@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.
New movement concepts for Global 39 and 40
-
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. :? :? Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
-
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. :? :? Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
I think this means if you attacked Japan and Japan had ships in port those ships would not be able to defend with ground troops and aircraft. thats the trade off for the protection of a port, while in port ships cant respond to an immediate threat.
-
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. huh huh Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
No you need an AB to make SBR or any combat attacks. The planes always defend even if they are not in an AB, and defend alone in an AB.
Naval bases have no effect on invasions of attached land territory. The option is with the naval defending: they can defend or they can just stay in port. That is the flexibility in being in port. Also, if the land territory is taken they become ‘dislodged’ and placed in the sea zone at the end of the turn. On their own turn they can move out or attack.
I already used the concept of ports stopping invasions and that didn’t work. It took too long to remove the ships.
-
Ok, if you dont like the upgrade for ABs to accept bombers. how about you require an AB to land a bomber?You already require one for SBRs, i dont think bombers should be able to land anywhere on the board that you own.
-
OK the requirement that all planes that want to perform a combat or SBR or airborne drop must start from AB. Lets just keep that.
To require them to always remain in AB is too limiting. They could not now even hope to move from continent to continent in NCM because you need a chain of AB. That is too limiting. I say just for purposes of combat movement you are required to launch from an AB. you can still land on a non-AB territory.
I already protected ports and some cash poor nations can’t be undermined by the AB requirement for all planes all the time.
Its like adding too much spice and ruining the flavor.
-
Just to clarify, i didnt say all planes need an AB to land, just bombers. With the amount of starting ABs and buying a few to connect to dots it might not be a bad idea. will leave it your way for now and will playtest in future.
-
How about you just use your 1939 paratroopers marines rules. Plus how much will tach bomders and bombers defend at during an air raid
-
How about you just use your 1939 paratroopers marines rules.
Yes that is the idea. You pay 1 IPC per paratrooper and they fight at 2. Its just how the bomber works is the new idea. It must fly from AB if its doing a SBR , Airborne drop, or combat move.
Plus how much will tach bomders and bombers defend at during an air raid
- If they go under attack the AA gun defends first and all planes defend at 2, while attacking bombers attack at 3, and other planes attack at 1. attacks in this manner are only one round.
Thats the original idea:
the new concept is more KISS:
all defending planes at 2
attacking fighters at 1
attacking tactical bombers at 2
attacking bombers at 3all for one round and AA guns fire preemptively.
-
Special rules for Airbases:
- All planes performing any action during the combat movement phase must fly from an air base. All planes may move only half their normal movement in combat movement.
- Planes in Air Bases can offer defense of adjacent sea zone if located on island ( as per OOB).
- They can move into defend adjacent land territory or defend territory if attacked by SBR (fighters scramble).
- Air bases now cost 6 IPC and any AA gun may assist in the defense during an “air raid”
- If moved only during NCM the air movement from Air bases is increased to normal full movement (4 and 6)
Air Raid attack procedure:
A) AA guns fire preemptively if located in territory under attack.
B) Attacking fighters at 1, Tactical bombers at 2 and Bombers at 3
C) Defending planes all fire at 2
D) Combat is for one round onlyOptional Rules:
Surprise Attacks for either naval port or air base:
Surprise attack is possible if you don’t have radar technology
Roll 1-3: Attacking planes get preemptive fire first round (survivors of this attack still get to fire back). Planes defend at 2 and naval defends at normal values.
Roll 4-6: Has no effectSpecial rules for Naval Ports:
- Naval Base offers ships the ability to move four spaces in NCM only.
- They also protect against naval combat when in port.
(In port status does not require a move; rather it is assumed you’re in port if in the sea zone adjacent from port.) - They do not protect against air attacks. In this case if you got an AA gun it defends. Also, an adjacent air base can scramble fighters to assist in defense.
Strategic Redeployment:
Your land units may move double speed if they only move in NCM.
-
I think both bomber types should use an airbase.
Strat move rule I cooked up is unlimited move within friendly territory at a cost of 1 IPC per unit. With the number of units limited to 3 per industrial complex controlled. No sea moves.
-
How about surprize air attack on Naval Base? Ships docked in port, Pearl type situation. all fighters attack at 2 die @4 for one round after AAfire.
-
How about surprise air attack on Naval Base? Ships docked in port, Pearl type situation. all fighters attack at 2 die @4 for one round after AAfire.
Thats under the optional rule. It applies to both installations. But the attack values are the same 1,2,3 for attacker depending on plane type and normal naval values on defense and defending planes at 2.
-
Strat move rule I cooked up is unlimited move within friendly territory at a cost of 1 IPC per unit. With the number of units limited to 3 per industrial complex controlled. No sea moves.
Its a bit much. If Japan and Germany link the japanese army can get to say france from french indo china in one move. It also makes it too easy to kill russia.
This idea is only compensation for the extra land spaces and sea zones, while the units have the same movement points. That is only why the rule exists… to fix that so the game does not take forever to play.
-
Please clarify,
ALL aircraft cannot proform any kind of attack in combat move without it comming from an AB.
Fighters can only use a total of 2 moves to enter into combat over land territories but still have 2 moves left to land after combat is resolved.
Fighters can land in any friendy land territory per OOB but can only defend that territory if attcked and also cannot scramble without AB.
All of the above applies to Bombers except Bombers can move 3 territories over land into combat. -
Please clarify,
ALL aircraft cannot perform any kind of attack in combat move without it coming from an AB.
Fighters can only use a total of 2 moves to enter into combat over land territories but still have 2 moves left to land after combat is resolved.
Fighters can land in any friendly land territory per OOB but can only defend that territory if attacked and also cannot scramble without AB.
All of the above applies to Bombers except Bombers can move 3 territories over land into combat.Yes 100% exactly.
-
Ok, that all makes perfect sense. BUT Bombers should be required to only land at ABs. Just makes sense realisticly, With what you have already, you are not going to be able to use your airforce effectivly without ABs anyway. if you use a bomber in an attack and need to land it in a TT without an airbase for logistic reasons, you will not be able to attack with that Bomber on the next turn. thats worse than just having your ABs in place before you can start letting the bombs drop. Bombers cannot and do not operate outside of ABs
-
Ok, that all makes perfect sense. BUT Bombers should be required to only land at ABs. Just makes sense realistically,
It does, but now you got two different rules for each plane. Fighters can land anywhere, while bombers must land in AB AT ALL TIMES. The right thing is to have one rule for all air units.
Right now planes that wish to perform normal combat actions must use an air base. If you want to “hide” your planes from AB attacks, you can and this is good to have this way out.
If you make the rules too restrictive players wont use them and start calling them too ‘scripted’ I am trying to get away from that and give the AB a benefit ( scramble to adjacent areas to defend), rather than take away the value of the air force from players forces.
With what you have already, you are not going to be able to use your airforce effectivly without ABs anyway.
I don’t want the rules to limit the planes that much. Just effects the combat actions. I don’t want planes to be overly weakened by that requirement. They may still land anywhere they want, but cant fully participate in combat unless they are supported from AB.
if you use a bomber in an attack and need to land it in a TT without an airbase for logistic reasons, you will not be able to attack with that Bomber on the next turn.
Thats right but by not moving to an AB to can protect it with non air units. the thing you lose is the ability to do all the normal functions. That trade-off is acceptable.
thats worse than just having your ABs in place before you can start letting the bombs drop. Bombers cannot and do not operate outside of ABs
Again the official rule will be that you can still land planes where you like, but to perform any combat action on your turn is no longer possible. You can still move full movement in NCM. This makes it possible to move these planes full distance and NOT be forced into buying an air base so that you can redeploy your planes. These are 6 month turns and its ridiculous to expect that you have to wait one year in order to move a bomber to say Africa because you didn’t have an air base.
-
Yes i see all your points. i didnt even think about using non-AB tts to protect planes from air attack. I still like my Bombers idea and will playtest this on my own when i am up and running again( recently relocated, still unpacking). Thanks for taking the time to engauge my ideas. I hope you dont think im a pain in the ass for always throwing my 2 cents at you but its not easy to find people that think on this level for this game. always looking to take this game to the next level.
-
No not at all. Never felt that even once.
Just had to clarify the rules so when you play it’s done correctly.
Suggested Topics
