individual turns.

It is 2 collective turns for the Axis and Allies, with individually-controlled incomes only. One member may not share income with another member of their alliance and may not swap units with another alliance during the purchase units phase.

They all move together. One player in the alliance must initiate combat in the embattled land territory and if

Japan still controls Japan's units, Germany controls Germany's Units, USSR controls USSR's units, and individual players control the combat and non-combat movements of these players, but are they are all grouped together as Axis and Allied players in their respective turns.

Their respective turns for individual countries are grouped together into two turns, (Axis and Allied) but they still move and control their forces individually.

See, what I'm saying?


What would nor
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damo
Australia
Hobart
Tasmania
flag msg tools
Look Up! Stay Alive!
badge
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep, I understand all that.

Liek I said, it's just me being picky.

As soon as the war table clears I'll be trying your variant out.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to admit I agree with Damjon about cross-national unit cooperation, it probably shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise I agree this is a great concept and probably would speed up the game tremendously in addition to adding some awesome historical options such as German troops getting shuttled on Italian transports and a US/UK combined invasion of Europe.

Of course the major downside is balance, the game balance was not designed with this in mind and I'm sure it would have a lot of ramifications. The impacts could be somewhat mitigated by not allowing Italy to move/purchase on the first turn, so if I was to attempt it I would definitely enforce that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron Fist
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an idea that has been floating around for some time now in a number of the A&A games, some people have tried it and said that they like it and it works, I myself have never tried it but I have thought about trying it out, One thing however is that, during WW2 there really were 3 Alliances struggling against each other,,, The Axis,, Allies and the Comintern, So while I like the idea of all members of an Alliance moving in one turn, I am not so sure if the Soviet Union should move at the same time as the rest of the Allies. While it is true that the Soviet Union and Britain/France/America/other allied nations were working to defeat the Axis, and America sent Huge amounts of materials to the Soviet Union, Russia (for the most part) stood alone in their fight against the German invasion. Perhaps there could be a 3 turn first round? Axis followed by Soviet Union followed by Allies,, that way you wouldn't have Russian units fighting in conjunction with Allied ground forces or air power. Anyway it is just a thought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You'd really have to playtest a new board setup for all that to work . . .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Damjon wrote:
Yep, I understand all that.

Liek I said, it's just me being picky.

As soon as the war table clears I'll be trying your variant out.



A simple solution would be that individual armies stacked in the same territory must each attack out separately.

If you wanted to get a bit fancy perhaps you could allow 'combined arms' attack only with air and shore bombardment - a bit more historically accurate.

For play balance, might give Germany and Italy full combined arms attack ability. Allies limited combined arms, Russia, no combined arms.

Some random thoughts
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.