AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

[Yahoshua]

K.

Thx.

[tekkyy]

Seeking sugguestions for italics (justification) text for this rule. Possibilty with an example.

Land Combat in special terrain
All attacking land units in a snowy or mountainous terrains has their attack decreases by 1, but not reducing below 1.

[Imperious Leader]

Land Combat in special terrain
All attacking land units in a snowy or mountainous terrains has their attack decreases by 1, but not reducing below 1.

This is not correct;

should read:

Land Combat in special terrain
All defending land units in a snowy or mountainous terrains have their defence increased by 1, for each combat round.

[tekkyy]

Oh, I dont even recall it.
Are you sure?

This is a bit stronger. Previously only artillery and tanks are affected. Now infantry is affected too.

[Imperious Leader]

I was just proofing your stated example:

Land Combat in special terrain
All attacking land units in a snowy or mountainous terrains has their attack decreases by 1, but not reducing below 1.

In a manner thats easier to read while maintaining the form. I am not even sure what this is from. But I do know that if a modifier is stated it has to be a defensive benifit rather than a negative modifier for attacks.

so what is the current special terrain modifier?

[tekkyy]

Thats what we have in the draft.

Preivously it was “fight with -1 modifier” (which was meant to mean tanks attack at 2 instead of 3)

Now its changed to “attack decreases by 1” (to be more like LHTR)

[Imperious Leader]

but why does it not read : “defence increases by 1”?

Under LHTR everything is stated by an increase…so why not in this case give the defender the increase.

e.g. infantry attack increases to two with a matching artillery unit

In poor terrain the benifit is to the defender so it should be written the same way. Why are we saying anything about the attacker?

[tekkyy]

oh I see
ok will do

now, a justification text and maybe an example

(for defender retreat the justification text was that strategic retreats did occur in WWII and one good example is tunsia, africa)

[Imperious Leader]

Great!

Lets get those Germans NA’s finished as well. I will post more ideas.

[tekkyy]

need one famous example of snowy terrain and one famous example of mountainous terrain advantage in WWII

[Imperious Leader]

well you can get that from stalingrad campaign…

the mountain terrain idea could be monte cassino in italy in 1943.

those would work.

[Imperious Leader]

This was originally a post in NA’s

AARHE crew:

I have some new ideas…

battleships should only be preemtive unless another battleship is present. In naval combat Battleships fight each other and take hits off each other. All other ships fight each other except transports cannot be taken as loses unless no other ships are left.

If the attacker has a battleship and the defender does not, he can decide what ship he hits if he rolls a one

Now under land combat if tanks, bombers and fighters roll a one they should be able to select the defending land target.

If bombers are attacking land targets and the defender has no air support, then attacks are also preemtive. If the defender has air units then as normal they fight dogfights…

Also, i have some new ideas covering some ideas for AARHE:

Air Superiority
Air units engage on a one to one basis.  The side that has fewer air units must allocate all units to the air battle.  The side that has air superiority (more units) can decide whether his extra aircraft will participate in the air or land/sea battle.  He may also decide how to allocate his fighters or bombers for air or land/sea combat.  Thus air units may only target ground units if they have established air superiority.

+++++ now the excess planes can participate in combat, when before one enemy plane can TIE UP your bomber force.

Retreat
Attacker and defender can retreat any or all surviving units after each round of combat except units that attacked as part of an amphibious assault. Land units that attacked as part of an amphibious assault may retreat but may be targeted (free shot) for one round by all defending land units.  All retreating land units are converted into infantry. Defending land units may retreat into any friendly region that was not attacked that turn. Attacking land units may retreat into any friendly region that attacking land units originated from. Sea units may retreat into any territory not occupied by enemy units. Retreating air units may land in any territory that was friendly at the start of their turn. Attacking armor, mechanized infantry, and aircraft that have sufficient movement may pursue units that retreated.

++++ key idea is you can convert retreating units to infantry , but the penalty is the defender gets a free barrage ( look at Dieppe raid and St. Nasaire raid)

Withdrawal
Prior to the start of any battle, a defender may withdraw any land, sea, or air units that are in excess of the total number of respective attacking units.  These units can be used to withdraw into non-combat or reinforce neighboring battles (they arrive in the second round of combat).  Each type of unit (land, sea, and air) is treated separately.

++++ key difference in what we allready have is a LIMITATION on defending retreats. Thus you cant fully retreat. Some detractors of our efforts dont like the total ability of the defender to retreat. But another key idea is you can withdraw to latter use to reinforce other battles ( see below)

Example: Germany (2 infantry and 2 artillery) attacks France with (6 infantry and 3 fighters).  The Allies can withdraw up to 2 infantry and 3 fighters prior to the start of the battle.

Reinforcements
Units (except Bombers in defense) can reinforce adjacent regions that are being attacked.  Reinforcements arrive in the second round of battle.  Only units in regions that are not being attacked or units that withdrew prior to the start of another battle can be used as reinforcements.  If combat in the territory that is being reinforced is concluded in one round, the reinforcements return to their original territory.

+++++ this idea creates the value of a real campaign when the battle involves forces from adjacent territories. Models the war better.

These are new ideas being used elsewhere in my other games. All you people please take a good look at them and play test them. They work well.

[tekkyy]

Summary: I think only the withdrawal/reinforcement is needed.

@Imperious:

Now under land combat if tanks, bombers and fighters roll a one they should be able to select the defending land target.

ARM (tank) hit already go on ART (artillery) or ARM (tank) first.
FTR (fighter) hits against land targets are already preemptive and targeted.
BMB (bomber) performs saturated bombing and we decided not to give them the ability to target.

If bombers are attacking land targets and the defender has no air support, then attacks are also preemtive. If the defender has air units then as normal they fight dogfights…

BMB (bomber) attacks against land units are already preemptive.
Note: “air combat” is before “land combat”.

Air Superiority
Air units engage on a one to one basis.  The side that has fewer air units must allocate all units to the air battle.  The side that has air superiority (more units) can decide whether his extra aircraft will participate in the air or land/sea battle.  He may also decide how to allocate his fighters or bombers for air or land/sea combat.  Thus air units may only target ground units if they have established air superiority.
+++++ now the excess planes can participate in combat, when before one enemy plane can TIE UP your bomber force.

Previously we did consider allocation air units between “dogfighting” and “land combat”.
But we didn’t in the end.
Consider air units perform bombing not as well without air superiority. Harrassed.

Recall excess dogfighting hits do go on land units.
So 1 FTR (fighter) is not gonna a large air fleet from hurting land units.

Retreat
…
++++ key idea is you can convert retreating units to infantry , but the penalty is the defender gets a free barrage ( look at Dieppe raid and St. Nasaire raid)

We could do without amphibious retreat by saying the landing crafts are not designed for that. You really need a proper dock.
But if you want we’ll look further in ampibious retreat.

Withdrawal
…
Reinforcements
…

We were stuggling quite a bit when we introduced defender retreat. We worked hard to make sure we don’t give defender too much extra movement.

At the moment DAS (defensive air support) lets air units move 1 space and fight from second combat cycle.
If we let land units relocate like this we need to fix the proportions.

DAS needs to be increased to 2 spaces away. They fight from 1st cycle.
Land unit reinforcement has range of 1. They first from 2nd cycle. They retreat if combat was lost already.

[Imperious Leader]

Previously we did consider allocation air units between “dogfighting” and “land combat”.
But we didn’t in the end.
Consider air units perform bombing not as well without air superiority. Harrassed.

Recall excess dogfighting hits do go on land units.
So 1 FTR (fighter) is not gonna a large air fleet from hurting land units.

+++++ ok if that last point is true than its allready part of the game. good

We were stuggling quite a bit when we introduced defender retreat. We worked hard to make sure we don’t give defender too much extra movement.

At the moment DAS (defensive air support) lets air units move 1 space and fight from second combat cycle.
If we let land units relocate like this we need to fix the proportions.

DAS needs to be increased to 2 spaces away. They fight from 1st cycle.
Land unit reinforcement has range of 1. They first from 2nd cycle. They retreat if combat was lost already.

+++++ yea adjacent land units should be able to reinforce battles as early as the second round, planes you say should be able to DAS from 2 spaces and participate in first round…… I think that would work. I’d add it to the file.

please update the file with these and other recent minor tweaks and post.

[tekkyy]

Ok I’ll add it in.

Pobably rename DAS (defensive air support) into Reinforcement.

Give me two examples of famous reinforcements.
One for land units. One for air units.
It could even be failed cases. (Like reinforcement arrived too late.)

[tekkyy]

specifics about antiairacraft

the exact wording at the moment…

1. Defending ID fire.
2. Attacking then defending air units fire.
3. Remove casualties.

Is that fine? Or did you intend more like this…

1. Defending ID fire. Remove casualties.
2. Attacking then defending air units fire. Remove casualties.

Both air units and antiaircraft fire in opening-fire.

I am fine with the current wording.
It means antiaircraft is not good enough as to actually “shield” land units like destroyers shield ships from submarine attack.

[Imperious Leader]

1. Defending ID fire.
2. Remove casualties.
3. Attacking then defending air units fire.
4. Remove casualties.

think this is more clear.

[tekkyy]

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.