Anti-Aircraft Guns and Heavy Artillery

[HMS Onslow]

WARNING - NEWBIE’S LONG RAVING POST :?

Nice.

If I can throw in a few ideas, as this thread seems to have moved on……

Impy like you I created the old battleships; they’re an interesting piece, well able to scare a Scharnhorst type or to defend (Surigao St) and useful for bombardment.

Personally I like having carrier planes (would Carrier Air Group be a better term as they are not all fighters?) separate from carriers, as it was quite possible for a CAG to be almost wiped out without the carrier itself getting scratched (see Zuikaku at Coral Sea IIRC).

One thing that could be interesting is to allow Japanese fighters to land on carriers in the Pacific, as many of their fighters were naval. While I don’t think all the pilots (apart from the vets) were trained in carrier landing, at least they did have that ability I think. And maybe other carriers could send fighters off but not take them back on, to replicate the sort of runs that Wasp and Furious did sending fighters to Malta. Just a minor detail but quite fun (mind you, I’m assuming the map is modified to include Malta which makes for some interesting play).

One thing is that cruisers didn’t hunt subs much. In fact off-hand I can’t recall a single instance where a cruiser sank a sub. Secondly is there any precedent for light cruisers being slower than heavy cruisers? Candidates for fastest cruisers were CLs like Atlantas and Didos IIRC.

One thing that’s strange is the incredibly slow movement of ships in the game. Like you I move the faster ones at 3 (which also adds the nice touch of having slow convoys and fast fleets) but this is still incredibly slow. A textbook figure for an armoured divison advance without combat was something like 2 1/2 mph during daylight only, which is 25% of the speed of a slow converted trawler which has vastly longer range and moves 24/7- yet in the game they move at the same speed! That takes away a whole lot of the flexibility of naval power.

It takes a 25 knot ship 9 turns to go from the UK around the world and back. That’s equivalent to what over 2 years, when the first guy to SAIL singlehanded non-stop on the same route did it in well under a year (4 moves) in a little old 33’ cruising ketch that did about 5 mph average! With distortion like that, no wonder naval units are under-used.

Exactly how you avoid the situation of having realistic-speed ships able to conduct a D Day landing from the USA without warning remains a problem; or does it? Just put a range limit on amphib ops?

I’m searching for a way that naval units can go something like realistic speed (which would improve the game IMHO) without getting too powerful. See below for some ideas.

There’s a guy with suggested rules somewhere else who allows planes to fly over only one sea zone to and from targets in combat moves; that looks good to me. Have you tried it?

SOME UNITS

These are just my ideas; you guys are much more experienced in A&A and it’s been years since I created any rules. It’s interesting to see how similar they are in some ways. I’ve given some a little “spiel” as in the real rules.

Anti-Shipping Aircraft. Cost 12. Attack/Defend 2 (v air/land) 4 (v ships). Gives ASW coverage to sea zones adjacent to “airport”. Non-combat move 6.

These represent anti-shipping and anti-sub forces (Liberators, Catalinas, Sunderlands, Beauforts, SM 179s, He 111 torpedo bombers, Nells, and landed CAGs like the Skuas of Norway '40 fame)? Normal bombers couldn’t hit a ship in a month of sundays, but the specialist groups sank the British capital ships Prince of York and Repulse and sealed the Japanese fate in New Guinea in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. (oh, and to anyone who is puzzled - yes there was such a battle and no it had nothing to do with the German Bismarck!..and I may be wrojng about the 5th AF having specialist training but I think they did)

Old Battleship – Cost N/A, Attack 4, Defend 4 (ships) or 3 (subs) move 2, takes 2 hits.

The US and UK had many old battleships “left over” from WW1. They were weak and slow (hence the 2 movements)  compared to other battleships, but in actions like Gneisenau and Scharnhorst v Revenge (IIRC) to Surigao Strait, they proved to be vital as far as defending freighters and troopships went. They were also good for bombardment. Because they were old, of course, you can’t build any more! (PS; it’s very tempting to create a few more units like modernised old battleships and old battlecruisers, but I’ll try not to!)

PS- battleships should be able to bombard IN DEFENCE without needing an amphib movement to support IMHO. Maybe drop attack to 2 to represent the fact that in such a situation many units they are attacking are inland. Even ships that were outdated in WW1 like the German Schiesen were pretty potent supporting ground forces in the Baltic - a hit by an 11" hurts no matter how old it is!
Carrier w 2 AC – Cost 22, Attack 4, Defend 7, Move 3.

Light Carrier - Impy, Cleveland class CVLs were just as quick as an Essex weren’t they? Why do you have them slower?

Escort Carrier – Cost 5, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2, Anti-Sub. Carries 1 CAG.

Escort carriers were enormously important in protecting convoys from subs. The cost seems low compared to transports, but each Escort Carrier (CVE) piece represents far fewer ships than a transport piece. The movement of 2 reflects the fact that these were capable of only around 18 knots (compared to the 26-30+ of a fast carrier).

Cruiser – Cost 14, Attack 3, Defend 3*, Move 3        Shore bombardment 3/3.

Important ships; versatile. Some house rules have them basically as A/A vessels but out of the dozens of classes of cruisers, only 3 (Dido, Atlanta, old “C”s) were actually A/A vessels. Takes 2 hits.

Having CLs and CEs is interesting, but the CEs were not always as weak as you reckon Impy. I suppose it may be related to the fact that the terms were confusing in that there were “heavy cruisers” that were actually much lighter than some “light cruisers”!

Destroyer – Cost 10, Attack 3, Defend 2, move 3, Anti-Sub, minesweep; shore bombard?

Some rules say destroyers can only move 3 when they have a fast carrier with them to refuel…their short range should be reflected in some way.

PS - DEs are good. I thought they might make life a bit complicated but hey, they’re fun. They represent both new DEs (US types, UK “Hunts”) and old DD (four stackers, V&Ws) and German, Italian and Japanese large Torpedo Boats (not to be confused with MTBs or TBs).

Impy re PT boats (let’s not forget also UK MTBs, Italian MAS, German E or S Boots… :-)  )

Interesting, but really did they ever DO anything during the war? Off hand I think I can remember one UK cruiser going down to “PT boat” attack; maybe some others. The biography of a successful commander of the largest “PT boat” of them all shows he was worried about converted trawlers and armed landing craft! At the very least surely you can’t allow them to move 3 since they were very, very short ranged; maybe like fighters they can just defend the area adjaent to their home port, and only otherwise move non-combat. They really should be weak as water IMHO.

Escort -      Cost 6, Attack 1 (3 A/S), Defend 2, move 2. Anti-Sub, minesweep @

Represents corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, converted trawlers. The backbone of the convoy defenders, but too slow to move with a fleet.

Troopship – Cost 20, Attack 0, Defend 2, Move 3 (or 4)? Carries 4 infantry.

Large liners like the Queen Elizabeth. These were among the most important of all units in the war, and perhaps the fastest of all  over long distances (long range at high speed).

Transport  – Cost 4, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Carries ground units & logistics (8I.P.)

Becomes cheaper to allow for the fact that UK etc need lots of them (see convoy rules below) and the fact that they cannot be used in amphibious attacks against DEFENDED zones.

Landing Craft – Cost 8, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Carries ground units and logistics

Note- I’m still trying to work out a logistics system for ground warfare! Any help?

Fleet Train – Cost 5, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Repairs and supplies ships.

All combat craft must be within 2 SZ of Fleet Train or friendly territory, or add 1 to all rolls.

Note- this is another example of the old “captains think tactics, majors think strategy, generals think logistics” idea. Ships spent something like 20% of their time undergoing refit and without that they were slowed by dirty hulls, engines broke down, radars died. Oh, and without fuel they don’t go very well anyway! So the game must reflect that in some way. This may allow ships to get realistic range without dominating. This doesn’t reflect the long range of cruisers, though…must work that one out.

This also does not apply to transports as these had long range, or to long range subs.

I’m warming to this…it could accumulate so if you were 3 SZ from a base, you add 2 to all rolls; moves away. Note - DOES NOT APPLY to SZ 12 and under, to allow for the distortion in the map which would otherwise make life very hard for the Germans.

If it works, ships could be allowed to go even faster; perhaps they could go faster only in non-combat moves? More realism, more flexibility!

Submarine – Cost 6, Attack 2* Defend 2, move 3 (or 1 when submerged).

Long-range subs are interesting and a very good idea IMHO, Impy, but there is little doubt that they were INFERIOR in defence as they took longer to submerge and were less manouvrable. I don’t think they were actually any better in attack either. See Doenitz’s memoirs, John Terraine and many other sources.

Maybe leave the cost high, have the same attack and defence, but don’t require Long Range subs to be near a home port?

Q Ships. Still wondering about this, just for fun. Not so much a Q Ship (it’s just a cool name) but an armed merchant raider of the Kormoran type. I wonder if it would be kept off the board, and the player running it could just write down the SZ it was in and then (assuming there was no combat) hand that over to the other player for checking later? Could a similar system make subs more powerful? Attack 1, Defend 1, speed 2, cost ???. Also act as “fleet train” for 1 ship (which is what happened when they were used as supply ships for PBs etc IIRC)

Q Ships are equipped for long voyages so the rule requiring ships to be near a home port doesn’t apply. The same could be applied to German “pocket battleships” which are otherwise CLs (which is what the germans late reclassified them as they were not as powerful as claimed). This gives the PBs some unique and realistic abilities.

Convoys - Nice system but saying you only lose points if the subs are off your IPC robs subs of a lot of their interest and power. Doenitz would sometimes send some subs into the St Lawrence and others to Cape Town at the same time. This flexibility was one of the interesting things about ASW.

I’ve tried various mechanisms and I’m turning towards a situation where UK, USA and Japan must keep freighters afloat in certain sea zones or lose IPs. It’s basically the Larry convoy route system, (which i didn’t know about at the time) but instead of one box, you have a whole zone to move around in. This allows you to dodge convoys and subs around like Wynn, Horton and Doenitz did in real life.

Zones are;

UK- SZ 1, 2, 7, 8,9,10,11 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 8? IP). The main transatlantic route.
    - SZ 28-35 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP).
    - SZ 11,12,17,18,19, 22-26 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP)

US - SZ 10, 19 (simulating the Carribbean tanker traffic and the shipping along the E Coast) or lose 5.
      - 1 transport at sea somewhere else or lose 5?

Russia (Yep, Russia). One US or UK transport in 30-35 OR in 3 and 4, or loses 5? IP (simulating the lend lease convoys through Murmansk or Persia…obviously both those must be held!)

Germany - Transport in Baltic OR ADJACENT PORT (to simulate the amount of fighter cover available) or loses 5 IPC (no iron ore etc from Norway and Sweden)

Japan - 1 transport at sea in 36,37, 49,59,58, or loses 8 IPC (vital oil traffic from NEI and Borneo)

1 other transport somewhere at sea in “japanese” SZ OTHER than 60-61 or loses 5 IPC

1 other transport at sea in 59,60,61, or loses 8 IPC.

---

So that’s a few ideas. Sorry to ramble on so much.

Add some retreat–on-land rules (I’m totally with you on that one Impy) and logistics and life could be interesting. Oh, and some rules to allow for fast movement inside sophisticated countries (ie Germany and Central US don’t count for movement of their forces), stop ships running through the Straits of Gib and into the Baltic; change the IPs to represent the fact that places like Ukraine and Caucasus created 60% of Russian supplies etc; and add some “terrain” (it’s very hard to attack India from Burma, it’s slow to attack through Italy/Southern Europe, give the poor Russians some more winter and maybe a monsoon for Asia, add in those interesting optional rules somewhere else for China, changing arty rules, introduce AT and mech infty…and we’ve got a totally new game. :roll:

Oh well!

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

This revised carrier unit include air power as a built in factor, hence it is no longer a plattform from which fighters can take off and land. The hole  idea is to abstract carrier fighters into the carrier itself! The statistics below the data for the new carrier unit confirm that cost and combatcapability is balanced compared to battleships. Now carriers are the most offensive naval piece and battleships are the most defensive pieces, due to better over-all defensive (best defensive value, two hit rule and smaller movement) capability. This new type of carrier should be used in conjunction with fast destroyers (or if you prefer to call them cruisers as I would), destroyers move is increased to 3. Now carriers and destroyers have a move of 3.

Aircraft Carriers

Description: Speedy ships that can strike deep into enemy territory.

(Figthers can no longer land on a carrier)

Cost: 16
Attack: 4
Defense: 3
Move: 3

Special Abilities
Aerial Fire Support: In an amphibious assault, your carriers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 4. Each carrier fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A carrier cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Air Strikes: Carriers always fire in the opening fire step, whether on attack or defense. Cassualties from this opening fire will be destroyed before they can return fire.

12 BB (24 IPCs/BB)

Cost: 288 IPCs
Att: 124 = 48
Def: 122 = 48
Hits = 24

18 CA (16 IPCs/CA)

Cost: 288 IPCs
Att: 184 = 72
Def: 183 = 54
Hits = 16

1st round

Att CA: 72/6 = 12 hits -> 12 hits absorbed and 12 BBs left
Def BB: 48/6 = 8 -> 10 CA left

2nd round

Att CA: 104/6 = 6,67 hits -> 5,33 BBs left to counter fire, due to opening fire
Def BB: 5,334/6 = 3,55 hits -> 6,45 CA left

3rd round

Att CA: 6,454/6 = 4,33 hits -> 1 BB left to counter fire, due to opening fire
Def BB: 14/6 = 0,67 hits -> 5,78 CA left

4th round

Att CA: 5,78*4/6 = 3,85 hits -> 0 BBs left to counter fire, due to opening fire

1st round

Def CA: 183/6 = 9 hits -> 9 hits absorbed and 12 BBs left
Att BB: 124/6 = 8 -> 10 CA left

2nd round

Def CA: 103/6 = 5 hits -> 3 hits absorbed and 10 BBs left to counter fire, due to opening fire
Att BB: 104/6 = 6,67 hits -> 3,33 CA left

3rd round

Def CA: 3,333/6 = 1,67 hits -> 8,33 BB left to counter fire, due to opening fire
Att BB: 8,334/6 = 5,55 hits -> 0 CA left

[Imperious Leader]

Hey HMS Winslow… you and i have to talk… I like how you express your ideas… its nice to chat with people who have taken some history classes… IN my versions the naval units move from 2-6 hexes. (landing barges at 2, and PT boats at 6) all the other ships are somewhere in between. THe point you make about Cruisers and ASW is correct, but AS you may know Light Cruisers were also used as convoy escort and the problem becomes the ASW abilities of DD give too much value to these units in terms of price when compared to cruisers… I may reconsider this… but the ideas i presented are not final… its PART of the rules for a mega project that will soon be released called War in the Pacific 1941-1945… Its only presented to “show” the ability to abstract the fighter component of a carriers abilities in naval combat, rather than basically “buying bullets” to shoot the gun which is what axis and allies has become with respect to the CV. I want to comment on what you have posted and will finish up  tomorrow.

[Imperious Leader]

Hey im still dijesting your post… in CVE’s they were much slower than the “cruiser hull” front line jobs… they should not move fast at all… they are just cheap “jeep” carriers… cannon fodder for any cruiser.

Light Carrier - Impy, Cleveland class CVLs were just as quick as an Essex weren’t they? Why do you have them slower?
in that case your correct… 32-34 knots  but i will look at UK and Jap carriers as well…I must have gotten this somewhere based on research because thats were all the numbers came from.

[Imperious Leader]

Impy re PT boats (let’s not forget also UK MTBs, Italian MAS, German E or S Boots……    )

+++++++++++my intent was to use those ideas in a pacific war game… so no E boats and Italian ships… The name “PT boat” and its value is really including all those “little” ships that have any firepower… Plus under the combat system that was not included in the post… certain ship types cannot damage others… PT boats are in the lowest class which allows them to only damage DE, DD and possibly CL… this idea was left off my original post.

Interesting, but really did they ever DO anything during the war? Off hand I think I can remember one UK cruiser going down to “PT boat” attack; maybe some others. The biography of a successful commander of the largest “PT boat” of them all shows he was worried about converted trawlers and armed landing craft! At the very least surely you can’t allow them to move 3 since they were very, very short ranged; maybe like fighters they can just defend the area adjaent to their home port, and only otherwise move non-combat. They really should be weak as water IMHO.

++++++++ i think they are exactly that and if i actually finalize this unit it borders on slim anyway.

Escort -      Cost 6, Attack 1 (3 A/S), Defend 2, move 2.  Anti-Sub, minesweep @

Represents corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, converted trawlers. The backbone of the convoy defenders, but too slow to move with a fleet.

Troopship – Cost 20, Attack 0, Defend 2, Move 3  (or 4)? Carries 4 infantry.

++++++++i feel this brings too many specialized units that may bog the game.

Large liners like the Queen Elizabeth. These were among the most important of all units in the war, and perhaps the fastest of all  over long distances (long range at high speed).

Transport  – Cost 4, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2  Carries ground units & logistics (8I.P.)

Becomes cheaper to allow for the fact that UK etc need lots of them (see convoy rules below) and the fact that they cannot be used in amphibious attacks against DEFENDED zones.

Landing Craft – Cost 8, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2  Carries ground units and logistics

This is good but basically covered…Id only like to see one additional transport craft ( landing craft)

Note- I’m still trying to work out a logistics system for ground warfare! Any help?

+++++++++goto harris and look up combat system proposal for advanced.

Fleet Train – Cost 5, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2  Repairs and supplies ships.

too many new ships… yikes

All combat craft must be within 2 SZ of Fleet Train or friendly territory, or add 1 to all rolls.

Note- this is another example of the old “captains think tactics, majors think strategy, generals think logistics” idea. Ships spent something like 20% of their time undergoing refit and without that they were slowed by dirty hulls, engines broke down, radars died. Oh, and without fuel they don’t go very well anyway! So the game must reflect that in some way. This may allow ships to get realistic range without dominating. This doesn’t reflect the long range of cruisers, though…must work that one out.

This also does not apply to transports as these had long range, or to long range subs.

++++++++ on this i have fixed subs… in the pacific campaign i am aware that long range subs and local coastal subs had very different ranges before new supplies were needed… a similiar system will be adopted for europe.

I’m warming to this…it could accumulate so if you were 3 SZ from a base, you add 2 to all rolls; moves away. Note - DOES NOT APPLY to SZ 12 and under, to allow for the distortion in the map which would otherwise make life very hard for the Germans.

If it works, ships could be allowed to go even faster; perhaps they could go faster only in non-combat moves? More realism, more flexibility!

Submarine – Cost 6, Attack 2* Defend 2, move 3 (or 1 when submerged).

Long-range subs are interesting and a very good idea IMHO, Impy, but there is little doubt that they were INFERIOR in defence as they took longer to submerge and were less manouvrable. I don’t think they were actually any better in attack either. See Doenitz’s memoirs, John Terraine and many other sources.

++++++++++Yes, yes im aware of this… but i cant make a 1,000 page manifesto of rules for every exception… it has to be playable to a degree… and  that idea would be another bucket of ideas that have to be considered. BY long range subs we are only addressing the distinction that they should cost more, have unlimited travel restrictions, and have better defense in the sence of other ideas that you did not bring up: namely Japanese long range subs had planes that could aid in recon for defense or attack, plus they had larger deck guns… in some cases they were faster… again this applies more to pacific rather than atlantic which is the basis of the rules covering that campaign.

Maybe leave the cost high, have the same attack and defence, but don’t require Long Range subs to be near a home port?

Q Ships. Still wondering about this, just for fun. Not so much a Q Ship (it’s just a cool name) but an armed merchant raider of the Kormoran type. I wonder if it would be kept off the board, and the player running it could just write down the SZ it was in and then (assuming there was no combat) hand that over to the other player for checking later? Could a similar system make subs more powerful? Attack 1, Defend 1, speed 2, cost ??. Also act as “fleet train” for 1 ship (which is what happened when they were used as supply ships for PBs etc IIRC)

Q Ships are equipped for long voyages so the rule requiring ships to be near a home port doesn’t apply. The same could be applied to German “pocket battleships” which are otherwise CLs (which is what the germans late reclassified them as they were not as powerful as claimed). This gives the PBs some unique and realistic abilities.

++++ i have another friend who maintains this but again its another filter to block the enjoyment of the game… i have allready extended the choices to the ones that have the most meaning… Q ships was a atlantic thing mostly anyway… the damage they did was not so great.

Convoys - Nice system but saying you only lose points if the subs are off your IPC robs subs of a lot of their interest and power. Doenitz would sometimes send some subs into the St Lawrence and others to Cape Town at the same time. This flexibility was one of the interesting things about ASW.

++++++Correct… how would you change this?

I’ve tried various mechanisms and I’m turning towards a situation where UK, USA and Japan must keep freighters afloat in certain sea zones or lose IPs. It’s basically the Larry convoy route system, (which i didn’t know about at the time) but instead of one box, you have a whole zone to move around in. This allows you to dodge convoys and subs around like Wynn, Horton and Doenitz did in real life.

Zones are;

UK- SZ 1, 2, 7, 8,9,10,11 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 8? IP). The main transatlantic route.
    - SZ 28-35 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP).
    - SZ 11,12,17,18,19, 22-26 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP)

US - SZ 10, 19 (simulating the Carribbean tanker traffic and the shipping along the E Coast) or lose 5.
      - 1 transport at sea somewhere else or lose 5?

Russia (Yep, Russia). One US or UK transport in 30-35 OR in 3 and 4, or loses 5? IP (simulating the lend lease convoys through Murmansk or Persia…obviously both those must be held!)

Germany - Transport in Baltic OR ADJACENT PORT (to simulate the amount of fighter cover available) or loses 5 IPC (no iron ore etc from Norway and Sweden)

Japan - 1 transport at sea in 36,37, 49,59,58, or loses 8 IPC (vital oil traffic from NEI and Borneo)

1 other transport somewhere at sea in “japanese” SZ OTHER than 60-61 or loses 5 IPC

1 other transport at sea in 59,60,61, or loses 8 IPC.

++++ this requires alot more investment of time… These ideas are very much like my own… but i think you may have got too many places for everybody to cover… it should be more streamlined… Email me and ill send you some pictures of some projects im working on… and perhaps a ruleset…

So that’s a few ideas. Sorry to ramble on so much.

Add some retreat–on-land rules (I’m totally with you on that one Impy) and logistics and life could be interesting. Oh, and some rules to allow for fast movement inside sophisticated countries (ie Germany and Central US don’t count for movement of their forces), stop ships running through the Straits of Gib and into the Baltic; change the IPs to represent the fact that places like Ukraine and Caucasus created 60% of Russian supplies etc; and add some “terrain” (it’s very hard to attack India from Burma, it’s slow to attack through Italy/Southern Europe, give the poor Russians some more winter and maybe a monsoon for Asia, add in those interesting optional rules somewhere else for China, changing arty rules, introduce AT and mech infty…and we’ve got a totally new game.

++++++ this is another can to open for another day… Im currently looking at retreat rules for defender which work perfectly in ALL my other games, while i get the worst flak when i try to apply it to revised… I have to appeal to the general public who may not want a huge departure from “beer and pretzels” how defender retreats plays out remains to be seen.

BTW join our group if you can in house section ( the varient thread)

Oh well!

[tekkyy]

back to Antiaircraft guns…

Artifical limit of 1 AA/territory should be removed, antiair density should be modelled —> allow up to 3

Abstract firepower of AA should be removed, overwhelming air power should be modelled —> allow up to 3 targets per AA

AA shouldn’t shuffle around —> can’t shoot before deployment, can’t move after deployment

hows that?

[Imperious Leader]

WEll i have to place my older post in context with that game concept. Your concept is great, except I am still unsettled with the 3 rolls thing… it brings a threshold of greater than 10% losses over the course of the game. I love the rolling 2 seperate dice thing. thats good.

[tekkyy]

The rate isn’t really a problem. We can adjust it easily.  :lol:

At the moment if you attack with 5 or more planes its 10% chance or less. (Against 1 AA)
If its a problem we just use a D12 dice or something.

The 3 rolls too can be adjusted. NOT to fit a target rate, but according to targetting ability of WWII flak.

My position is just to model saturation and antiaircraft density.

[Imperious Leader]

OK so what you mean is like for every “3 planes you get one AA roll?” so 9 planes get 3 rolls? i love this! now thats a great concept!

[tekkyy]

Eh, no.
If you get one roll for every 3 planes then thats is back to the old “chance of hits is proportional to number of planes” of OOB which gives AA unlimited damage.

I am saying up to 3 rolls for every AA. It doesn’t matter how many rolls. What matters is that every AA can only target up to 3 planes.

[Imperious Leader]

OH ok got it.

[tekkyy]

Now you got me worried.
So what do you think of it?

[Imperious Leader]

Well its the very same rule i have in at least one of my games… it cant be that bad! Remember we are working with others and all these proposals will be considered. You have my vote unless something better comes along. Also, I only favor the AA action from a “built in” platform I dont want stand alone AA guns. SO the rule i like was where you roll:

roll one  d6 if you roll a 1 , then you roll again if you roll a 1 the plane is destroyed, if you roll a two the plane has to return to base ( damaged and cant drop its payload) results of 3-6 no effect.

Max rolls are one roll for every 2 planes, total max is 3 total rolls ( so 9 planes get 3 rolls).

Also jet fighters/bombers  cant be hit by AA guns

AA guns are built into IC and or VC territories ( maybe only capitals and IC).

again some of this is from you…