AARe : Enhanced

[Jennifer]

know how much fun they are, Axis.  I do them all the time in KJF games. =)  I’m even known as Die Flottemurder because I seem to get lucky a lot in naval warfare. (Luck, as in 3 submarines vs 3 aircraft carriers with all submarines hitting in the opening fire step, kind of luck!)

Here’s what I was thinking, if they need tweaking:

Yamamotos:

1st Battleship costs 15 IPC
Battleships with Combined Arms fire AA Guns at 2 (like Radar, it is the same requirement the British need, seems fair)
Battleships may bombard twice at 4 or less
Battleships may attack and defend at 5 or less

Atlantic Wall:
For every Infantry defending in Germany, W. Europe or Norway against DESTROYERS, the defender may roll a die and negate that destroyer’s bombardment on a roll of 1. (This is identical to jets stopping SBR runs and rockets.)

These should encourage more naval battles in the Pacific by buffing up the Yamamoto as well as give Japan a significant advantage if America ignores her.  After all, taking India/Australia/Hawaii will be a snap with 6 battleship bombardments in opening fire!  Hell, Japan could seriously stop a North Africa attack plan iwth that kind of firepower.  As America, I’d seriously consider taking Reinforced Carriers and trying to stop Japan before she got out there to be a nuissance.  But that’s just me.  Not to mention, they’ll be significantly harder to kill in naval warfare since 33% of your airpower will be shot down before the battle. (16% if you get Jets, so at least the Yamamoto cannot be nutralized with a tech.)

Also, you won’t have to adjust Radar since combined arms won’t be a huge deal with the destroyers A) being counterable and B) reduced in number with America going Pacific to stop Japan from taking the world over.  As for the British Battleships killed 33% of attacking fighters, it’s the same as Japan now and still reducable with a simple Jet Power Technology (a tech I like to get for Germany ANYWAY!)

---

You see, I do not like nerfing something because it’s currently too powerful.  I’d rather buff something else to compensate.  That way you are not hurting someone, you are just helping someone else.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Here’s what I was thinking, if they need tweaking:

Yamamotos:

1st Battleship costs 15 IPC
Battleships with Combined Arms fire AA Guns at 2 (like Radar, it is the same requirement the British need, seems fair)
Battleships may bombard twice at 4 or less
Battleships may attack and defend at 5 or less

The BB aaa @ 2 would be far too powerful

In fact, this capability is being removed from radar (BB aaa’s can not exceed 1)
In other words, if UK takes radar AND gets Combined Arms, you would not exceed the 1 BB aaa capability

[tekkyy]

@axis_roll:

In fact, this capability is being removed from radar (BB aaa’s can not exceed 1)
In other words, if UK takes radar AND gets Combined Arms, you would not exceed the 1 BB aaa capability

yeah I think thats fair

[Jennifer]

I’d rather just give Japan the same ability then take an ability away from England.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

I’d rather just give Japan the same ability then take an ability away from England.

The point is not to even it out, the point is that BB aaa@2 is too strong.

We don’t want uber weapons as badly as we don’t want uber strats

[Jennifer]

I don’t think it’s too strong.  I think Dive Bombers are too strong.  Battleships with AA Guns firing at 2 or less (which costs money btw, both for the battleship AND the technology, not to mention the opportunity cost of having to take that specific NA) evens out the Dive Bombers.

[tekkyy]

actually AA at 2 it more than evens out dive bombers
I think thats the problem

[Jennifer]

I’d be less displeased if we took Dive Bombers out of Navy Battles and reduce AA Fire on UK BBs to 1 then just nerfing England.

Honestly, I’d keep them both the same, maybe buff Japan to equalize the sides.  Although, IMHO, the Axis don’t need help in AARe as formulated, but the allies could use some assistance…like maybe making Norway a Victory City so that the pressure isn’t on America all the time to grab the 10th VC away from the Axis.

[tekkyy]

yeah I like more VCs too
the more the merrier up to a certain point
AARe is below this point

especially Africa

it guess its easier if we don’t need “equal number per nation”

[axis_roll]

I will try to ask as politely as possible my request.

Can we try to keep this thread as clean as possible?

This has the current version (5.0) of the Enhanced rules
We can discuss any changes/opinions/other ideas about Enhanced in another thread.

Thank you!

[tekkyy]

oh yeah we got side tracked
lets get back to it

still got to answer this

@Cmdr:

BTW, please tell us WHERE the power rankings are to compete in.  Not that I’m worthy of the top spot, but I’d like to practice against more opponents.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

BTW, please tell us WHERE the power rankings are to compete in.  Not that I’m worthy of the top spot, but I’d like to practice against more opponents.

Sorry for taking so long to answer your question.

PAGAN has been the defacto facilitator of this list.
I would contact him.  Maybe we should have a thread of A&ARe players with their e-mails to foster game play.

I will start that up when I have some time in the next few days
–----------------------------------------------------------
.
The___ AARe.pdf ___Rules are available.
The___LHTR1.3.pdf Rules are available
.
The AARevised.udm for MapView is available.
The AAREnhanced.udm for MapView is available.
The ENH.gim ___for AABattlemap is available
.
.
Contact – PAGAN

AH-PM = pagan
ICQ = 170611318
AIM = PAGANgodlike
email = pagan @ paganed.com

[Jennifer]

I had a thought, having played this rule set quite a number of times now, that maybe it would be more in line with the concept of submarines if you could not hunt a submarine with another submarine without a destroyer present?

This would, of course, make some fundamental changes.  For one, if you attacked a submarine with a submarine and destroyer, it would only be possible for the defending submarine to attack the destroyer in opening fire because it could not attack the attacking submarine until it decides to stay (and thus become automatically detected.)

But it would also allow you to put your submarines in CR range and force your opponent to deal with the loss of income or build more expensive destroyers instead of just dropping half a dozen submarines and forcing you to retreat or attack them.

Just an idea.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

I had a thought, having played this rule set quite a number of times now, that maybe it would be more in line with the concept of submarines if you could not hunt a submarine with another submarine without a destroyer present?

This would, of course, make some fundamental changes.  For one, if you attacked a submarine with a submarine and destroyer, it would only be possible for the defending submarine to attack the destroyer in opening fire because it could not attack the attacking submarine until it decides to stay (and thus become automatically detected.)

But it would also allow you to put your submarines in CR range and force your opponent to deal with the loss of income or build more expensive destroyers instead of just dropping half a dozen submarines and forcing you to retreat or attack them.

Just an idea.

Subs would become too powerful.  They are already strong enough.  Subs are good sub hunters / counters.

[Guest]

In WW2, there was only one case of a submerged sub sinking another submerged sub.  On February 9, 1945, the HMS Venturer, a British V-class submarine, sank the U-864 in an attack in which both submarines were submerged.  See the following site for more information on the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

All other submarines in WW2 that were sunk by other submarines were sunk while running on the surface.  There were also a number of “friendly fire” losses.  Submarines are now considered a good anti-submarine weapon because of the ability to use passive sonar from the optimum sub-surface location, giving them extremely long detection ranges.  This has been developed since the end of the war.

[axis_roll]

@timerover51:

In WW2, there was only one case of a submerged sub sinking another submerged sub.  On February 9, 1945, the HMS Venturer, a British V-class submarine, sank the U-864 in an attack in which both submarines were submerged.  See the following site for more information on the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

All other submarines in WW2 that were sunk by other submarines were sunk while running on the surface.  There were also a number of “friendly fire” losses.  Submarines are now considered a good anti-submarine weapon because of the ability to use passive sonar from the optimum sub-surface location, giving them extremely long detection ranges.  This has been developed since the end of the war.

Enhanced is about game play balance MUCH more than historical realism.

Play bu AARHe is you want that sort of game.

[Guest]

@axis_roll:

@timerover51:

In WW2, there was only one case of a submerged sub sinking another submerged sub.  On February 9, 1945, the HMS Venturer, a British V-class submarine, sank the U-864 in an attack in which both submarines were submerged.  See the following site for more information on the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

All other submarines in WW2 that were sunk by other submarines were sunk while running on the surface.  There were also a number of “friendly fire” losses.  Submarines are now considered a good anti-submarine weapon because of the ability to use passive sonar from the optimum sub-surface location, giving them extremely long detection ranges.  This has been developed since the end of the war.

Enhanced is about game play balance MUCH more than historical realism.

Play bu AARHe is you want that sort of game.

Quite a few submarines were sunk in WW2 by other submarines, but all of those sinkings occured while the one sub was running on the surface.  Until the development of the snorkel, subs spent most of their time on the surface, so subs being able to attack other subs without a destroyer present is quite reasonable.  In actuality, having a destroyer attack an enemy sub with friendly subs present has a fairly good probability of the destroyer sinking a friendly sub rather than the enemy.

[Jennifer]

I don’t know if making submarines immune from each other until detected would make them more or less powerful.  Honestly, my thought on the process was that this would allow America/Japan to put submarines in the water with immunity if the other side did not build destroyers to stop them.  This could turn the tide of a battle or at least force both sides to have destroyers in order to prevent the other side from doing CRD.

But as I said, I don’t KNOW if it will unbalance the game.  I’ve never tried it.

[Guest]

The best counter to a sub in WW2 was a surface escort, be it corvette, sloop, frigate, older destroyer modified for escort duty, or a destroyer.  You should have to deploy destroyers to counter subs.  Subs by themselves were not enough in WW2.  If you want to force the deployment of destroyers, have subs attack other subs on 1, and give the attacked sub a saving throw of 1-3.  Subs can still attack other subs without detection, but do not do it as well as destroyers.

[Jennifer]

I just dont understand how submarines find other submarines.  Other submarines should at least get the option to retreat from attacking submarines before the attacker gets to fire.  This would still allow you to displace submarines engaging in CRD but still not make your submarines better than destroyers.  After all, was it not the purpose of all these submarine detection rules to help encourage more destroyers to be purchased?