More Powerful Airplanes #2

[theduke]

i think it will play test well. after running some numbers through my head i don’t see any problems or ‘loopholes’. i think this is best house rule that’s i’ve heard from you.

the only problems i have with it, and this is more of just a personal bias, is that it seems a bit artificial. what i mean by that is that the air supremacy advantage is dependent on supporting ground troops. without these supporting tropps there is no advantage and that doesn’t seem realistic. the advantage should seem to be independent of the type of supporting units.

armor don’t get a bonus attack but it seems that an all armor and ftr attack force should share the same air supremacy advantage as when other ground unit types are present. also, there should be a air supremacy advantage at sea too but that’s not included.

Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.

by “or” do you mean you choose which ground unit type gets the advantage? so if i attack with 2 inf, 1 rtl, and 1 ftr i choose to add one on attack onto either the inf or rtl? there doesn’t seem to be a decision- you should add it to one of the inf. no one should add it to the rtl because if you add it to inf you are making that unit 2 times as likely to get a hit. if you choose rtl, then you’re only making it 1.5 times as likely to get a hit. 2 > 1.5, so always add the advantage to the infantry. no decision.

by the way, if you want to make it an air superiority rule instead, then you could just change the rule to say that you take the difference between the number of ftrs on each side and that is the number of +1 bonus attacks the side with more planes gets.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@theduke:

…. the only problems i have with it, and this is more of just a personal bias, is that it seems a bit artificial.

Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.

by “or” do you mean you choose which ground unit type gets the advantage?

The rule says: Fighters can support infantry attacks and artillery defense if no defending fighters are present.

Which means: Fighters support infantry in an attack, but artillery when defending.

And finaly, games like A&A are suposed to be artificial. :wink:

[theduke]

got it. i got confused. that sounds better. what about other unit types? no advantage for them? realistically is seems that it should be the same (or similar) for all supporting unit types.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@theduke:

got it. i got confused. that aspect sounds good.

Thanks! By the way, what do you think about the optional rules for Antiaircraft Artillery and Bomber Strikes? :o

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Guerrilla:

With the Anti-Aircraft Artillery wouldn’t you make it 5 IPC’s? That IMO is reason enough to increase the price…

Why? A tank i still more powerful than an artillery, no matter of this extra special ability. Don’t you think so? If not, I need numbers and statistics! As I said before, “Now those puny artillery (I almost never buy them) would be worth some 4 IPCs”!

You pay one extra IPC for a tank to not be dependant on Air Supremacy and infantry. More over the movement of 2 with bklitzing ability is also worth something. Together all those advantages to the artillery unit should be enough to counter the special ability of antiaircraft fire. Don’t you think?

[Guerrilla Guy]

because for there relatively low price, someone (like Germany) can stockpile them to deter any Air attack…Try flying through 7-8 Artillery on Germany… plus they can target Bombers in those big attacks on W. Europe… I dunno I’ll have to playtest first to see if I’m right… Would you replace all AA Guns with 1 AA Artillery?

GG
(posted from HarrisGamedesign)

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Guerrilla:

because for there relatively low price, someone (like Germany) can stockpile them to deter any Air attack…Try flying through 7-8 Artillery on Germany… plus they can target Bombers in those big attacks on W. Europe… I dunno I’ll have to playtest first to see if I’m right… Would you replace all AA Guns with 1 AA Artillery?

GG

If it is just about the replacement, It is ok to replace all AA Guns with a AA Artillery! Have not thought about that much, but will (play test)!

stockpile to deter air attacks? That is very costly to buy some 7-8 Artillery units for Germany and W. Europe! So I guess it is all fine! More over if Germany buy a lot of artillery, then there wont be much money left for tanks and fighters

If I wanted to attack such an defensive force, with lots of artillery, I would bring in at least two (to cancell any potential air supremacy) fighters and a lots of tanks and even more infantry. By the way I think that all destroyers should be able to make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. So destroyers and battleships will bomb that zone too!

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@theduke:

…armor don’t get a bonus attack but it seems that an all armor and ftr attack force should share the same air supremacy advantage as when other ground unit types are present.

I do think that the tank is fine as it is on a 3/3, but could be affected like the artillery in an attack as well. And air supremacy will both have an effect on attack (+1 for each matching infantry or tank) and defense (+1 for each matching artillery). I do find it realistic, however I get your point of artificial effect, but think this is better for the game balance. It is historical correct as well!

@theduke:

…also, there should be a air supremacy advantage at sea too but that’s not included.

I disagree in this case. Air units are already almost too powerful in naval combats. I find it balanced as it is! If you think I am wrong, prove it! You going to need some strong arguments!

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

I have now improved the Bomber Strikes rule:

If an aircraft carrier is being targeted in a tactical bombing raid, a hit can be taken by any fighter onboard this carrier.

[Imperious Leader]

OK lets have the master list of all these ideas… the problem with assesing one NA vs. another is to compare all the rules as a whole. Just post the whole thing.

On artillery topic… the idea of 7 units attacking my planes is not good. Remember 1 out of 10 planes were shot down on average. So only one roll should occur at most in any case, and the artillery unit cannot perform other functions if it commits to aa duty (but can move). It cant have the cake and eat it too.
Also the new heavy artillery unit should become something like this:

attack at 4, defend at 2, move 1, cost 6
if used as an attacking piece its hits must apply against enemy armor or regular artillery units before hits go against infantry.

Also, now you must allow all units to hit “like for LIke” consider:

All armor hits must go against enemy armor followed by artillery, followed by infantry

All artillery hits (except heavy) go against artillery followed by infantry followed by armor

All infantry hits go against infantry, followed by artillery, followed by armor

NOW the next unit id like to reintroduce is a Mechanized Infantry piece (armored Infantry)

attacks at 3 defends at 2, moves at 2, costs at 4

does not aid other units like artillery or perform other functions

unless you want this: Each mechanized infantry aid in the movement of one infantry unit with a +1 movement modifier at a 1/1 basis. This represents the piggyback effect and transport by halftracks to the front.
the cost of this unit would have to go to 5, which pushes the cost of a tank to 6.

lastly, the game needs different types of infantry:

1)elite ( Waffen SS, kwangtung army, Folgore, British and Soviet Guard units)
attack 2 defend 3, move 1 cost 3 (their is to be some restrictions of the limit of how many of these you can buy)

2)regular which are established (manpower restrictions)

3)Light which represent smaller elements (Volkstrum units, brigades, commandos, perhaps marines, rangers, chindits, Soviet Rifle divisions etc)

attack 1 defend 1 move 1 cost 2

again—(their is to be some restrictions of the limit of how many of these you can buy)

manpower restrictions:
i have to set this asside for a latter time.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Imperious:

…On artillery topic… the idea of 7 units attacking my planes is not good. Remember 1 out of 10 planes were shot down on average. So only one roll should occur at most in any case, and the artillery unit cannot perform other functions if it commits to aa duty (but can move). It cant have the cake and eat it too…

Ok, after a couple of games of play testing, I do agree to your point of cant have the cake and eat it too! This is my respons to it, and I will update the old one in this forum as well based on it. Any comments?

Antiaircraft Artillery

The regular antiaircraft gun unit is dismissed and replaced by a more versatile artillery unit. In addition to its normal combat ability, artillery can choose to defend as an antiaircraft artillery, but never both in the same turn. Antiaircraft artillery defend during the first cycle of combat only. All regular antiaircraft guns on the game board are replaced by two artillery units.

Your artillery fire against an air unit during the opening fire step of combat. Roll one die for each artillery, but each attacking air unit may not be attacked more than twice. A roll of 1 destroys an attacking air unit. The attacker can pick any bomber or fighter as a casualty, an antiaircraft casualty cannot return fire. An artillery directed against air units may not be destroyed in order to satisfy a loss and are considered to be captured if the attacking player should conquer the territory.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

When will a player choose to use his artillery to defend against air units?

In a SBR for sure, but not always in a land based combat! So under what circumstances will one direct the artillery on air units? To answer that question one need to take a closer look at the odds!

Artillery directed against air

Cost damage to attacker: 1/6 * 10 IPCs (15 IPCs if a bomber) = 1.67 IPCs (2.5 IPCs if a bomber)
Cost reduction to defender (opening fire): 1/6(chance) * 3/6 (fightrer) *3 IPCs (infantry casualty) = 0.25 IPCs
Total benefit: >2 IPCs *

*In fact the possibilty of targeting air units is also an advantage that will ad up for each cycle of combat after the first one, since one would never pick an expensive air unit as a casualty as long as there are cheaper units to pick. On the other hand an artillery directed against air units may not be destroyed in order to satisfy a loss and are considered to be captured if the attacking player should conquer the territory.

Artillery directed against land

Cost damage to attacker: 2/6 * 3 IPCs (Infantry casualty) = 1 IPC
Cost damage to attacker (air supremacy): 3/6 * 3 IPCs (Infantry casualty) = 1.5 IPCs

Bottom line

One will direct the artillery against air:
–As long as one think the combat will not last for more than 2 cycles*.
–And if one think he will win the combat so these artillery don’t fall into enemy hands.

*If one can get air supremacy that will affect any other defending artillery directed against land. In that case one would always direct some artillery against air.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Imperious:

…
Also, now you must allow all units to hit “like for like” consider:

All armor hits must go against enemy armor followed by artillery, followed by infantry

All artillery hits (except heavy) go against artillery followed by infantry followed by armor

All infantry hits go against infantry, followed by artillery, followed by armor
…

Well I disagree upon a like-for-like approach. It is fine as it is and I also think that only bombers should be able for targeted attacks and artillery if so directed! It is in my opinion not realistic.

@Imperious:

…
lastly, the game needs different types of infantry:
…

Least of all this game need more pieces of units on the game board. I will prefer the special abilities approach instead. In such an approach one can use special abilities as optional rules. This is how the mismatch between the historical and play ability focus might be bridged in the very best way. For a player unfamiliar with A&A , it would be a more pedagogic way to successively increase the dimension and scope of the original game. :wink:

[theduke]

a couple months ago i amazingly went through this exact line of thinking when i wanted to come up with a better version than the manufactured one. i ended up completely revamping the game because certain house rules that made the game better could only be used if other rules were changed as well.

i almost immediately counted out adding new units, pretty much for the same reason B stated. the board doesn’t need to be cluttered up any more than it is. IMHO it’s already too cluttered (which is partly why I took AA guns off the board in my rules).

in my old rules (before i recently changed them) i had each player partitioning their rtl units into either 1 of 4 types- field rtl, anti-arm rtl, anti-aircraft rtl, and coast rtl. coast rtl was my favorite because it allowed a player to build up against a probable amphibious assault in that territory. each coast rtl would get to attack at 1 against each unloading transport but only fire at start of 1st round (just like how AA guns roll at 1 against each ftr). the reason why i ended up scrapping the whole idea of assigning rtl types was that i felt it didn’t add enough to the game to make it worth it. why have people choose how to use their rtl when you can mathematically just figure out which type will get you the most hits and make all your rtl that type?

[Imperious Leader]

Well I disagree upon a like-for-like approach. It is fine as it is and I also think that only bombers should be able for targeted attacks and artillery if so directed! It is in my opinion not realistic.

Level Bombers cant hit ground targets with accuracy they invarable “carpet bomb” the entire place hoping to get close to something. Thats why they made Dive Bombers for close ground support combat because they can zoom in to the location and fly back up for another run.
The bomber is the last piece capable of this.

On the issue of this “like for like”– when an attack began and both sides had armor it was natural for each arm of the combatants force to engage each other on equal terms. Infantry with limited Anti-tank weaponry but with a number of anti-personal weapons often engaged “soft- targets” while the larger mechanized elements within the fighting unit also used their weaponry against the “best” most potent or “juicy” hard targets which comprised of armor. Its totally natural for this to occur and its so stupid that the game basically says… we shall ignore the reality and now allow you to hide your tanks behind your infantry . You may now use your infantry to soak up the blood from all the tank hits because they can never be hit as long as Infantry are their to do the job of “death”.

I find this quite astonishing-

That way it help influences the central problem of “Infantry push mechanic” that betrays the reality of your buys. Now your not gonna just buy infantry, because they no longer can “soak up the gravy” like a sponge, Secondly, another problem that still has to be addressed is retreats. The very idea of this thing were the attacker tries to take out all the defenders except for one then ends combat so as not to get stuck in the territory and destroyed on your opponents turn is totally unrealistic.
Either side should be able to retreat after any round. Now since you probably think this is too much of a change, then the “like for like” idea helps dissipate this problem as now you directly engage the goodies and can leave after getting some good licks in. Either way its more Historical and not more complicated.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@theduke:

… why have people choose how to use their rtl when you can mathematically just figure out which type will get you the most hits and make all your rtl that type?

My Antiaircraft Artillery rule is not that bad! In my case both kind of units (antiair and regular) will be used in the same combat, some will go for air and some for land. That is what I wanted to achieve. If just two attacking fighters then no more than four artillery can be directed aginst air units. More over one has to consider air supremacy and the possibility of win or lose. These aspects bring balance to the game because it becomes more of an art than just statistics. I am talking about scenario analysis rather then just a static analysis of a singel scenario.

One can always mathematically figure out which type will inflict the enemy the biggest loss on average, but that is for a risk neutral case. The risk doeas play a role for people. You are smart enough to figure out a scenario your self, were one choose to go for a regular hit on 2/6 chance and not a hit on 1/6 chance. No matter if the lsmall chance case will inflict a lot more damage (a fighter) then the big chance case (infantry casualty). How ever it is more of an exception.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Imperious:

Level Bombers cant hit ground targets with accuracy they invarable “carpet bomb” the entire place hoping to get close to something. Thats why they made Dive Bombers for close ground support combat because they can zoom in to the location and fly back up for another run.

The bomber is the last piece capable of this.

Well Impy, you are talking about heavy bombers, I am talking about the light and medium bombers that were more of all-purpose attack bomber or low-level strike attack bomber. The heavy bombers were used for Strategic Bombing but the light bombers were used for tactical bombing. How ever to reflect these different kinds of units in on piece, we let them have the ability of both! By the way, not all nations developed true heavy bombers.

For example A-20 Havoc called Boston by the RAF. It was not the fastest plane in its class, but it was extremly tough, handled well and was a popular and effective fighting machine, especially in the low-level attack role. Bombing with deadly accuracy Boston and Havocs were used to attack communications target in France and Belgium. They were also popular with the Soviet air force, which was the largest user of the Havoc. Other light and medium bombers were A-26 Invader B-25 Mitchell, Do 17Z, Ju 88 and Blenheim Mk IV.

P.S. The retreat loophole need to fixed and I will adress it later on when all air rules are play tested D.S.

[Imperious Leader]

Well Impy, you are talking about heavy bombers, I am talking about the light and medium bombers that were more of all-purpose attack bomber or low-level strike attack. The heavy bombers were used for Strategic Bombing but the light bombers were used for tactical bombing. How ever to reflect these different kinds of units in on piece, we let them have the ability of both! By the way, not all nations developed true heavy bombers.

I am not speaking about such planes. Only special planes that were could be used for close combat attack were capable and those comprised of Dive -Bombers and Fighter-Bombers NOT as YOU put it “Bombers”. The bomber piece thats in the game does not cover this function and is more close to the functions of the fighter unit. Light and medium bombers do not perform targeted close combat ground assault missions by and large . They were used to drop ordanance on fixed objects such as bridges and built up positions and not moving targets. Please research this stuff! Even the German Arado 234 Jet Bomber was designed as a fighter-bomber but could barely even hit a damm bridge!

Look at it this way: If the plane has a Payload of bombs….then it cant hit any selected targets, if it has only one bomb… then its more likely to have the capability of delivering this bomb in a manner thats targeted. Okay?

So if you want Histirical value fighters have to have this “targeted” thing you like, while the bombers are for mass “spraying” of some area with saturation. The nomenclature of “fighter-bomber” or “dive-bomber” does not make it a “Bomber class” unit. Its a fighter plane with a single bomb under its wing or fuselage . It may even have 2 bombs but its still under the fighter classification.

NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Imperious:

I am not speaking about such planes. Only special planes that were could be used for close combat attack were capable and those comprised of Dive -Bombers and Fighter-Bombers NOT as YOU put it “Bombers”. The bomber piece thats in the game does not cover this function and is more close to the functions of the fighter unit. Light and medium bombers do not perform targeted close combat ground assault missions by and large . They were used to drop ordanance on fixed objects such as bridges and built up positions and not moving targets. Please research this stuff! Even the German Arado 234 Jet Bomber was designed as a fighter-bomber but could barely even hit a damm bridge!

Ok Impy, let me put it in this way. Those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks (how ever the singel engine fighter-bombers were more exploited for this tankbuster role). These bombers did as well send bombs screaming earthward from high in the sky, but also attacked with speed and surprise down on the deck, strafing ships and troops with lethal nose guns. The payloads from these machines were being accurate and deadly. I think this is what the bomber pieces in the game are suposed to represent. You are right that the targets were more stationary and that is why bombers only attack (no defense value). More over bombers, in my optional rule, get an surprise effect represented by attacking in the opening fire step of combat, but only for the first cycle of combat (representing a tactical bombing raid). This rule of mine also bring a higher strategical level to the game when used in conjuction with air supremacy, since one can attack any defending fighters.

I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. I tell you, they represents exactly what I have told you about those tactical bombing raids! :wink:

@Imperious:

NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?

I like it as it is, however the idea is fine! I will stick to the the system as it is today and just add optional rules. It is easier for people to accept new rules in portions. In swedish we have something that says “hast slowly”. I think your rules represent a new game, not just a refinement. If you still dont like the Bomber Strikes rule of mine, skip it and just stick to air supremacy and/or Antiaircraft Artillery rule. These other two rules are good enough to be used separately. The poll however just concerned the air supremacy rule, what did you vote (and why)?

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Imperious:

….another problem that still has to be addressed is retreats. The very idea of this thing were the attacker tries to take out all the defenders except for one then ends combat so as not to get stuck in the territory and destroyed on your opponents turn is totally unrealistic.
Either side should be able to retreat after any round. Now since you probably think this is too much of a change, then the “like for like” idea helps dissipate this problem as now you directly engage the goodies and can leave after getting some good licks in. Either way its more Historical and not more complicated.

As I said, I do agree that defensive retreats should be allowed. I have almost always played with the house rule were both attacker and defender can retreat. I like to add new optional rules as long as its simple and fits the purpose. And this rule really does.

Retreats
Whichever side retreats cannot fire during combat, during the cycle of combat it is declared. No partial retreats are allowed except for damaged Battleships, they cannot retreat.

If one use the optional rule for Antiaircraft Artillery, then any artillery directed against air (only defensive artillery units are allowed to do this) are considered to be captured by the attacking player.