@AndrewAAGamer thx for the help! 😃
What do we want in AAE40 that we didn't get in AAP40?
-
Casualties done by fighters should be taken by other aircraft first, instead of ground units. After air superiority is established, strafing may commence.
At what point would you say air superiority has been established?
When all aircraft of one side are destroyed. I guess you would have to fire air-air between first-strike and regular combat.
Just curious.
I’ve earned some -karma on here discussing this subject (and obviously not learnt my lesson) from those who say forcing air-air combat until all AC are destroyed wastes the IPCs spent on AC and it should be limited to first dice rolls only, no matter who survives.Personally I don’t really see the realism of that. Just sounds too Gamey to me.
(OK whoever you are, go ahead -1 me until you feel better) -
If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.
-
well then it skews the worth of a 10 fighter, I may wish to invest 50 icp’s to stack 5 fighters ontop o 10 inf knowing that i can can defend with my fighters for ten hits. Now if i have to think about you coming with 7 fighters to my territoy against 2 fighters of mine than it mess’s with the whole mechanics of a game i have loved since 86. I would consider a game with that many changes would just be a new game, maybe even step up form A&A as far as realism.Me personaly would not graduate to that game, my flag is firmly planted to Larry Harris’s way of doing things, just enuff reality with enjoyabilty. T he game still brings up discuscion about historic battles in my play group, wish sparks the imagination so its about all I need, also more complex the game the less beer can be dranken.
-
@Iwo:
well then it skews the worth of a 10 fighter, I may wish to invest 50 icp’s to stack 5 fighters ontop o 10 inf knowing that i can can defend with my fighters for ten hits. Now if i have to think about you coming with 7 fighters to my territoy against 2 fighters of mine than it mess’s with the whole mechanics of a game i have loved since 86. I would consider a game with that many changes would just be a new game, maybe even step up form A&A as far as realism.Me personaly would not graduate to that game, my flag is firmly planted to Larry Harris’s way of doing things, just enuff reality with enjoyabilty. T he game still brings up discuscion about historic battles in my play group, wish sparks the imagination so its about all I need, also more complex the game the less beer can be dranken.
Well we’re drifting into House Rule territory… and this tangent is definitely far from the original aim of the thread: bitching about AAP40 and dreading what it portends for AAE40.
-
@i:
you no what i want a lower price!
Or how about just getting our money’s worth? Whatever that price is.
-
I guess my wishes are rather small in comparison. I’d like to see paper money make a return in AAE40.
Yeh, I can just as easily raid my monopoly set or another AA game, but it seems like a simple addition. -
Does anyone miss those marker cards in Revised were if a territory was too crowded you could mark it with a number and have all units in that territory stay on seperate card to avoid over crowding? I found it useful to keep track of troops on transports.
-
I want more plastic.
-
@Brain:
If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.
Keep the game simple please - this sounds like A&A Minis already…
-
@Brain:
If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.
Keep the game simple please - this sounds like A&A Minis already…
True.
but I must confess it kind of grinds my gears when I read players saying “oh no you can’t do that to them they’re my A4s and multiplying their IPC x A# / WHIP and using my slide rule and low level dice probabilities (blah blah blah)”
I’m sorry but the point (IMHO) isn’t to populate the battle boards evenly, avoiding repetition, or balance the books by keeping all units’ lethality in line with their ticket price so everybody buys X each G1.
-
Neutrality that lasts as long as you don’t attack neutral powers. (Otherwise, what’s point of neutrality, unless you like jumping the gun?) In 1940, the USA wasn’t at war with either Japan or Germany, and didn’t really want to go to war either.
The above statement is not fully accurate. The American people felt disillusioned by their experience in WWI. (Which they had been told was a war to make the world safe for democracy, but which turned out to be a war to make the world safe for France to exploit Germany.) They were, accordingly, deeply isolationist, when just a generation later the idea was tossed around of once again going to war against Germany.
But America’s elites–most especially including FDR–strongly favored war with Germany. The media was also becoming pro-war; and that became more pronounced as media consolidation occurred. Between the influence of a pro-war administration, a pro-war media, and other pro-war elites, it is probable that even without an Axis attack, America would have gradually drifted into war, much as it had in WWI. By 1940, the U.S. Navy was already participating in joint search and destroy missions against German submarines.
London, by the end of June 1940 was expecting delivery from the United States of no less than 10,800 aircraft and 13,000 aero-engines over the next eighteen months. This was in addition to the Britain’s own production of 15,000 military aircraft. At the same time, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production was negotiating with the Americans to order many thousands more. By way of comparison, total German aircraft production came to only 10,826 aircraft and in 1941 it expanded to only 12,000, a disappointing increase which we will discuss in greater detail below. In addition, there was America’s own gigantic rearmament programme, which tilted the balance even further against Germany. In fact, so large were the combined demands of the British and American programmes that they stretched even America’s industrial resources. But the United States did not respond by seeking to restrict British purchases; quite the contrary. On 23 July 1940 British procurement agents in Washington were invited to a clandestine meeting with American industrial planners, from which emerged a scheme to expand the capacity of the United States aircraft industry so that it would be able to deliver no less than 72,000 aircraft per annum, guaranteeing a supply to the British of 3,000 planes per month, three times the current German output.
Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction, 405 - 407
Even though the United States was still technically at peace with Germany in 1940, the former nation’s industrial might was already being put to work to crush the latter.
-
@Brain:
If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.
There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:- An attack value
- A defense value
2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have: - A land combat value
- A naval combat value
- An air combat value
3. Combining the two methods. Units would have: - An attack value (land)
- A defense value (land)
- An attack value (naval) . . . etc.
Method three results in six different combat values; making it both the most realistic and the most complex. The methods Larry and I used are relatively similar in their complexity, but involve differing trade-offs with respect to realism. Infantry hiding behind trenches should have an advantage–an advantage which Larry’s system incorporates. Mine does not, because all units have the same land combat values whether they are on offense or defense. But to make up for that, my rules set allows for the inclusion of air-to-air combat–combat for which fighters are specialized. It has the following definitions for aircraft:
Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15 -
That’s what I am talking about.
-
Nice, I like the concept
-
I think WWII Struggle for Europe and Asia is like this.
-
dont you think a 5 naval attak is alot?
Yeah, that is pretty high.
-
Your opponents should check your loaded dice :wink:
-
@Brain:
If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.
There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:- An attack value
- A defense value
2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have: - A land combat value
- A naval combat value
- An air combat value
3. Combining the two methods. Units would have: - An attack value (land)
- A defense value (land)
- An attack value (naval) . . . etc.
Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15I like your ideas, Kurt. It’d be nice to not have the cheap 4 attack of the bomber used on everything halfway around the board. Bombers used in land fights wouldn’t be so over-represented (and represent an apparently infinite supply of bombs for however many rounds of combat). Navies would be mostly fights between carrier borne aircraft, as it should be. Bombers would be mainly used for SBRs, and as support aircraft, not the main force for attacking.
Not sure about the rule for the territory value loss there… By round 3 of a dedicated Allied SBR campaign Germany will be producing 0 units even with repair (4-5 Brit bombers and 4-5 US bombers day/night raids). Maybe have the “SBR territory damage” bought back at 2-3X the normal repair cost. Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced. Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!
-
Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced. Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!
Fighter escorts would solve this.
And really that’s what fighters do best: engage other fighters. -
Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced. Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!
Fighter escorts would solve this.
And really that’s what fighters do best: engage other fighters.I guess the Allies will need to take Norway or land in eastern europe somewhere to pull fighter escorts off?
Suggested Topics
