Aggression 1941

  • thumbnail.png

    WARNING! The balance hasn't extensively tested yet. Still progressing...

    A WW2 scenario loosely based on 1941. Victory condition is controlling London, Berlin and Moscow at the same time until the next turn.

    Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan
    Allies: America, England, Russia, China

    Turn Order

    Some rules

    -6 sided dice, no national objectives, no tech, no triggers, no multiple resources, combat round first.

    -Territory values, unit costs, factory repairing, convoy blockade damages are 10 times increased while factory production capacities remained same.

    -Every unit (except factory) has upkeep. Average cost/upkeep ratio for land units are %6, trench %3, destroyer %8.5, fighter %10 as examples.

    -You cannot build new factories and cannot use captured factories. There are already 29 factories in the game.

    -Kiel canal is present along with Panama and Suez.

    -Neutrals are impassable.

    Some features

    1. It is not a game which typically Germany has to be unhistorically rescued by Japanese tank colums storming from East Asia. Japan is only be able to send a token force against Russia.

    2. It is not a game either which only Axis chance to win is taking Moscow. Nations do not lose their incomes or production abilities even if they lost their capitals.

    3. More German options including Arctic, Atlantic Black Sea, N.Africa fronts (Germany has shore on the Mediterranean). Its not just send all stuffs to Russia and deadzone France.

    4. Both Germany and Russia have reasons to build naval units even it is not clear if Allies will really win in the Atlantic.

    5. USA is strong enough to go both oceans which designed for it.

    If anybody interested, I can share the game and I would appreciate any balance purposes or playtestings.

  • This looks cool! Are you going to put it on the repository?

  • @JOSEPH-PRINCE I just gave up to struggle making it downloadable, so highly unlikely.

  • Oh. Well I would like to try it though. Are you going to put the .zip here for others to try?

  • @Schulz Did you put it on github? Put a link here, and we can see what we can figure out.

    Can you also link the directions that you followed, and where you had trouble? Documentation is what I am really trying to work on when I have time, until I pick up java.

  • @Schulz Okay, I found it in the repo.

    First problem I found is that the primary branch is called main, and it should be called master.
    I am pretty sure that will make it downloadable.



    I've noticed it later too. I just need a way for mass deleting all files in main branch.

    If someone think upkeep will cripple all strategic options and nations will end up with very few units. Drop 100 units to Germany, Russia, England or America and spend all their starting incomes. You will see that they will still have positive incomes despite having more than total 150 units.

  • @Schulz I am going to just do this discussion over here. Then you can keep this thread for actually discussing balance and stuff.

  • Moderators

    I played 2 games today. A few thoughts:

    Cairo currently can build 10 units a turn. It's probably supposed to be just 1, right? (that's how we played)

    At 1 unit per turn you can't hold Cairo on turn 2 unless you abandon India, even if you buy trenches every chance. Africa gets swarmed by all 3 axis pretty quickly.

    You can kill all trenches in a territory by suiciding a single unit into the territory. Not sure if that's intentional, it's a good move for Germany in Leningrad for example.

    Fighters taking so much AA fire takes a while to get used to. They aren't great for land combat but still decent at sea. It felt weird that subs shoot air units and don't submerge.

    Japan can really threaten India quickly. It's possible (but only barely) to hold both the factories on turn 2 but you'll lose one of them quickly.

    The units are really heavily biased towards defense so the second Indian factory can last for a while at least. I didn't try sending Russians to India.

    China being all cavalry is interesting. China is actually difficult to conquer which is a nice feature. In both games Japan just skipped them and hit India/Australia. He has the option to hit South Africa too (and it's not far from Australia).

    The US won the pacific naval battle once, and Japan won it in the second game. Germany won the Russian war both times. England takes a while to organize and didn't do much in Europe either game.

    The Russia-Japan front isn't too active which is nice. The shape of Siberia as an impassible territory is interesting.

  • @CrazyG

    Thank you so much for the feedback.

    Yes, Cairo's unit production value was supposed to be 1. I will fix it in an update.

    Axis currently have unhistorically too much upperhand in North Africa unfortunately for balance purpose. I'd want to modify all the are more historically if I could still maintain balance.

    Trenches were not supposed to be like that, no idea how did that happen. I will fix it too.

    Do you think fighters/bombers are now overall worse and less cost effective than other v3 rule game air units? If yes how would you arrange their new stats and costs?

    I'm not fully comfortable with giving +1 defense to infantry, artillery and armour either. The main purpose was preventing fighters becoming as good as infantry on defense since in that way infantry would be equal to fighter at defense and there is no AA rolling in defense. I think there are some options if strong bias toward defense is a serious issue. But I really wouldn't want fighter good at defese as much as infantry with the same cost.

    • Giving +2 support ability to artillery (instead of 1) and +1 support ability to armours, fighters and bomber for infantries on offense. Would it make more balanced them?

    • Removing +1 defense from infantry/artillery/armour/trench/fighter so air units would be better against ground offensively but worse defensively, carrier cost will need to be descreased in that way).I'm seriously considering to add it one of it along fixing the Cairo and trench bugs.

    • Adding +1 attack to artillery, armour, fighter and bomber (naval costs will need to be rearranged in this case. I would really want keeping the same relative power between air and naval units which is the cheapest naval unit will remain slighly more cost effective while air will have always upper hand against all other naval units (as it is in v3 rule set)

    The purposess of Chinese cavalries were giving options to reinforce non-Chinese territories if needed and easier reinforcing the main front.

    Also I think I need an explanation why I gave AA ability to all units except transport.

    I've always think naval units are overall too expensive in A&A games and they are hardly have a purpose other than securing a beachead for transports. It is especially problematic for Germany and USA.

    England easily blockades the North sea and left Germany without choice other than rushing Russia because Germany is too weak to spare somethings on other fronts in A&A games and they try to compensate its weakness by buffing Japan too unhistorically and Axis winning chance is just revolve around "who can pile the most units around Moscow?"But with cheaper naval units, Germany can purchase more different combination of units hence more replayability plus losing a naval battle is not a huge TUV swing anymore. Just I think strong Germany provides more different options than strong Japan also it deter USA to take on Japan first as historically.

    Lack of two ocean going USA is I think might be the biggest downside of any WWII scenario and expensive ships were one of the primarly reason to force USA focusing on only one front. I wouldn't force players always split its recources to both fronts either just I would want splitting it just as good as going only one front.

    But the issue is air units would be too weak against naval units if I just reduced ship costs only. Hence decreasing air costs became mandatory as much as decreasing ship costs. But in that way now air units became overpowered and rendered armours almost useless hence I decided to give AA to all ground units.

    The main purpose is basically reducing naval and air unit costs as much as possible while keeping all of their relative strenght same with v3 rule set). Currently I am not sure if air is very cost inefficient againt ground but ready to fix it.

  • I like your general approach here, with your willingness to change the combat system and incorporate maintenance as an essential design element.

    I have 2 cosmetic suggestions. You don't need to explain the full rules of TripleA, that is for the tutorial. Just explain what is different from the standard A&A games. I also suggest turning territory names on.

    Your divisible by 10 economic values for territories remind of the original (1981) edition of the game, where every value was divisible by 10.

  • @RogerCooper The default territory names don't looks really good along with stylized numbers unfortunately. Still I am fine with either way if I could find stylized territory names.

  • Moderators

    There is a missing connection between Queensland and Sea Zone 55.

    I think this approach to fighters is really interesting, in most games fighters are a super premium unit which generally speaking you want to to the entire game without ever losing. Here they are somewhat cheap.

    I think giving fighters some support to land units is a good move. I would rather build a tank which doesn't get hurt by AA fire and has stronger stats.

    At sea the starting fighters are valuable, but they compare poorly to the ships (due to dying to AA fire). Carriers are too expensive at 60.

    In another test game, the Axis have far more income than the allies by turns 2 and 3 when you consider convoy raiding. The UK loses so many resources to it every turn. Right now this feels very favorable to the Axis. It's really easy to knock out the UK factories around the world (if Japan gets a huge army to Australia, South Africa is just 1 turn away).

  • Wrong cairo base production, suicidal trenches, missing Queensland-SZ55, wrong bomber defense number (was supposed to be 1), missing base tiles were added also the zip now way lighter which is total 11.5 MB.

    Testing 5 different pure fighter vs destoyer battles of Aggression 1941 and AA50 with the same costs and LL.

    Aggression 1941: 35 fighters vs 30 destroyers

    Result: 4 remained fighter and 4 remained destroyer. Fighter TUV loss:930, Destroyer TUV loss:910.
    0.2% Destoyer efficiency

    Second Result: 4 remained fighter and 7 remained destroyer, Fighter TUV loss:930, Destroyer TUV loss:805
    15% Destroyer efficiency


    AA50: 40 fighter vs 50 destroyer

    Result: 6 remained fighter and 4 remained destroyer. Fighter TUV loss: 340, Destoyer TUV loss:368
    0.8% Fighter efficiency

    Second Result: 1 remained fighter and 9 remained destoyer, Fighter TUV loss:390 Destroyer TUV loss: 328
    19% Destroyer efficiency

    A land battle comparios which attacking forces compormised with 3fig/3art/12inf againt the same TUV pure inf defenders.

    Aggression 1941 results:

    2 attacker fighter and 11 defender infantry remained, attacker TUV loss:510, defender TUV loss:240
    125% defense efficiency (without fighter loss but could be worse up to 150% defender efficieny)

    AA50: attacker loss 48 TUV, defender loss 24 TUV
    100% Defense efficiency


    Looks like they are almost the same as with the regular fighters against navy but perform significantly worse against ground as known.

    I think I tend to agree solving the issue with that;

    Giving +1 attack to artillery,armour,fighter,bomber and +1 defense to all naval units except transports.

    Carriers looked a bit expensive to me probably their cost will have to be reduced.

    I would want to give a decent navy to England in Indian Ocean and having more historical and realistic warfare on Africa too. I just came up with these ideas to implement;

    • Japanese units in sz50 moves to sz57.
    • Adding English cruiser, carrier and fighter to sz 44.
    • +100 starting income to England

  • Moderators

    Those changes look like a good direction. Japan has some actual competition.

    You could consider giving fighters artillery support to infantry, so they effectively get 3 attack on land but still only 2 at sea.

    IDK about bombers. Their only advantage right now is high movement, bombing raids don't hurt the factories much.

  • I'am almost certain that strengening figters/bombers alone would make them overpowered. Do you agree? They are worse at offense than regular fighters but currently mass fighters perform better than mass armours on offense cost efficiently and losing them don't hurt much despite AA rollings. Plus they are more cost effective defenders also can be used at escort/intercept.

    I think giving support ability to fighters/bombers alone could render artillery almost useless and armours very situational. Or it is possible to increase artillery support ability to +2 giving +1 support ability to airs and +1 support ability for armours.

    I am not sure about how good aor bad bombers are in here. But the main advatage is losing bomber in a strategic bombing campaign was huge deal now its insignificant. They were able to damage max half of their prices which is the same in here.

  • Moderators

    That fighter idea was just an idea for hypotheticals, if fighters aren't doing well in land.

    I think tanks are a much better choice for land heavy combat because they can help defend. But a few fighters can be a decent buy just because it forces the enemy to build more ships while also being okay.

    I tried bombing more seriously. One thing is that Germany can ignore about 15 points (so 150 PUs) of bombing damage just because the territory has such a high value.

    It is really nice that the damage from AA guns is less swingy (I lose 1 artillery of PUs, instead of 3-4 artillery worth). That is a big improvement.

    I haven't tried bombing anywhere else: Germany often loses it's bomber in El Alamein on turn 1 and no other Axis start with bombers.

  • @CrazyG

    Yes I agree fighters/bombers need an improvement in land warfare.

    Tanks should remain better choice for land heavy combat as it is in all A&A games because of air's versatility.

    Germany can tolerate and ignore getting bombed at certain points. I'm fine with that and consider it a small boost for Axis and deter Allies a bit relyting on only bombing in early rounds.

    I have no idea what is the best deal with Africa in r1 German round. Looks like reinforcing Lybia or attacking Cairo in r1 just as good as attacking El Alamein.

  • New version is just uploaded.


    • +100 American, +100 English +50 Russian starting incomes.
    • +1 attack for artillery,armour,fighter,bomber,tankette,siberian,h.cavalry.
    • +1 defense for sea combatants except carrier.
      Carrier cost decreased to 50.


    • 2 German trench moves to Crete from Norway.


    • Japan Navy in sz 50 moves to sz 57, l.cruiser in sz 59 moves to 64.
    • 1 Japanese infantry moves to kwangtung from shanghai.
      Replacing 1 Japan fighter with 1 bomber in the mainland.


    • +2 trench to leningrad.
      Raising Siberian upkeep to 2.


    • Replacing English fighter in El Alamein with additional infantry.
    • New English factories to W.Australia and Queensland.
    • Adding English cruiser/carrier/fighter to Indian Ocean .
    • Removing English infantres from Sumatra and Java.
      1 English fighter to Victoria.


    • Removing American destroyer and transport from sz51.


    • l.cavalry and h.cavalry upkeep raised to 2.

  • I decided to add "draw" option other than victory/lose. Loser side will try to drag the game to stalemate to not losing hence giving a strong reason to continue rather than early surrenderings anti-climaticly.

    New victory condition

    • Axis achieves more than 1500 production power. (Means No Axis victory without Sea Lion)
    • Allies achieves more than 2000 production power. (Means No Allies victory without invading Germany or Japan)

    If no side achive its objective until the end of round 25, the game ends with draw.

    I'm still not sure if Round 25 is way too long and harder to achieve and probably will be needed to give defensive bonuses to capitals to make it more possible outcome. If we consider every rounds to represent 2 months, rounds means mid-late August 1945 which is super historically the real ending date of WWII.

Log in to reply