Wouldn’t be enough. The Japanese could easily take all three of those islands on Japan 2, which means that the allies will only collect the money for one Turn. $11 in the pockets of UK Pacific is virtually useless in comparison to a $50-$60 Bid.
This thread was hijacked and no longer holds relevance
-
Also, coordinating artillery when defending is easier than attacking. Let me convince you here.
This is slightly off topic from YGs original post about infantry, but I will adress it anyway.
Defense is the strong way of using military force, and defense will favor all land unit types, if we consider the tactical level. Both defending infantry, artillery and even Tanks dug in for protection, and usually they even lay a minefield to force the attacking enemies into a killing zone covered by pre determined fire coordinates. The attacker will need 3 times the firepower of the defender to succeed with an attack. But this change at the strategic level, since the attacker can bypass the defending strongpoints. Unless there is a bottleneck with natural flank protection, like the Russian attack on Viborg, or the D day landing in Normandy, in which cases could only be solved with brute frontal attacks and huge losses. But usually the units got other combat values in the strategigal level. A strong defender can never cover all of the border, unless we speak trench warfare of WWI, so basically mobile units like Tanks can make surprise attacks at light defended points, or breakthrough at an unexpected place, and later make a follow up attack on the dug in defenders from behind, or if the defending strongpoint is too strong, just cut off their supply line and let them starve, or exploit the chaotic situation in other ways. But since our A&A map dont have terrain like mountains, forest, swamps or plains, and no effect if the border are short or long, and no wheather effect neither, and the Battle board have no way of telling what type of combat we resolve, is it an infantry assault, or a Panzer blitzkrieg attack ? It dont even treat an Amphibious Assault much different than other attacks. Even air combat and naval battles are resolved basically the same way. So then I figure the current OOB combat values are good enough.
Accidentically I have made a study of this issues for several years, and my suggestion is to differ the type of territories, and the type of combat too. Keep the current units values for simplicity, but let the defenders land units roll one round of preemptive fire if there is an amphibious assault, or the territory contains mountains, marshes and terrain that favor the defender, or the territory is small, like Gibraltar or Viborg, forcing the attacker to face all the dug in defenders, with no possibility for a bypass. Aircrafts really should get their own combat phase, with possibility to target other aircrafts, and only the part that get air supremacy should be able to take part of the later combat phases. Also, naval battles need an distinct and specific combat phase, and only the part that get naval supremacy can take part in the land combat phase, that will be resolved last, after the other phases.
About YGs suggestion, I dont like it. Infantry are too weak as it is, and attack at 1 with a D8 must be a joke. Maybe if regulare infantry att 2 def 4 with a D8 maybe I endorse it, but then there are game balance.
-
Inf too weak?
In absolute number, yes; but not relative to cost. Being cheapest, providing 1 hit for 3 IPCs make Inf strong unit.
Do you mean compared to M2 MechInf?Increasing Inf strength would recreate the slow Infantry Push Mechanic.
-
Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.
So figure, according to my house rules, the infantry units are as follows in a d8 or d12 system:
Colonial Infantry are A1D1C2M1, with no abilities.
Cavalry are A1D1C3M2, with the ability to blitz and withdraw.
Regular Infantry are A1D2C3M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only and to entrench. This should fix your concerns about Russia’s ability to defend itself, Ichabod.
Airborne Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to conduct parachute drops from transport aircraft, to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Airborne Infantry attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct airborne assaults.
Marine Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Marines may reduce amphibious defenses by 1 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault and attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct amphibious assaults.
Heavy Infantry are A2D2C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on attack and defense, to entrench, and to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis during an attack.
Armored Cars are A2D2C7M2, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance (reroll artillery on a 1:1 basis), to Blitz, and to withdraw.
I should add that, in my games, artillery fire precedes normal combat. Casualties in this phase are removed without a chance to fire back. The attacker always goes first, then the defender, when resolving the artillery phase. After that, combat proceeds normally.
We also use Der Kuenstler’s rules on etrenchment and amphibious assaults. The entrenchment option will presumably give the Russians additional breathing room.
Per Narvik’s comments, we have developed air-to-ground and air-to-air ratings for all air units, although I am leaning strongly toward including an air phase that precedes naval or ground combat.
-
Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.
So figure, according to my house rules, the infantry units are as follows in a d8 or d12 system:
Colonial Infantry are A1D1C2M1, with no abilities.
Cavalry are A1D1C3M2, with the ability to blitz and withdraw.
Regular Infantry are A1D2C3M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only and to entrench. This should fix your concerns about Russia’s ability to defend itself, Ichabod.
Airborne Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to conduct parachute drops from transport aircraft, to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Airborne Infantry attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct airborne assaults.
Marine Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Marines may reduce amphibious defenses by 1 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault and attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct amphibious assaults.
Heavy Infantry are A2D2C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on attack and defense, to entrench, and to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis during an attack.
Armored Cars are A2D2C7M2, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance (reroll artillery on a 1:1 basis), to Blitz, and to withdraw.
I should add that, in my games, artillery fire precedes normal combat. Casualties in this phase are removed without a chance to fire back. The attacker always goes first, then the defender, when resolving the artillery phase. After that, combat proceeds normally.
We also use Der Kuenstler’s rules on etrenchment and amphibious assaults. The entrenchment option will presumably give the Russians additional breathing room.
Per Narvik’s comments, we have developed air-to-ground and air-to-air ratings for all air units, although I am leaning strongly toward including an air phase that precedes naval or ground combat.
Trenacker,
showing your rules are not a way to convince someone else.
You need to push a little forward and compared both and shows benefits from one over another.Also, you are including more HRs which are outside YG’s parameter for sure.
Besides, I’m trying to have wider grasp of all air-to-air combat rules (in hope of developing a toggle option in Triple A G40 redesign), would you please give me the link for your rules. I believe this is within HR forum already, right?
@Narvik, I’m also interested if you wrote it somewhere.
Thanks, -
Wrote what ?
-
It dont even treat an Amphibious Assault much different than other attacks. Even air combat and naval battles are resolved basically the same way. So then I figure the current OOB combat values are good enough.
Accidentically I have made a study of this issues for several years, and my suggestion is to differ the type of territories, and the type of combat too. Keep the current units values for simplicity, but let the defenders land units roll one round of preemptive fire if there is an amphibious assault, or the territory contains mountains, marshes and terrain that favor the defender, or the territory is small, like Gibraltar or Viborg, forcing the attacker to face all the dug in defenders, with no possibility for a bypass. Aircrafts really should get their own combat phase, with possibility to target other aircrafts, and only the part that get air supremacy should be able to take part of the later combat phases. Also, naval battles need an distinct and specific combat phase, and only the part that get naval supremacy can take part in the land combat phase, that will be resolved last, after the other phases.
Your air-to-air combat rules.
-
Ohh, my deluxe air to air combat rules ? You want a piece of that ?
I will make a specific thread about it, lets not derail YGs topic any more.
-
Baron Munchhausen, I apologize if this question sounds obtuse, but convince someone of what?
My house rules are specifically designed to address my group’s play styles and preferences. While I’d be glad for someone else to use them, and I put them out there for discussion, I don’t think they have automatic applicability elsewhere. YG is free to read or skip my contributions and use or discard whatever ideas he sees fit. Since Ichabod asked about Russian defenders, I wanted to give him a sense of how we deal with having multiple Infantry-class units. That includes giving him some context. For example, the fact that we use entrenchment is probably significant when we talk about difficulties faced by a country like Russia, which usually plays a defensive game.
I’ll confess to not understanding how the different formulas work. In the past, Argothair has been kind enough to discuss some comparative options with me when I consider whether to add or eliminate new units and need to get a handle on whether players will choose to buy one or another. I don’t really engage with the formulas anymore.
The hard drive with my air-to-air combat rules is currently in storage pending completion of a home office. I should have access again by Christmas. In the meantime, here some quick ideas:
-
All aircraft have both air-to-ground and air-to-air values for attack and defense.
-
Aircraft may choose to target either air or ground units before each round of combat.
-
Bomber aircraft may choose to target air units only on defense.
-
Fighter aircraft may not choose to target ground units until all enemy fighters are eliminated.
-
Aircraft improve the likelihood of a successful Naval Combat Search. (This is a roll we use to determine whether two fleets find each other on the vastness of the ocean. There is a small likelihood that combat will be averted, simulating weather and chance.)
-
Capital ships have a special ability that allows them to conduct AA fire, but it is weak. Cruisers improve AA fire. However, naval units suffer a disadvantage if, when attacked by enemy air units, there are no defending aircraft.
In terms of air units, here is what I use (to the best of my memory):
The first number in A and D is ground attack/defender, the second air attack/defense.
Scout Fighter: A2/2 D2/2 C7 M4
Fighter: A3/4 D3/4 C9 M5
Tactical Bomber: A5/0 D2/1 C10 M5
Strategic Bomber: A6/0 D1/1 C12 M7
Zeppelin: A6/0 D0/2 C12 M6
Transport: A0 D0 C7 M6A Zeppelin does not need to land after each turn. If a Zeppelin ends its turn on an enemy territory and there are defenders in that territory, the owner of that territory immediately rolls 1 AAA shot. If any AAA are present, they may fire as well. Fighter aircraft present in the same territory or in an adjacent territory with an air base may scramble.
A Transport may load up to 2 friendly airborne or regular infantry at a friendly airbase. It may carry these units to a destination where they unload as normal, or else make a para drop with Airborne Infantry at any point along the way. It may not land and take off again on the same turn.
We are also experimenting with a rule that grants a +1 die bonus to an attacker that has air superiority from the very start of combat.
-
-
Trenacker,
you started your post with:Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.
Maybe I did not fully understand what this meant and I just catch the “Let me convince you” part. I’m not that fluent in speaking english.
Nonetheless, the best part I was hoping for is about Russia’s demise according to YG’s Infantry and Artillery values. I believed you wanted to correct this with your units values. I tried to convinced YG that Russia need a strong Artillery, so by my comment I was curious about how you analyze Soviet situations and why your units improve the balance for Russia instead of worsening it. My comments was not focus on unit values but more about what Russia needs to make an interesting game against Italy and Germany.
HTH to see my intent, so you can provide us a glimpse of how your units may solve the Eastern front issue.
Thanks for this summary of your dogfight rules, do you remember what was the different combat values?
You can just edit your last post, to get all infos on a single one. Then post a short notice.
Then, I will soon make a single thread which contains different house rules to deal with air-to-air combat.
I don’t want to side track YG thread.Ohh, my deluxe air to air combat rules ? You want a piece of that ?
I will make a specific thread about it, lets not derail YGs topic any more.
Agree.
-
@Baron:
Maybe I did not fully understand what this meant and I just catch the “Let me convince you” part. I’m not that fluent in speaking english.
Oh, I see. I was complimenting Ichabod on convincing me that defending with artillery is easier than attacking with artillery.
@Baron:
Nonetheless, the best part I was hoping for is about Russia’s demise according to YG’s Infantry and Artillery values. I believed you wanted to correct this with your units values. I tried to convinced YG that Russia need a strong Artillery, so by my comment I was curious about how you analyze Soviet situations and why your units improve the balance for Russia instead of worsening it. My comments was not focus on unit values but more about what Russia needs to make an interesting game against Italy and Germany.
Russia’s a tricky subject in my games because I introduce new minor powers that change the game balance in the Baltic (Sweden and Poland) and on the Black Sea coast (Greece).
In general, I tend to balance by adding more infantry rather than by adjusting unit values.
Adding cavalry also made a big difference because it provides Russia with a cheap unit able to take good advantage of its interior lines of communication during Barbarossa. The Armored Car might also help Russia get more out of each artillery piece.
Suggested Topics
