@The-Captain You’re absolutely right, but as the Russian player I’ve been glad to see those factories bombed out. Germany has moved the Southern Italy, Berlin, and Paris factories underground as they consider those the main factories they’ll be producing from. The Allies learned this the hard way too the India Industrial Complex took a lot of bombing damage. It’s kind of late but UK may finally put that factory underground.
AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat
-
OK make an example using the map. Im not sure how this is a bad thing.
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required. Why should it be different? I can see in a open SZ ( no land at all) that its plausible to have opposing fleets remain in the same sea zone and not have any combat… as a new idea that could possibly work… any other cases im not thinking they should be possible. An enemy fleet adjacent from your own controlled land territories/islands should be a required combat situation.
-
@Imperious:
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required.
Up to the point of “combat is required” is good.
But then why should it be the Japan fleet that is the attacker? Why not the US fleet that is the attacker?Should the revelant higher combat values of defender over attacker be given to the Japan fleet which is doing “naval blockade” style camping?
The situation is a bit more strange with the English Channel, North Sea or the Sea of Japan…where there could be two opposing ICs building navy into the same SZ.
-
1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.
2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.
-
@Imperious:
1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.
2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.
-
What do you mean? Is that different to now? Place New Units phase is after Combat phase though.
-
In open sea zones (no connected territory), opposing units can remain (not enter) in the same space without combat.
-
-
ok give me an example of your own where the exceptions and their need arise.
-
For sea zones with no connected territory, I am fine is it in this discussion at 2).
I am wondering if it might actually be reasonable to extend that to all sea zones.If amphibious assault if your worry, you still need to secure sea zone before landing anyway.
EXAMPLE 1
Round 3 Axis
Japan has CV (carrier) at SZ 55.
Round 3 Allies
US builds CV at Western.US.
Combat do not occur yet.Round 4 Axis
Japan must move CV out of SZ 55 or combat occurs…which gives US defender advantage.
Should US get the advantage? Why not Japan (who’s camping at SZ 55)?EXAMPLE 2
Round 1 Axis
Germany builds IC at Western Europe.Round 2 Axis
Germany builds Carrier at SZ 7.
Round 2 Allies
UK builds Carrier at SZ 7.Round 3 Axis
Germany must move Carrier out of SZ 7 or combat occurs…which gives UK defender advantage.
Even though UK Carrier is the late-comer and the German Carrier is well established already. -
Ok now we have the issue…
Solution #1:
it will involve the act of “dislodgement”Dislodgement: the ships that are camping are moved one SZ away from their current location. owning players choice.
Solution #2:
when combat does occur the camping unit is using its attack value, while the attacker is using its defence value.Solution #3:
no combat occurs unless either side wants it… its optional on both parties. Eventually the strength of one side will create an imbalance and the other side will avoid a battle. -
my eyes are on solution 3
I’ll PM Jennifer to see what Jennifer thinks
Jennifer was posting about this problem before I think -
Solution 4:
Roll a die, 1-3 the current player is attacker, 4-6 the enemy units in the water is the attackerSolution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.Solution 6:
Use Classic rules. You cannot build naval units in blockaded sea zones. We have a lot more sea zones in revised editions then in classic.What’s the right one? I think it’d depend on the players the most, I think number 2. You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas. That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.
-
i go for 3 or 5
-
Solution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.If we won’t break the game basics of active/passive turn…then defender obviously can’t choose/attack.
That in turns makes no. 5 basically no. 3.
You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas. That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.
yeah but the siuation we are modelling is that the enemy blockaded a seazone rather than attacking your new ships in your harbours
-
Another look at anti-air.
Land anti-air
*unit is ID (infrastructure defense)
*D6 roll on 1, then D6 roll on 1 to destroy or 2 to force retreat
*multiple allowed per territoryIPC 1-hit 1-retreat 1-hit+1-retreat 2-hit 2-hit+1-retreat
1 ID 5 2.8% 2.8% - - -
2 ID 10 4.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% -
3 ID 15 5.8% 5.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%
4 ID 20 6.4% 6.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%Comment: Percentages do double with radar tech. Need to consider hit+retreat %. IC (industrial complex) comes with 2 IDs. VC (victory city) comes with 1 ID. So Germany has 4 IDs. Knock back power of 13%, 26% with radar per cycle.
Naval anti-air
*a number of D6 rolls hitting on 1
*CA 4, BB 3, CV+DD 2IPC 1-hit 2-hit 3-hit
CA 15 38.5% 11.6% 1.5%
BB 20 34.7% 13.9% 0.5%
CV 16 27.8% 2.8% -
DD 10 27.8% 2.8% -scenario: 2 FTR (fighter) attack 1 BB (battleship)
attacker: 50% chance 1-hit, 25% 2-hit
defender: 34.7% chance 1-hit, 13.9% 2-hitComment: BB has 49% chance of hitting at least one FTR. Damaged BB still fire anti-air. 2 FTR has little chance against 1 BB.
scenario: 1 FTR (fighter) attack 1 DD (destroyer)
attacker: 25% chance 1-hit
defender: 27.8% chance 1-hit + 2.8% 2-hitComment: Even a destroyer is so “tough”. DD has 31% chance of hitting the FTR at least once. 1 FTR can’t even deal with 1 DD.
Suggestions:
Would it be realistic…
*Naval anti-air not preemptive to air units
*reduct anti-air dice to CA 3 BB 2 CV+DD 1 -
Those numbers would seem to back up your claim. I would make that change on the draft.
WE cant have DD too effective because they already have ASW duty.
a radical route would be to make naval fighters take two hits… but this adds too many new changes that it would weaken the structure.
-
so we’ll reduce the Anti-air values by 1
what about making naval anti-air not preemptive?
like “double KO” kind of engagement?are there difference between WWII land and naval antiaircraft guns?
and its not a “draft” anymore, its a “release” or “release candidate” :-)
-
right no preemptive on that.
“draft” was a slip. sorry.
make it so.
-
@Imperious:
“draft” was a slip. sorry.
lol I am just saying it for fun
well, its good to imply the level of progress with a new term over “draft”by the way I notice you capitalise your “WE” often
I used to think you were really putting emphasis
but now it seems quite common :wink: so you probably don’t mean it -
oh…that “we” thing:
the W and E are close… and when i hit the cap function i usually hold it to cover the E as well.
Thus the We is coming out WE.
-
CURRENTLY:
SS (Submarine) 8IPC Move2 Attack2 Defense2 = 33%
before ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) 10IPC Move3 Search3 Attack2 = 17%after ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) Search4 Attack3 = 33%
Air Search3 Attack2 = 17%Without ASW tech submarines are very powerful.
UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes.
UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.)
Thats 6 turns on average.IDEA1:
before ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) Search3 Attack3 = 25%Destroyer slightly improved. Now its 8IPC 33% vs. 10IPC 25%. Submarine’s edge is still perserved.
IDEA2:
before ASW tech
Air Search0 Attack2Air units still may not attack submarines on their own until ASW tech.
Before ASW tech (bouy, seach lights) planes can still bomb submarines right? -
I think Idea 1 is better. Subs should not be able to attacks subs until ASW is achieved. Until then they can only scout.
-
@Imperious:
Subs should not be able to attacks subs until ASW is achieved.
Subs have no ASW search nor ASW attack value currently.
I am guessing you meant to say “air units should not be able to attacks subs until ASW is achieved”.Until then they can only scout.
Actually air units cannot perform ASW at all currently, until ASW tech.
But fair enough considering Leigh Light was from June 1942, which is pretty much straight after the game start.If I extropolate from existing system of….
*air unit ASW weaker then destroyer ASW
*BMR cannot hit naval units
*ASW tech gives +1 to both search and attack rollsthen the system would be…
before ASW tech
DD Search3 Attack2 17% -> Search3 Attack3 25%
Air Search0 Attack0 -> Search2 Attack0
BMR Search0 Attack0after ASW tech
DD Search4 Attack3 33% -> Search4 Attack4 44%
Air Search3 Attack2 17% ->Search3 Attack3 25%
BMR Search0 Attack0before SS tech
SS Attack2 33%after SS tech
SS Attack3 50%
Suggested Topics
