I would also like you to upload the player aids / setups you were talking about.
ASW
Currently
Destroyer: 2 or less to search, 2 or less to hit (11%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)
Did you intend submarines to be this powerful?
Remember UK on average gets ASW tech on turn 6. (1free+1buy tech roll, 1of3 boxes in 1942)
++++++++= yes at start its two. Remember EACH ASW unit gets the roll. After the first round they can retreat anyway.
Propose
Destroyer: 3 or less to search, 3 or less to hit (25%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)
too strong because it become a 4 after asw tech and thats too high
Submarine advantage remains. Slight edge, opening-fire bonus, and slightly cheaper.
Super submarine tech
Currently, submarine tech negate ASW tech search/attack bonus.
But should it make it harder to detect whether or not enemy has ASW tech?
And I see super submarines is stealthier, and has bigger fire power. But should they actually have better armour?
============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1. These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.
I’ve started editing the file.
I’ll post changelog later. One game phase at a time.
@Imperious:
++++++++= yes at start its two. Remember EACH ASW unit gets the roll. After the first round they can retreat anyway.
Wonder if we have misunderstanding.
Naval combat is complex and discussion has been blurry.
So we switched to naval combat sequence discussion to be precise.
My intention was that naval combat rules are replaced by the new model as detailed by the naval combat sequence.
That is, these rules are removed/replaced (reasoning for them presented and you’ve not argued against)
*destroyer negating submarine’s opening-fire on 1-to-1 basis
*battleship opening-fire negated by another battleship
If we have misunderstanding, we’ll look at the naval combat sequence again.
If not, you should realise that due to undetected submarine firing in opening-fire…victims of undetected submarines do not get to fire back. So the currently 33% vs. 11% is deadly.
============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1. These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.
Then super submarine tech shall be changed to gives -1 modifier to ASW search and ASW attack.
That’ll give the ASW search and attack at 1. (if we remain at ASW search @ 2, ASW attack @ 2)
http://www.mediafire.com/?bhftyzcn13x
I’ll post a detailed changelog later. (will go through the document side by side on my computer)
Most changes are in phase 4: conduct combat.
And of course lots of formatting consistency changes.
That is, these rules are removed/replaced (reasoning for them presented and you’ve not argued against)
*destroyer negating submarine’s opening-fire on 1-to-1 basis
*battleship opening-fire negated by another battleship
+++++++++++++ DD still does this, BB is not negated. that was fixed a few edits ago. BB fires preemptive no matter what
If we have misunderstanding, we’ll look at the naval combat sequence again.
If not, you should realise that due to undetected submarine firing in opening-fire…victims of undetected submarines do not get to fire back. So the currently 33% vs. 11% is deadly.
++++++++++that’s true when its only one ship but 2 or more increases detection be the sheer numbers of rolls going on. 3 rolls will find a sub most likely. a sub works best if hunting…
wait… new idea: if the sub continues attack after the first round and its not detected, then if he elects to attack a second time then ASW units have automatic detection. That fixes it IMO
Quote
============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1. These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.
Then super submarine tech shall be changed to gives -1 modifier to ASW search and ASW attack.
That’ll give the ASW search and attack at 1. (if we remain at ASW search @ 2, ASW attack @ 2)
++++++++++ yes thats fine. lets do that! great.
any more issues with the map? or is my work on that finished?
I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I propsed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.
What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.
We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.
Other concerns…
Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targetted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?
Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.
Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.
@Imperious:
any more issues with the map? or is my work on that finished?
When you created 1 IPC Siam (from FIC) you dropped Kirin from 2 IPC to 1 IPC.
Then I said Kirin is probably the industrised one.
Then you raised Kirin back to 2 IPC but you haven’t reduced FIC to 1 IPC.
France is at 11 IPC right now but the chart says 13.
The 1939 scenario map is more divided and I wonder how thats go with the 4X IPC factory limit.
Maybe the income revision from OOB is only half done. (I guess it was also done at a very early stage of the map.)
I could see…
Could consider reducing:
Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Borneo
Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
Need Sahara rules.
When you created 1 IPC Siam (from FIC) you dropped Kirin from 2 IPC to 1 IPC.
Then I said Kirin is probably the industrised one.
Then you raised Kirin back to 2 IPC but you haven’t reduced FIC to 1 IPC.
++++ i need to fix this and 2 more french, possibly the 2 ipc in africa or split with FIC and afrika.
France is at 11 IPC right now but the chart says 13.
+++++++++++ Frogs needs to stay at 13 for balance reasons ( already calculated based on historical numbers and its accurate)
as i said ill add the 2 ipc to FIC and or africa or possibly france itself.
The 1939 scenario map is more divided and I wonder how thats go with the 4X IPC factory limit.
Maybe the income revision from OOB is only half done. (I guess it was also done at a very early stage of the map.)
I could see…
++++++ Try to find the loophole and post.
Could consider reducing:
Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Borneo
+++++++++++ these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this. One of the kay ideas was to not alter this balance so essentially it all works together.
Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada
++++++++ then UK is too strong
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
Need Sahara rules.
+++++ why ? they are allready covered under desert up keep rules.
@Imperious:
+++++++++++ Frogs needs to stay at 13 for balance reasons ( already calculated based on historical numbers and its accurate)
as i said ill add the 2 ipc to FIC and or africa or possibly france itself.
I guess prefer adding it to West Africa or something. Until 2 IPC FIC is historical.
++++++ Try to find the loophole and post.
This is due to IC has a limit of 4X territory income per turn.
Nothing wrong sucha rule of IC limit. Just make sure map is consistent.
For example, Australia won’t be able to produce much now. Due to territories being 1 IPC. In fact, it can only produce artillery. Wonder if its more realistic to put all IPC into New South Wales.
Oh yeah with Germany…all 18 IPC is with eastern Germany portion is it?
+++++++++++ these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.
What did happen historically then?
Maybe Japan needs some war industrial mobilisation rule like the US?
Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada
++++++++ then UK is too strong
Yeah actually the distribution among commonwealth is probably good eough already.
UK 8
Canada 4
Australia 3
South Africa 2
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
I mean should they even be represented?
Were they as big a UK output as say Egypt?
Are you gonna put troops there for the 1939 setup?
Need Sahara rules.
+++++ why ? they are allready covered under desert up keep rules.
The desert upkeep just makes you pay 1 IPC per unit occupying desert territory.
1939 map Sahara is different. Its not a territory.
How is 1939 map Sahara handled?
Oh and you haven’t replied to naval combat discussion. Re-posted here.
And I would like to see the pdfs that you can’t edit…if you still intend to use them.
I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I propsed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.
Other concerns…
Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targetted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?
Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.
I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I proposed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.
What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.
++++++++++++++the negation is only providing the subs are detected. If no detection occurs the subs all fire pre-emtively on the first round. Their is automatic detection if they stay a second round. If they are detected on the first round, then again the ASW ships only negate the preemptive sub shots at a 1 to 1 basis. extra subs still fire preemptively. Screening is different. Cruisers and Destroyers can always screen for ships they escort and this screening is against planes, subs and other ships for the purpose of combat loses. Thats the rule.Secondly, its best to keep it simple and these rules are easy.
We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.
+++++ yes i guess the player aid can help in that regard.
Other concerns…
Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targeted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?
++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed… that why i feel the 2 is best rather than 3. ASW search rolls are only performed before the sub first fires and this determines whether they are preemptive.
Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.
++++ all submarine combat is handled separately while linked with naval combat. You however, perform all ASW search rolls prior to combat to determine preemtive or not… then assign hits from subs followed by surface ships.
Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.
++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’
planes are separated by CAP and planes going over to attack ships. The ships roll out against the planes. Try it out i don’t think its too complicated. If you just mash all the units together the combat becomes totally unrepresentative of warfare.
The guy who owns the sky will kill lots of ships, proving air power is supreme. Ships w/o carriers are sitting ducks.
also subs need to have some flavor but separate from naval battles.
if you got a easier way to handle it let us know. Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.
Also, another thing… Battleships should be hit completely before you take off an other BB hit? So if you got 3 battleships, you don’t just take off three separate hits and repair the ships. instead you lost 1 BB and a second is damaged and the third is ok. what do you think of this? Its kinda a fix for cheating on BB hits. The same would go for Carriers.
++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed.
Oh…had no idea thats what you meant.
I feel “detected” should not represent just a warning to your fleet that there are “some” enemy submarines “somewhere”. (hence I don’t think its should be 100% detected or 100% undetected)
Rather it should represent detected and tracked hence the submarine loses its sneak attack.
How about one successful ASW search roll means one detected submarine.
Then no need to separately say 1-to-1.
Both ASW search and attack rolls would now be unselective.
++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’
The wording of the screening rule does not allow you to decide after knowing the number of hits.
You don’t get to know that its one hit so you allocate it on BB to save the DD.
if 1 DD screens 1 BB
1 sub/air hit -> DD dies
2 sub/air hits -> DD dies, BB damaged
Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.
Well our very basic hit allocate restrictions remains.
Subs hits + gun battle hits –-> can only go on non-sub naval units
Anti-air hits —> can only go on attacking planes
I can’t see a way to simplify air units yet.
But I think we can simplify to unselective fire for detected submarines. That should be realistic if along my above thoughts of detected and tracked.
Important question: Historically did fleet submarines work together with friendly gunships? I have no idea and I was guessing no due to danger of torpedo friendly fire. This is why in the pre-colour system I had submarines fire preemptively.
Quote
++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed.
Oh…had no idea thats what you meant.
I feel “detected” should not represent just a warning to your fleet that there are “some” enemy submarines “somewhere”. (hence I don’t think its should be 100% detected or 100% undetected)
Rather it should represent detected and tracked hence the submarine loses its sneak attack.
+++++++++++ thats all it DOES represent. It only allows the known condition that “we have enemy subs and we are preparing to sink them with ASW capable ships”
This reduces the surprise effect of the ‘first strike’ as naval surface units change formation to zig zag movement etc…
Now they can attack again rolling out a 2 for a hit.
What else is it supposed to be??
How about one successful ASW search roll means one detected submarine.
Then no need to separately say 1-to-1.
++++++++++ HMMM… this was studied before, and the conclusion is that all the ships react under sub attack conditions, which would burden the rules with now separating the subs into different groups which is clearly something you don’t wish to see. It adds a further layer of complexity because now you have to fight with subs sperately into groups of identified/detected and undetected.
I suppose as a way to compensate under such a system if it had to exist would be to raise the detection to 3-4 or any group of subs larger than 2 is gonna crush ships because remember we have ‘wolfpack’ rules of 3 or more subs attacking at 3. It would prove devastating and not historical.
rolling a 2 per ship would present detection after 3 rolls on average, and you do understand that both ships and subs tend to flock together so its safe to assume detection would mean ‘the entire enemy sub fleet’
Quote
++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’
The wording of the screening rule does not allow you to decide after knowing the number of hits.
You don’t get to know that its one hit so you allocate it on BB to save the DD.
if 1 DD screens 1 BB
1 sub/air hit -> DD dies
2 sub/air hits -> DD dies, BB damaged
+++++ correct you decide the screening before the roll out. The screening is for potential hit allocations once sub targets have been allocated and if the sub hits beyond the screening units allocated, then the target ship is hit. Additional screening units cannot absorb these hits.
This should be clear… perhaps we need more examples of play or you can provide an example of a players turn?
Quote
Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.
Well our very basic hit allocate restrictions remains.
Subs hits + gun battle hits —> can only go on non-sub naval units
Anti-air hits —> can only go on attacking planes
I can’t see a way to simplify air units yet.
But I think we can simplify to unselective fire for detected submarines. That should be realistic if along my above thoughts of detected and tracked.
+++++++++++ perhaps we just have screening units which work under sub and plane attacks ( in the same manner) and just lump the planes performing torpedo runs together with the surface naval attack rolls, except the defending ships roll out their AA rolls prior to planes targeted hits, followed by enemy surface actions by both parties.
Important question: Historically did fleet submarines work together with friendly gunships? I have no idea and I was guessing no due to danger of torpedo friendly fire. This is why in the pre-colour system I had submarines fire preemptively.
++++++++++ subs were used in advance of the surface fleet as a screening force. subs didn’t attack ships during full surface combat, because they would need to identify which ships were enemy and friendly, and this required bringing up the parascope for long periods which concluded that subs detection. Secondly, the ships were moving at full battle speed and subs cant really hit ships moving at full speed. Subs abilities relied on surprise while enemy was sailing at slower speeds. Surface combat forces many sharp turns and performance at top efficiency, and subs cant compete with this.
Subs are basically like scavengers that pick off wounded ships already slowed down by combat. Thats why these interactions are handled separately.
The whole idea of wolfpack is an accurate term… you have a flock of sheep moving slowly in calm waters and a group of wolfs hunting down the outside ships that may get separated when the convoy is just reacting. The subs pounce on these hopeless ships and the destroyer is activated to then take away the engagement opportunities of subs and conduct ASW.
+++++++++++ thats all it DOES represent. It only allows the known condition that “we have enemy subs and we are preparing to sink them with ASW capable ships”
This reduces the surprise effect of the ‘first strike’ as naval surface units change formation to zig zag movement etc…
Detection as simply a warning to friendly fleet?
Intel would have told us enemy has submarines. (And there is no fog of war in Axis and Allies.)
In this argument I wonder why the fleet doesn’t use zig zag movement to start with?
++++++++++ HMMM… this was studied before, and the conclusion is that all the ships react under sub attack conditions, which would burden the rules with now separating the subs into different groups which is clearly something you don’t wish to see. It adds a further layer of complexity because now you have to fight with subs sperately into groups of identified/detected and undetected.
Another misunderstanding is found. So you want ASW attack rolls to be against undetected subs too? Like all subs are detected after firing?
+++++ correct you decide the screening before the roll out. The screening is for potential hit allocations once sub targets have been allocated and if the sub hits beyond the screening units allocated, then the target ship is hit. Additional screening units cannot absorb these hits.
This should be clear… perhaps we need more examples of play or you can provide an example of a players turn?
But I also like to be short and concise. I’ll make sure I say that air/sub hits WILL be allocated on screening units first.
Not sure what you mean by “additional screening units cannot absorb these hits”. The wording is that screening units always take hits against the target before the target.
+++++++++++ perhaps we just have screening units which work under sub and plane attacks ( in the same manner) and just lump the planes performing torpedo runs together with the surface naval attack rolls, except the defending ships roll out their AA rolls prior to planes targeted hits, followed by enemy surface actions by both parties.
That is already the case. Screening only “work under sub and plane attacks”. Gunship battle hits are allocated as victim wishs (of course can only allocate it on a gunship).
AA rolls before planes roll. Yes also already the case.
++++++++++ subs were used in advance of the surface fleet as a screening force. subs didn’t attack ships during full surface combat, because they would need to identify which ships were enemy and friendly, and this required bringing up the parascope for long periods which concluded that subs detection. Secondly, the ships were moving at full battle speed and subs cant really hit ships moving at full speed. Subs abilities relied on surprise while enemy was sailing at slower speeds. Surface combat forces many sharp turns and performance at top efficiency, and subs cant compete with this.
So my thoughts were correct. Subs don’t fight in main gunship battle.
In that case, submarines should ALWAYS fire in opening-fire.
Whether its targetted depends on whether the sub is detected. (with ASW search mechanism still under discussion.)
@Imperious:
I guess the Murmansk convoys and all the trouble the Soviets had actually getting lend lease is then largely ignored? This was actually meant for Soviets use only.
Thats from AARe discussion.
What are we doing with our lend-lease? Currently its back to OOB’s IPC teleportation.
Should we use the old system of loading IPC onto transports?
Retreat to combat zone
I realise there are no longer wording regarding retreat to combat zones.
We used to have a system. Units can retreat to combat zones and but are destroyed if territory control is lost. Air units retreat in non-combat move so thats fine.
DAS
During your enemies’ turn your air units may move to friendly territories or friendly occupied sea zones within two spaces.
DAS is allowed towards friendly territories and friendly occupied sea zones. That means fighters at Germany can help defend Baltic fleet.
Its “friendly” and “occupied” for sea zones so we don’t want complex naval movement interception. Which we don’t want as naval movements are fast and fluid. (Hence we do not allow naval combat reinforcements.)
Funny thing though is that wasn’t air superiority important for a safe cross-channel (English channel) sea ride for amphibious assault?
If so, maybe we should word to avoid them move to unoccupied sea zones so planes can try to kill unguarded transports to stop them from offloading.
Of course, air units besides naval fighter still has to retreat after first cycle.
P.S. I only have about 5 points left on my to-do list.
Quote
+++++++++++ thats all it DOES represent. It only allows the known condition that “we have enemy subs and we are preparing to sink them with ASW capable ships”This reduces the surprise effect of the ‘first strike’ as naval surface units change formation to zig zag movement etc…
Detection as simply a warning to friendly fleet?
Intel would have told us enemy has submarines. (And there is no fog of war in Axis and Allies.)
In this argument I wonder why the fleet doesn’t use zig zag movement to start with?
====== all warships have limited patrolling range. the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent. Also, transports do not sail at 30 knots and they can barely keep up and move around like a destroyer. Thats where you get " the convoy can only move at the speed at the slowest ship"
And that is why subs hunt from both sides of the convoy at roughly 45 degree angles, to catch a few of these slow ships and isolate them and sunk them before the escorts ( ASW) ships can get to the other side and engage.
Their is not ‘intel’ for submarines if they run silent in stealth mode. Of course once they engage engines a sound will be heard and only limited details will be available to act upon. By then it will be too late…
Quote
++++++++++ HMMM… this was studied before, and the conclusion is that all the ships react under sub attack conditions, which would burden the rules with now separating the subs into different groups which is clearly something you don’t wish to see. It adds a further layer of complexity because now you have to fight with subs sperately into groups of identified/detected and undetected.Another misunderstanding is found. So you want ASW attack rolls to be against undetected subs too? Like all subs are detected after firing?
============== it works simply: you roll 2 or less for detection and each DD and CA gets one roll. If ANY ship in this group gets the 2, then ALL the ships then get a second roll hitting each sub at 2. thats it. On the second round if the subs decide to attack a second round, then detection rolls are automatic and All ASW ships just roll out the 2 or less to hit each sub. they are not rolling out their normal combat values at any point against subs. NON ASW ships BB, CV etc… dont get to roll at all.
Quote
+++++ correct you decide the screening before the roll out. The screening is for potential hit allocations once sub targets have been allocated and if the sub hits beyond the screening units allocated, then the target ship is hit. Additional screening units cannot absorb these hits.This should be clear… perhaps we need more examples of play or you can provide an example of a players turn?
But I also like to be short and concise. I’ll make sure I say that air/sub hits WILL be allocated on screening units first.
Not sure what you mean by “additional screening units cannot absorb these hits”. The wording is that screening units always take hits against the target before the target.
=================“additional screening units cannot absorb these hits”….
example:
2 subs attack 1 enemy battleship and 1 destroyer. The defender declared DAS for second round ( 2 naval fighters)
one sub is matched against each ship.
The destroyer cannot screen the battleship because it too is subject to attack
The ASW Destroyer rolls out a 2 for detection ( success)
This means both subs shots are preemptive, but limited by ASW at 1/1 basis.
except detection from a destroyer cancels out one preemptive shot because it does so at 1 to 1 basis ( only one destroyer)
The non-preemptive sub rolls and misses
The preemptive sub hits the BB ( damaged)
now the destroyer CANNOT allocated the BB hit on itself because its not performing screening duty
The BB cannot attack the subs ( its not ASW unit)
The DD rolls out and gets a 3 ( miss…2 or less for as hit)
Second round:
Both subs are automatically detected
also 2 defending naval fighters arrive from island in sea zone
one sub goes on damaged bb, other on dd
fighters are split (one for each)
The sub rolls out against DD and misses…
The second sub rolls a hit on damaged BB…
The defender must allocate hit on BB:
BB is sunk…
DD rolls out hit, both planes roll and get 2 more hits… both subs gone
planes return to base
DD remains in SZ.
end combat…
Quote
++++++++++ subs were used in advance of the surface fleet as a screening force. subs didn’t attack ships during full surface combat, because they would need to identify which ships were enemy and friendly, and this required bringing up the parascope for long periods which concluded that subs detection. Secondly, the ships were moving at full battle speed and subs cant really hit ships moving at full speed. Subs abilities relied on surprise while enemy was sailing at slower speeds. Surface combat forces many sharp turns and performance at top efficiency, and subs cant compete with this.
So my thoughts were correct. Subs don’t fight in main gunship battle.
In that case, submarines should ALWAYS fire in opening-fire.
Whether its targeted depends on whether the sub is detected. (with ASW search mechanism still under discussion.)
=============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed? This looks good.
how will it look?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on November 15, 2007, 11:18:36 am
I guess the Murmansk convoys and all the trouble the Soviets had actually getting lend lease is then largely ignored? This was actually meant for Soviets use only.Thats from AARe discussion.
What are we doing with our lend-lease? Currently its back to OOB’s IPC teleportation.
Should we use the old system of loading IPC onto transports?
============= no keep the current system… remember 1 ipc lost for each enemy ship in convoy path thing? the other way it too complex…. transports cost too much and too few in number to have allocations for Lend lease… its hard enough for UK to even get enough ships in the water to even play her game.
The system we have in place suits best.
Retreat to combat zone
I realize there are no longer wording regarding retreat to combat zones.
We used to have a system. Units can retreat to combat zones and but are destroyed if territory control is lost. Air units retreat in non-combat move so thats fine.
======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.
DAS
During your enemies’ turn your air units may move to friendly territories or friendly occupied sea zones within two spaces.
DAS is allowed towards friendly territories and friendly occupied sea zones. That means fighters at Germany can help defend Baltic fleet.Its “friendly” and “occupied” for sea zones so we don’t want complex naval movement interception. Which we don’t want as naval movements are fast and fluid. (Hence we do not allow naval combat reinforcements.)
Funny thing though is that wasn’t air superiority important for a safe cross-channel (English channel) sea ride for amphibious assault?
If so, maybe we should word to avoid them move to unoccupied sea zones so planes can try to kill unguarded transports to stop them from offloading.Of course, air units besides naval fighter still has to retreat after first cycle.
Air superiority was needed. Thats why we have CA ( counter air missions) so one side can engage only air units killing them and follow up with landing and ground support missions. If the defender still has planes then air superiority combat will take place concurrent with land assault. Planes cannot engage in DAS missions for other territories and sea zones if the territory they are in is under attack
this is what should go in to fix it. Planes from other territories can still fly over to the fleet landing, but thats the risk the attacker is making. The other thing he can do is perform CA missions against those same territories flying DAS to prevent this from occuring.
==========also again what is the decision on the map… france is short 2 ipc… where does the income go to? FIC and?
the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent.
The zig-zag argument is fine for convoy raids.
But for fleet vs. fleet action you pretty much know about enemy submarines. You don’t have to wait for the destroyers to tell you to sail zig-zag or whatever appropriate.
Thats why I felt “ASW search” shouldn’t represent simply a warning but tracked by sonar.
=============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed? This looks good.
how will it look?
So we both agree that fleet submarines screen the friendly fleet and does not fight at the same time as gunship battle.
What happens to those victims? Do they stay afloat long enough to fight the gunship battle?
What happens if its a destroyer that was hit? Can it still chase and hunt the evading submarine with efficiency?
no keep the current system… remember 1 ipc lost for each enemy ship in convoy path thing?
Oh right. Lend-lease is subject to normal income path rules. I understand now. No teleportation involved.
======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.
Do realise that means you can prevent defender retreat most of the time?
You can send one infantry on a suicide attack to possible retreat territory. Or you can attack the territory for one cycle with an air unit.
You find the old rule was too complex or have you forgotten we had a rule?
Planes cannot engage in DAS missions for other territories and sea zones if the territory they are in is under attack
this is what should go in to fix it
That is already the case. The wording of the CA mission specifically said it.
However what I was sending was
==========also again what is the decision on the map… france is short 2 ipc… where does the income go to? FIC and?
I have already replied!
I notice you have a habbit of only reading the very last post. And sometimes I make more than one post a day.
Here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.msg246424#msg246424
Yes i am very sorry tekkyy I do forget alot because simply put… alot of information is getting sorted out by only two people and its very tedious. Just keep reminding me. AS you know i work on other games and i have many rewrites to do with them because after playtesting i constantly need to update the rules for my other games and its got similar types of ideas.
I will answer the post you left in the morning.
Quote
the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent.
The zig-zag argument is fine for convoy raids.
But for fleet vs. fleet action you pretty much know about enemy submarines. You don’t have to wait for the destroyers to tell you to sail zig-zag or whatever appropriate.Thats why I felt “ASW search” shouldn’t represent simply a warning but tracked by sonar.
====== its more than that and sonar was primitive back then. Detection is some known whereabouts and a idea of where to drop charges. A warning is more like " we have reports of U-boats in this area… please be advised…"
Quote
=============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed? This looks good.
how will it look?
So we both agree that fleet submarines screen the friendly fleet and does not fight at the same time as gunship battle.What happens to those victims? Do they stay afloat long enough to fight the gunship battle?
What happens if its a destroyer that was hit? Can it still chase and hunt the evading submarine with efficiency?
Quote
======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.
Do realise that means you can prevent defender retreat most of the time?
You can send one infantry on a suicide attack to possible retreat territory. Or you can attack the territory for one cycle with an air unit.You find the old rule was too complex or have you forgotten we had a rule?
+++++++++= yes but these cases are few exceptions. Many of the territories are not surrounded but linked to the interior and cannot be attacked simultaneously. Also, you cannot attack land units with only air units. that was changed long ago. You need equal amounts 1 to 1 basis. If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.
Example: you block a retreat by sending 2 infantry to attack X, while your main attack is against forces at y. Defending forces in excess of your 2 infantry are not blocked and arrive to defend against your attacking 2 infantry.
ASW search
Doesn’t matter if its my “tracked by sonar” or your “some known whereabouts”. Similar idea. This part I think you should roll.
Your “we have reports of U-boats in this area” I am saying is not needed. Because you ought to know enemy fleet has submarines. This part I think you shouldn’t have to roll. And you shouldn’t have to wait til 2nd combat cycle to know we have U-boats.
Hence I think “ASW search” roll should be the “some known whereabouts” and not “we have reports of U-boats in this area”. As such we would have each successful roll detect 1 enemy submarine.
Then the undetected submarines would fire selectively. Detected submarine fire unselectively. Both ASW search and attack rolls are unselective.
Submarine opening-fire
- All submarine interactions should be performed either before or after surface combat ( the attackers choice) . This way these interactions are separate and deal with the “scavenger mentality” In this way we keep it separate and easy to play. So to answer the question. All results either way are resolved so their is no carryover of hits or loses.
- again under #2 all interactions are separate. results of hits and loses do not carryover to other combat actions or results. ( A sunk ship is sunk, it cannot perform anything latter)
I would have it as before, rather than a choice, since submarines screen the fleet.
Also, you cannot attack land units with only air units. that was changed long ago.
Oh no. Didn’t realise thats what you meant.
This was our discussion about counter-air mission.
T: Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
I: actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
T: Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.
So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
I: Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.
I didn’t realise you want to remove air-only attack in normal combat.
Hence I said “So you can already do everything in combat” against having specific counter-air mission rule.
I don’t like disallowing air-only attack. I thought one cycle combat before having to retreat due to no land units is a good model.
In the same sense we allow air-only defense to fight one cycle before having to retreat due to no land units.
If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.
This isn’t consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory.
Which was the idea behind the rule that attacking land units must retreat the way they came from. (ie. You can’t do the OOB example of attacking China from Sinkiang + Manchuria and all retreat to Manchuria.)
Oh course I understand its not entirely realistic in letting them retreat to combat zone and then if land control is lost at the end of conduct combat then they are destroyed. But it was the best thing us two and others like theduke came up with at that point.
Other options examined include playing out all combats cycle by cycle. That was rejected as too complicated.
Map
Don’t worry about look back at the post. I’ll save you time and just repost here.
France 2 IPC where
All territories in the region are 1 IPC except Kirin. Don’t have FIC at 2 IPC unless its realistic. How about 1 IPC to Dakar and 1 IPC to France.
Australia
Try to find the loophole and post.
IPC spent at IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory income value. Australia is broken up into 3 x 1 IPC territories. It can’t produce anything besides artillery. Possible fix give all IPC to New South Wales.
Germany
I know Germany is not split. But all 18 IPC is in Eastern Germany at the moment. Should Western Germany get some?
East Indices, Borneo
Now that we have oil fields I sugguested East Indices and Borneo can be set to a realistic value like 2 IPC.
these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.
Then what did happen historically?
Maybe we need a war mobilisation or efficiency rule and formalise it on the map. Which US territory is getting the +10 IPC per turn? We had a war industrial NA for Germany. And maybe we have one for Japan too and Japan would get the 1942 production levels.
British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
What I mean is are those two territories significant? We don’t represent Hong Kong separately. These two territories are bigger of course but are they significant? It makes Italian East Africa harder to hold then neccessary.
Sahara
Its not an actually territory so I don’t know what you mean by existing desert upkeep rules.
Do you mean 1 IPC per unit to cross Sahara?
If you didn’t pay upkeep the balance carries forward. But what happens to those units?
ASW search
Doesn’t matter if its my “tracked by sonar” or your “some known whereabouts”. Similar idea. This part I think you should roll.Your “we have reports of U-boats in this area” I am saying is not needed. Because you ought to know enemy fleet has submarines. This part I think you shouldn’t have to roll. And you shouldn’t have to wait til 2nd combat cycle to know we have U-boats.
++++++++= but thats just it Subs didn’t travel with the fleet. They only go 6-12 knots and fleets move at 20-24 knots or faster. When in battle they move at faster speeds (perhaps 28-35 knots depending on ship) subs are not any part of “fleets” these are sent in ADVANCE of the main fleet when time permits and as part of some overall plan ( say at midway). In nearly every case you dont see any subs being used with naval combat because its like taking cripples into a track event.
Subs only really interact against slow moving convoys that happen to move into or thru an area under sub patrol. The detection roll is ONLY the definite engagement of ASW against subs and NOT some “keep your eyes open mr. brimley for enemy subs” type of event
Hence I think “ASW search” roll should be the “some known whereabouts” and not “we have reports of U-boats in this area”. As such we would have each successful roll detect 1 enemy submarine.
+++++++++++++ OK if we allow one successful detection roll= only one sub located… then it becomes too many seperate battles.
thats too many categories do deal with a few ships. Its a burden to the system to introduce yet another seperation.
Please make an example of play using all these new ideas… then we can have a clearer picture of how it actually effects play ( more fun or less fun)
Then the undetected submarines would fire selectively. Detected submarine fire unselectively. Both ASW search and attack rolls are unselective.
This makes sence but it will make thing too complex. lets see examples of play.
This was our discussion about counter-air mission.
T: Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
I: actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
T: Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.
So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
I: Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.I didn’t realize you want to remove air-only attack in normal combat.
Hence I said “So you can already do everything in combat” against having specific counter-air mission rule.I don’t like disallowing air-only attack. I thought one cycle combat before having to retreat due to no land units is a good model.
In the same sense we allow air-only defense to fight one cycle before having to retreat due to no land units.
======== their is a difference between counter air and ground support missions. IN counter air planes attack only planes w/o any land units being used in an effort to sap the enemy air strength ( battle of Britain stuff)
Ground support missions is the classic air units bringing to bear against enemy tanks… at time the enemy will put up air defense and aerial combat will occur for control of the sky , while a land battle rages below. These eventually are more than linked, they are mixed once one side has control of the sky and no opposition.
Quote
If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.
This isn’t consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory.Which was the idea behind the rule that attacking land units must retreat the way they came from. (ie. You can’t do the OOB example of attacking China from Sinkiang + Manchuria and all retreat to Manchuria.)
Oh course I understand its not entirely realistic in letting them retreat to combat zone and then if land control is lost at the end of conduct combat then they are destroyed. But it was the best thing us two and others like theduke came up with at that point.
Other options examined include playing out all combats cycle by cycle. That was rejected as too complicated.
OK then so which idea do you want? Im lost here.
Map
Don’t worry about look back at the post. I’ll save you time and just repost here.France 2 IPC where
All territories in the region are 1 IPC except Kirin. Don’t have FIC at 2 IPC unless its realistic. How about 1 IPC to Dakar and 1 IPC to France.
ok got it.
Australia
Quote
Try to find the loophole and post.
IPC spent at IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory income value. Australia is broken up into 3 x 1 IPC territories. It can’t produce anything besides artillery. Possible fix give all IPC to New South Wales.
yes good point!!! good job. You know the way that reads really needs an example. i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.
im not sure what the solution should be…
Germany
I know Germany is not split. But all 18 IPC is in Eastern Germany at the moment. Should Western Germany get some?
====== that line and the one in poland is for special reasons. This allows forces of different sides to occupy ( enemy and friendly) but the side in the main territory holds the IPC. This is to allow the co- habitation of Poland of German and soviets and the POLITICAL control of Germany by allied forces for historical victory conditions ( need to fix this)
East Indices, Borneo
Now that we have oil fields I sugguested East Indices and Borneo can be set to a realistic value like 2 IPC.
Quote
these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.
Then what did happen historically?
Maybe we need a war mobilisation or efficiency rule and formalise it on the map. Which US territory is getting the +10 IPC per turn? We had a war industrial NA for Germany. And maybe we have one for Japan too and Japan would get the 1942 production levels.
======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.
British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland
Quote
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
What I mean is are those two territories significant? We don’t represent Hong Kong separately. These two territories are bigger of course but are they significant? It makes Italian East Africa harder to hold then neccessary.
========== the British territory is a location to land planes. If i leave it out the map looks weird.
Sahara
Its not an actually territory so I don’t know what you mean by existing desert upkeep rules.
Do you mean 1 IPC per unit to cross Sahara?
If you didn’t pay upkeep the balance carries forward. But what happens to those units?
========== they remain. sometimes they are moving out of this zone. the money must still be paid.
You can throw out this rule if you like. heres some other ideas:
each unit rolls a die a 6 results in loss
or
unit enters sahara to move again it rolls a die only once per turn ( it must roll its hit point or less to move)
example: infantry must roll 2 or less to move, tanks 3 or less to move only one space.
