AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)

[Imperious Leader]

There is a level of abstaction with respect to time and place that are key ingredients when assigning rules that may interfere with the established “unit” of scale. So some rules may be more complex or less abstracted but as long as they conform to the time and scale of the game they can be made to work.

[tekkyy]

So we are pretty much good with it? 1 National Unit and 1 National Attack/Defense.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea id go for that.

[tekkyy]

To sum up, round up, clean up, finish off…
I understand there is still strong debating on UK’s national unit.

National Units

USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Moscow for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = FTRs can be purchased and placed in London for 8 IPC each provided at least one FTR was purchased last turn.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.

National Attack

USSR = ARM fire in the opening fire instead of main round in the first cycle of combat.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = UK FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = Japan may declare no retreat at the beginning of combat, all INF gets +1 attack/defense modifier provided Japanese side consists of only INF.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the fire cycle of combat of amphibious assault.

[theduke]

Does SS stand for sub??

There’s a lot more that I personally debate with than just UK unit.

Why does Russia have strong tanks? Their tanks weren’t stronger, just much cheaper when mass produced. Give Russia Katyusha Rockets. More rockets but less accurate and used together to create shock effect. So we could somehow let the advantage be better the more rtl there are in a single battle (ideas?). Since they were important more in the star of the battle than the end, we could have it so they roll 3 1’s in the first round of an attack (include advantage on defense?).

I’m still not on board with the other attack advantages.

[Imperious Leader]

1)Yes SS is submarine.

2)“Why does Russia have strong tanks? Their tanks weren’t stronger, just much cheaper when mass produced.”
I would think the idea is not actually “strong” tanks but 2 things: 1) at the start of the campaign till about a year later the t-34 was the best all-around tank and it achieved superiority. 2) The tank also represents self propelled artillery ( su-122, su-155, etc) these things were very efficient as tank destroyers and i think thats what hes driving at 3) the katyushkas are also in this equation… but they were not the “icon” of the Soviet armor strike… but all three are embodied into the NA.

I think when we introduce the new units … somewhere a Soviet Rocket ( katyuskas) may be part of this… another use for the AA gun.

The list is very close but not exact he was tidying up the current situation… BTW where are we with Neutrals?

[tekkyy]

Yeah we haven’t defined clearly what the ARM or ART piece represents. It just because the ART piece looks like little infantry-pushed guns to me.

So these are some of the conflicts:

USSR attack: ARM opening fire (IL), or +1 modifier ART (theduke) ?
UK unit: FTR, or cheaper DD (theduke), or modern BB (IL) ?
US attack: toss up between marine and mech infantry?

[theduke]

I’ll try to avoid +1 modifiers whenever possible so I wouldn’t nec. say  I’m for +1 rtl.

I’m not totally attached to DDs. I like spitfires also. I just don’t want unit for UK and Japan to both be fighters.

I like marines better than mech infantry.

I don’t like a nation’s unit and attack to benefit the same unit. example: russia with tanks. key is to diversify advantages to stimulate variety of purchases whenever possible.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

I’ll try to avoid +1 modifiers whenever possible so I wouldn’t nec. say  I’m for +1 rtl.

So what do you prefer? You want Katyuskas rockets right?

I’m not totally attached to DDs. I like spitfires also. I just don’t want unit for UK and Japan to both be fighters.

Thats fine then. Japan is infantry at the moment.

I like marines better than mech infantry.

Thats fine too then.

I don’t like a nation’s unit and attack to benefit the same unit. example: russia with tanks. key is to diversify advantages to stimulate variety of purchases whenever possible.

So Germany and US is fine for that.
Russia is both on ARM. UK is both on FTR. Japan is both on INF.

Actually for UK attack…what is it about Spitfire historically? dogfighting? bombing? patriotic defending London?

[theduke]

As of now I prefer rockets for Russia, but we’ll have to redo how it’s presented so it has more of an attack advantage feel to it, if you know what I mean. IMO rockets are the best idea we have yet.

We will continue to disagree about allowing the nation’s unit advantage and attack advantage to apply to the same unit/s. I put in my 2 cents, that’s all I can do.

I really like the idea of limiting Russia’s adv. to 2 arm per turn, Germany’s to 1 cheap sub per IC where no surface unit is built, and UK’s to 1 cheap fighter in London per turn. For japan, i think inf is the best cheap unit. i think allowing 1 to defend at 3 for every yellow territory is a good idea.

From wikipedia on spitfire:
Another contemporary, the German Luftwaffe’s Messerschmitt Bf 109, was similar in attributes and performance to the Spitfire. Some advantages helped the Spitfires win many dog fights, with maneuverability the attribute most often quoted. Good cockpit visibility was probably a greater factor, as these early Bf 109s had narrow, paneled heavily framed cockpit windows. Where possible, Spitfires were assigned the task of taking on the Bf 109Es, while the Hurricanes intercepted the bombers. Nonetheless, seven of every ten German planes destroyed during the Battle of Britain were shot down by Hurricane pilots.

Even though the Hurricane seemed to perform better, for some reason the Spitfire is the symbol of the British resistance in the Battle of Britain and is better well known. This might be because the spitfire is the ‘most beautiful’ plane ever made.

[Imperious Leader]

OK then lets do those Katyuskas as the Soviet since you went with Jap infantry and the defend at 3 thing. Thats good. Teckky make the record to reflect this and now we can move on. What is the current state with neutrals? WE only need this to finish Phase one! lets get a move on.

[tekkyy]

Changes highlighted in bold.

Ok so UK is 1 cheap FTR only.

We actually haven’t said how to model Katiuskas rockets. As far as I know they are for saturation bombing and is mainly defastating to infantry. They are highly mobile.

The 1 infantry thing for Japan is weak compared to others. It is also defensive (modelling dug-in but not banzai).

---

National Units

USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Moscow for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = Once per turn, 1 FTR can be purchased and placed in London for 8 IPC.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.

National Attack

USSR = ART hits on 3 and fire in opening-fire instead of main-round, for first cycle of combat only.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = 1 in 3 INF defending in yellow territories gets +1 defense modifier, assigned at beginning of combat.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the first cycle of combat of amphibious assault.

---

Analysis of national attack:
USSR: 100% ART 16% once per combat (100%) =
Germany: 100% FTR 16%(+16%) when no enemy FTR (25-50%) =
UK: 100% FTR 16% in London (10%) =
Japan: 33% INF 16% in yellow (50%) =
US: 100% INF 16% once per amphibious combat (20%) =

But its not important. Should talk about balance in overall game not individual rule. Individual rules are for realistic historic modelling.

[theduke]

I think we still need some modifications to the national attack. As with the Russian tanks, I don’t think the the national unit and national attack should apply to he same unit/s. This is why I don’t think Japanese inf should be the unit and the attack. It’s effectively just double ‘counting’ for that warrior code advantage no matter how it’s justified. I still like kamikazes best even if that means they have to be redefined from what they are now.

Minor point, but we need to be sure to change London to UK in order to be consistent between capital and territory.

I think it’s important that the national units only apply to costs, defense and/or movement and not apply to attack in order to clarify its distinction with national attack advantages. This distinguishes Japanese Warrior Code (defense +1) from kamikazes (suicidal attack).

I also think it’s important how we present this set of rules to minimize the debate between other players that we went through while designing the rules. I think we should define the national units to symbolize that nation’s military production strength. By defining it as such I think people will agree that the units should be the Russian t-34, German type vii u-boats, UK spitfires, Japanese infantry, and US CVs. Some could argue that German Tiger tanks might also symbolize Germany’s strength, but since they don’t symbolize productive strength as well, the type vii subs are a better candidate.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

As with the Russian tanks, I don’t think the the national unit and national attack should apply to he same unit/s.

Thats done. Russia is currently tank unit and artillery attack.
I pull the attack rule ot of no where and is keen on hearing how you think we can model Katyuskas rockets.

This is why I don’t think Japanese inf should be the unit and the attack. It’s effectively just double ‘counting’ for that warrior code advantage no matter how it’s justified. I still like kamikazes best even if that means they have to be redefined from what they are now.

Yeah but IL was saying Kamikaze was only used when Japan was desperate. Hence the argument that it shouldn’t be standard. I actually like the no-retreat Banzai attack/defense thing more. Was that used before Japan started losing? But if attack shouldn’t be infantry as well then for Japanese attack then we can look at modelling Japan’s Navy?
Bing! Didn’t IL wanted Lance torpedo?

Minor point, but we need to be sure to change London to UK in order to be consistent between capital and territory.

Yep it shall be United Kingdom, Russia and Japan respectively.

I think it’s important that the national units only apply to costs, defense and/or movement and not apply to attack in order to clarify its distinction with national attack advantages.

Thats done.

I think we should define the national units to symbolize that nation’s military production strength. By defining it as such I think people will agree that the units should be the Russian t-34, German type vii u-boats, UK spitfires, Japanese infantry, and US CVs.

Thats done.

---

National Units

USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Russia for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = Once per turn, 1 FTR can be purchased and placed in United Kingdom for 8 IPC.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.

National Attack

USSR = ART hits on 3 and fire in opening-fire instead of main-round, for first cycle of combat only.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = DD fire in the opening-fire instead of main-round,for first cycle of combat only.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the first cycle of combat of amphibious assault.

[Imperious Leader]

On the Japanese Destroyers… why? Lance torpedo is a naval fighter weapon… so how bout Japanese planes get a +1 modifier against warships in the opening round of combat… or all rounds?

[theduke]

What’s more well known, even among people who don’t know history that well? Kamikazes, banzai infantry or lance torpedoes. I think we can all agree it’s kamikazes. I think people will be more likely to raise a fuss if we omit kamikazes rather than lance torpedoes.
We can always modify kamikaze rules to portray any additional ideas we want to include, like Japan being desparate.

[Imperious Leader]

But we are making a “historical edition” and the Lance torpedo was a major development and achieved more than those pesky Kamikazes. It caused the sinking or destruction of 8 battleships at hawaii. A far greater glory for Japan than the “desperate” and limited abilities of Kami. Kami will be a NA under phase two. It cant be the major principle of what Japan had offered ww2 in terms of some military achievement. The Kamikazi is like Banzai a suicide attack and it shows no respect on our end if we “hype” up what was allready a poor OOB rule. Our job is to correct the mistakes not sustain them because we come from the framework of remolding the game into History and reality. It would be the easy way out to just stamp “Japan is a kamikaze nation of suicide fighters” Our job is in a sense to educate people when they play the game … to make them understand that Kamikaze was a stupid idea that amounted to nothing but wasted plane, life and effort.

[tekkyy]

Lance
Oh I didn’t know. I only read Wikipedia and they didnt mention it as a naval fighter weapon.
The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo. The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. Most also carried reloads, something that other navies did not like to do.
So probably Japanese fighters in sea combats get +1 attack (but not defense right?) in first cycle of combat.

Kamikaze
As for the kamikaze don’t trash it down too much IL. When done well it wasn’t a waste of resource and was actually powerful?

Don’t worry duke, its not left out. We can have it in National Advantage as before. Kamikaze fans won’t feel bad I think.

[Imperious Leader]

OK ill post some facts for both so you guys can figure it out.

[Imperious Leader]

Long Lance:

At the outbreak of the war, the Japanese Navy possessed some of the world’s finest torpedoes, including the fabled Long Lance. The quality of these weapons was no accident, but rather the result of Japan’s intensive efforts during the 1920’s and 30’s to make good the shortcomings of her battle fleet. Laboring as she did under the unfavorable 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan would most likely be at a disadvantage in any Pacific conflict with the United States. She also knew well enough that the U.S. modeled its fighting doctrine on the famous ‘Plan Orange’, which called for an advance of the American battle fleet across the Pacific to relieve the Phillipines. It was anticipated that at some location in the Western Pacific a decisive battle would be fought. In Japan’s view, some means must be found to offset its disadvantage in capital ships before this battle occurred, or its inferior batle line would be destroyed by the American force. Torpedo tactics and night combat were seized upon as one way to whittle down the American battle line as it made its way across the Pacific. Accordingly, Japan worked diligently to develop the tactics needed to implement this new doctrine, and also to create the weapons with which to carry it out. The result was that Japanese torpedoes showed a steady progression of improvements throughout the 1930’s, culminating in the devlopment of the famous ‘Long Lance’ in 1935.

Designing and perfecting the Long Lance required solving some extremely difficult technical problems, most of which centered around the usage of pure oxygen as a fuel (rather than compressed air). Compressed air is nearly 77% nitrogen, which is useless for combustion, and also contributes to the visibility of the torpedo by leaving a bubble track on the surface. The usage of pure oxygen promised far greater power and propulsive efficiency, but it came with certain costs. The most glaring of these was how to use pure oxygen safely aboard a ship or submarine, given its inherently inflammable nature. Premature detonation of the torpedo upon firing was also a problem. However, the Japanese overcame these hurdles. Further, through meticulous live-testing of their weapons against ship targets, they perfected a warhead detonator that was rugged and reliable (The U.S. Navy’s BuOrd could certainly have taken a lesson or two here). The resulting weapon, the Type 93 torpedo, was fantastically advanced in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power. This weapon, coupled with the flexible battle tactics practiced by Japan’s cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Lance

and this:

At that time, US Naval Intelligence was unaware of the advances the Japanese had made in torpedo technology. One of these advances was the Japanese 24 inch diameter “Long Lance” torpedo, which carried a charge equivalent to 891 pounds of TNT. A Long Lance torpedo essentially defeated the USS North Carolina’s side protective system. The ship was hit by chance at its narrowest, and therefore most vulnerable part of the side protection system. An Iowa Class battleship would have taken lighter damage from the torpedo due to an improved torpedo protection system over the North Carolina Class.

A torpedo is a self-propelled projectile carrying a warhead which detonates against a ship’s side below the waterline. It was the most destructive naval weapon of the Second World War and the best of these was the Japanese Long-Lance.

In 1941 the Japanese Navy was the third largest navy in the world, after the US Navy and the Royal Navy. It had 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers. Most destroyers and cruisers were fitted with the 24-inch Long Lance torpedo. This oxygen-powered weapon could deliver a 1,000lb warhead at 49 knots over almost 11 miles.

finally:

The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall. Too large to fit in the standard 21-inch torpedo tubes, it was usually launched from the decks of surface ships, but some submarines also had deck-mounted launchers.

The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo. The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. Most also carried reloads, something that other navies did not like to do. The US Navy in particular completely did away with torpedoes for its cruiser force, preferring instead to mount massed batteries of radar-aimed quick-firing 6 inch or 8 inch (152 or 203 mm) guns.

In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. The losses sustained in such engagements led to a belief among the Allies that the torpedoes were being fired from submarines operating in concert with the surface ships but at much closer ranges. On rare occasions, the very long range of the torpedo caused it to strike a ship that was far behind the intended target. The Type 93’s capabilities were not recognized by the Allies until one was captured intact in 1943.

conclusion: 1)Jap destroyers may get preemtive attacks because of the long range of this weapon or 2) or planes will get that +1 combat modifier for naval strikes ( fighters only).