Hi Wittman
I’ll take a look and see if I can figure it out. If so I’ll try and walk you through it. I’ll respond in the game thread. Might be a while
Thank you; that is kind.
A push might be better!
Can-opener for another power seems a gamey move produced by the turn order and sequenced play, rather than simultaneous. Coordination is always better inside 1 army power than within multipower alliance. The game makes for Germany sending StB to Japan and vice-versa.
I know Black-Elk and I discuss this blitz move with cruiser and TcB but I can’t remember where it is.
Any idea?
Did you play-test this feature?
Great work to inscribe HR into TripleA.
I’m excited to see all these replies. I didn’t really expect to find so much interest when I first posted but 19 pages in, after just around month, and it seems clear that there is a definite desire to use this glorious G40 board this board for a redux.
I’m in the midst of a move, in home improvement mode for Axis and Allies dungeon underground lair aka the new garage. But as soon as I’m set up, I will start aggregating all these ideas into a more reader friendly document and edit the lead post to bring newcomers up to speed. Then we can do some up or down votes and see what new features we want to adopt.
Like nerquen, I’m a fan of the self can opener concept. I’ve explored it in a couple different variations, once for same-time A&A in AA50 (where all players both Axis and Allies play simultaneously, ie no turns) and once for a collapsed turn order (where all Axis move, and then all Allies move.) The latter concept is somewhat easier to implement. In same time my approach was to eliminate turns altogether in favor of a general “game phase progression”, so everyone buys, then everyone moves, then all combats resolves etc and in that formulation the blitz move was it’s own phase, similar to “surge attacks” in same-time risk. For the collapses turn order I approached the blitz somewhat more simplistically, where certain units Tanks and Cruisers where able to make a clearing attack that basically happened before the regular combat phase (I was testing in AA50 so we didn’t have Tac Bs yet, but basically used fighters instead.) I think something like this could work for G40 as well, though whether people want to fully collapse the turn order? Or try to preserve an alternating turn scheme I guess is something we will need to explore.
Loving the ideas rolling in though. Keep them coming. We’ll brainstorm and collect feedback till November and then move it into the next round of development, where we pick the major ideas and really start to flesh it out.
Best
Elk
it seems clear that there is a definite desire to use this glorious G40 board this board for a redux.
I may be in the minority, but the G40 board no longer gives me the same thrill it did when I first saw it. Beyond simply getting used to it, over time I have been able to determine the flaws and points of contention I have with it. Many of the ideas people have come up with here would be best served by either creating a totally new board or heavily modifying the OOB one. To me, predicating revisions based on not altering the OOB G40 board places severe limits on the scope of said revisions.
I am still a whole-hearted proponent of this project and will continue to contribute. However, my personal leanings are to incorporate these improvements onto a revised board; either one of my own creation or using HBGs Global War 1936.
@Baron:
Can-opener for another power seems a gamey move produced by the turn order and sequenced play, rather than simultaneous. Coordination is always better inside 1 army power than within multipower alliance. The game makes for Germany sending StB to Japan and vice-versa.
I know Black-Elk and I discuss this blitz move with cruiser and TcB but I can’t remember where it is.
Any idea?
Did you play-test this feature?
Great work to inscribe HR into TripleA.
Yes, I probably got the idea about can opening cruisers somewhere from your discussion, but I can’t remember either where that is. Also have not really tested it yet, just starting my first test game now. Being able to implement any house rule in tripleA or being easily adjustable in the edit mode was a major requirement for me.
Thanks, I finally found the thread here:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988
I have never heard of “can-opening” before, but I recognize it because it is a tactic that I think everyone uses.
It does seem like if you want to circumvent the turn order-based strategy of it, then you would need to eliminate turns entirely; either everyone going simultaneously or everyone proceeding at the same pace through the phases. I don’t understand how the simultaneous way would even work and even for a collapsed Turn you would have the same problems, just broken up.
Say it is the combat move in a Collapsed Turn Order… Does everyone just start moving pieces? Or do you go by mini-turns and cycle through Germany-USSR-UK-Italy… etc. Either way it seems like there would be confusion and conflicting elements. There are still advantages on both ends of the spectrum with this mini-turn order in that the guys who go first get to set the pace and theoretically their own destiny, but the guys who go last get to make (some) decisions based on knowledge of who is doing what.
I would be interested to hear how all this works if anyone wants to explain or there is a thread they can point me to. The way I am seeing it, there are still flaws in either Simultaneous or Collapsed.
You could re-shape the Turn order in groupings among Axis and Allies. This would link the more cooperative alliances into a single Turn… Alliance Option 1:
1. Germany/Italy
2. USSR
3. Japan
4. USA/UK/ANZAC/China/France
At the very least this would take care of the two most problematic can-openers IMO: Germany/Italy and the Western Allies. Revising turns in this fashion could pose problems with Italy going before the UK (on Turn 1) and the US/UK/ANZAC being able to leverage a huge amount of firepower together if they so wished… although that is assuming US/UK/ANZAC could attack in the same territories… which is something that could be discussed.
You could also split it like this… Alliance Option 2:
1. Germany/Italy
2. USSR
3. US/UK/France Atlantic
4. Japan
5. US/UK/ANZAC/China Pacific
I don’t know what you guys think is better… The challenge for Option 2 would be how to divide up buying for the US and UK. I am thinking you could either have them buy everything they want on (3.) and wait to place the Pacific stuff until the end of (5.) … OR … Buy what they want on (3.), place Atlantic and save the money they want to spend in the Pacific for (5.). This will also cause IPC collection problems. The simple solution would be to collect everything on that half of the board (Atlantic or Pacific) for that turn - including applicable bonuses.
@Baron:
@Baron:
@Young:
**I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash. **
A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on enemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.Maybe to get symetrical values, we can gives to surface warships 1D6 IPCs damage raid, and 1D6+2 IPCs to Submarines?
Or 1D6 for warships as a whole and 1D6 per Submarine?
To increase some kind of Convoy raid such as in Battle of the Atlantic and subwarfare, maybe Submarine needs to be a able to fight both naval combat AND economic battle in a given round of play.
Here is my suggestion:
**Sub either attacks surface vessels and TPs OR makes a Merchants’ ships Convoy Raid (MCR)
in Convoy SZ, as suggested above, damage per Submarine unit: 1D6 IPCs taken from enemy’s hand.
But this time, defender can roll@1 against each Sub doing a raid, this picturing the Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes work.
Also, as YG suggested, I would make a warships group (from 1 to many units) able to do MCR if there is no enemy’s warship in the Convoy SZ. Damage is 1D6 IPCs for the whole group, which is also subject to Destroyer Escort defense, but only 1 single roll @1 against any number of attacking warships.
(This rule mechanic for MCR would be similar to SBR.)
In addition, Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) is available to any Sub (no matter if it attacked or made a raid, or was on the move earlier in the turn) which is alive after NCM and still in a Convoy SZ.
Each Sub doing Shipping Line Disruption destroys an additional 2 IPCs from enemy’s hand.
This could simulate how Subs Staying on Station are ready to fall on any defenseless lonely pray passing by.
5 IPCs maximum is now applied per Convoy SZ.**
This 5 IPCs cap can also be an incentive to scatter Subs as much as possible to optimize IPCs losses.
2 IPCs for SLD can also be a consistent reminder of the Sub’ Attack value @2 (2 IPCs) First Strike (no retaliation from a lonely ship unit.)
Another feature is required to keep track of the IPCs loss per Convoy SZ.
For each IPC paid due to MCR or SLD in a given SZ, put 1 attacker’s Control Marker in this Convoy SZ.
When it reaches 5 markers (you can use plastic chips under 1 Control Marker), any additional IPC damage in this individual SZ have no effect.
That way, the raided player would have a mean to remember how much damage was taken in the whole game round and how many powers made the raid.
Example, Italy in 1 Adriatic SZ can be MCR by UK and USA, if UK ripe off Italy of 3 IPCs and USA rolls for 5 damage, it will be easy to stop at 2 IPCs by looking on the number of UK’s Control Markers/chips.
I believe it is one of the situation which make Larry put Convoy Disruption just before the Collect income phase of a Power, instead of the attacking Power’s turn.
Hey Folks,
concerning LHoffman’s suggestions about “_can-openers_†and “_collapsed turn-orders_", if you intend to eliminate the „can-opener“ strategies, you might consider a change in the turn-order.
In our games I’ve modelled the turn-order in accordance to the old “1942†& “Reviced†games to ease the transfer to the new game-system for the players. As an unintentional side-effect this eliminated Italy as a can-opener for Germany but created ANZAC as such for the US-Fleet.
(Our turn-order: USSR / CHN / GER / UK / JPN / ITA / ANZAC / FRA / USA)
I wouldn’t recommend a “collapsed†turn-order like the one suggested by LHoffman since the western allies would profit enormous from this. They would simply get too powerful for the Axis. Just imagine a combined Anglo-US invasion of Normandy or combined fleet operations in the Pacific TOW. An Axis “Afrika Korps†or “Panzerarmee Afrika†is no sufficient compensation for this.
No matter how interesting or historic accurate such an idea might be. Â :-)
And besides game balancing, I see no plausible argument to deny allied nations to attack the same enemy territory.
Just some thoughts…
Greetings,
Lars
@The:
As an unintentional side-effect this eliminated Italy as a can-opener for Germany but created ANZAC as such for the US-Fleet.
(Our turn-order: USSR / CHN / GER / UK / JPN / ITA / ANZAC / FRA / USA)
This just reverses the situation and allows Germany to be the can-opener for Italy… the same thing will happen. We used to play AA50 a lot and used Italy to knife Russia after Germany broke through the first layer.
@The:
I wouldn�t recommend a �collapsed� turn-order like the one suggested by LHoffman since the western allies would profit enormous from this. They would simply get too powerful for the Axis. Just imagine a combined Anglo-US invasion of Normandy or combined fleet operations in the Pacific TOW. An Axis �Afrika Korps� or �Panzerarmee Afrika� is no sufficient compensation for this.
No matter how interesting or historic accurate such an idea might be. � :-)And besides game balancing, I see no plausible argument to deny allied nations to attack the same enemy territory.
Well, since game balancing is the reason we are even talking about revising the turn order, I see no reason why you couldn’t just say that the Allies (or any two Powers) cannot jointly attack the same territory or sea zone. (They could still occupy the same territory/sea zone for defense.) It is really that simple and it would be consistent with current rules. There are many gameplay elements that circumvent history or reality for game balance and honestly I think doing so here is not that big a deal.
And actually, there is historic reasoning for denying the Allies the ability to jointly attack. Typically, the US and UK militaries operated independently of one another, both in command structure and tactically in battle. There were very few operations which had roughly equal portions of offensive participation (Overlord, Husky, Market Garden, Invasion of Italy…) and these were the bigger ones of the war. Even in these, British and American forces remained stratified and had different objectives. Considering that there was still some level of cooperation between the two, you could institute a rule that only, say, 3 or 4 times a game could the Western Allies conduct joint attacks on a single territory. Sort of like the Joint Strike NA from Revised, except that was only once a game.
This is in contrast to the Germans and Italians (and Rumanians) who often collaborated in attack and defense because Italy was militarily inferior to Germany and often required their support. As the war progressed, Italy became essentially a puppet state of Germany and had even less independent control. The Rumanians were even more entrenched in this situation. Germany/Italy should be able to attack the same territories together whenever they want. This puts a little more pressure on the USSR all at once, but it prevents Italy (or Germany) from backdoor-ing them.
I think it’s much easier for players to accept that they are prohibited from invading the same space due to their separate turns like in the standard games. If you tell them instead: “you can’t do this due to balancing reasons†most of them will start to argue. Especially when you present them rules you’ve invented by yourself instead of the original OOB rules. At least that’s my experience concerning house rules; no matter if you are talking of tabletop or board games.  :wink:
Shure, the allies had their difficulties working together – if you think of Generals like Patton and Montgomery; or the various discussions about the distribution of resources – but if you look at the differences inbetween the US (or Japanese) army and navy, you also have these troubles within one nation itself.
With your examples you’ve nearly give a nearly complete list of the whole western allied campaign to liberate Europe from 1943 onward. I think this is a little bit more than a few examples. Sure, they had their troubles, but in general they were working very effective together; especially concerning the grand-strategic level A&A tries to simulate.
Maybe a better way to smoothing the game a little bit and to eliminate “can-openers†would be two combined turns per game-turn
a) for the axis in Europe a combined German/Italian turn (as you’ve stated correct, the various axis nations in Europe (Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and to some degree even Finland) needed German assistance).
b) For the allies in the Pacific a combined US/ANZAC turn (since they coordinated their naval operations e.g. the campaign for the Solomon’s).
I wouldn’t include the British Pacific forces into this allied combined move, you prevent discussions why they can’t attack together in the European TOW and btw. the UK-Fleet in the Pac is no match for the IJN and there is no money expand it or rebuild it once  it’s gone.
In general I would say: if a system isn’t broken, don’t fix it! (And I’m not sure the system “turn-order†is broken.  :wink: )
@The:
In general I would say: if a system isn�t broken, don�t fix it! (And I�m not sure the system �turn-order� is broken. � :wink: )
I completely agree. My suggestion was more theoretical because Turn order OOB has never stood out to me as one of the bigger faults of the game. There are minor issues with it, but I don’t think they warrant a complete overhaul unless said overhaul is easy to implement and has even fewer issues.
@The:
I think it�s much easier for players to accept that they are prohibited from invading the same space due to their separate turns like in the standard games. If you tell them instead: �you can�t do this due to balancing reasons� most of them will start to argue. Especially when you present them rules you�ve invented by yourself instead of the original OOB rules. At least that�s my experience concerning house rules; no matter if you are talking of tabletop or board games. � :wink:
Yeah, this could be a problem. There is one guy I play with who is pretty inflexible in his interpretations of rules. He started out playing Classic in the 90s and sort of has his idea of how things are ‘supposed’ to work.
The problem with House Rules in general is that they are difficult to initiate with strangers who may not be used to them or convinced of their benefit. They may think they are at a disadvantage for not having played with said rules before. If you have a developed, core play group you can all agree on things and standardize your own gameplay. My view is that as long as your rules are simple enough and well explained, there should be no issues. The OOB rulebook is not the best and greatest version of the game, IMO.
This combined-turn joint-attack situation falls under the category of reasonable and logical explanation. To me, ‘balance’ is a pretty good reason in-and-of itself because it implies a focus on fairness. However, arbitrarily not allowing joint-attacks is perfectly justifiable because you are simply retaining that mechanic from the OOB rules.
@The:
Shure, the allies had their difficulties working together – if you think of Generals like Patton and Montgomery; or the various discussions about the distribution of resources � but if you look at the differences inbetween the US (or Japanese) army and navy, you also have these troubles within one nation itself.
With your examples you�ve nearly give a nearly complete list of the whole western allied campaign to liberate Europe from 1943 onward. I think this is a little bit more than a few examples. Sure, they had their troubles, but in general they were working very effective together; especially concerning the grand-strategic level A&A tries to simulate.
The differences between service branches in any one country is far too detailed of an example. A&A is ill-equipped to model such interactions, so I would move that your comment be stricken from the record. Heh… :wink: But seriously, if we got that far into it, Japan would implode every single game.
The list I gave was of the larger, initial battles (save M-G) and not the more tactical-level of campaigns through Africa, Italy or Western Europe; where forces tended to be split. For A&A scale, there really is no tactical-level, as you alluded to. So, purely as it relates to scale, the Western Allies should be allowed to attack the same territories simultaneously.
@The:
Maybe a better way to smoothing the game a little bit and to eliminate �can-openers� would be two combined turns per game-turn
a) for the axis in Europe a combined German/Italian turn (as you�ve stated correct, the various axis nations in Europe (Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and to some degree even Finland) needed German assistance).
b) For the allies in the Pacific a combined US/ANZAC turn (since they coordinated their naval operations e.g. the campaign for the Solomon�s).
I wouldn�t include the British Pacific forces into this allied combined move, you prevent discussions why they can�t attack together in the European TOW and btw. the UK-Fleet in the Pac is no match for the IJN and there is no money expand it or rebuild it once � it�s gone.
Are you saying that the GER/ITA combined turn and US/ANZ combined turn would take place every Round? Or just two times during the whole game?
I completely agree. My suggestion was more theoretical because Turn order OOB has never stood out to me as one of the bigger faults of the game. There are minor issues with it, but I don’t think they warrant a complete overhaul unless said overhaul is easy to implement and has even fewer issues.
I’ve been wondering: as a theoretical exercise (not necessarily as an actual proposal for the G40 redesign, unless it turns out to be totally practicable), to what extent could one of the two basic mechanics of Diplomacy be transplanted into G40, i.e. the mechanic in which the players secretly (and simultaneously) write out their orders, then simultaneously implement them? Diplomacy has a second mechanic (i.e. the resolution of combat via its “attack / hold / support” action categories) which treats all ground units as equal and all sea units as equal, and which therefore would be boring and undesirable to adapt for use in G40…but the writing-down mechanic might be another story.
Of the six phases in the G40 sequence, three of them…
1. Purchase and Repair Units
5. Mobilize New Units
6. Collect Income
…sound as if they could easily be adaptable to being handled simultaneously by all the player powers via pre-written orders. It’s the other three that would pose more challenges, and about which I’d be interested in hearing opinions from people. I’ve dashed off a few quick thoughts below, without looking too deeply into the idea.
2. Combat Move (Powers at War Only)
The rules say that “Movement in this game is separated into combat movement and noncombat movement phases. During the Combat Move phase, all movement must end in a hostile space, with a few exceptions. Movement into a hostile space counts as combat movement whether that space is occupied or not.” In principle, pre-written movement orders ought to be compatible with this rule because a hostile space doesn’t have to have enemy units in it to be considered a hostile space. In other words: if Player X writes orders to move his forces into Hostile Territory Y, the hostile status of that territory won’t be affected by anybody else’s planned moves. More specifically, a pre-written combat move by Player X into Territory Y, which contains an enemy force, would remain legitimate regardless of whether or not the enemy has pre-written orders to move his force out of Territory Y (in order, let’s say, to make a combat move into Territory W, which is a hostile territory from the perspective of Player X’s enemy). So in principle, a legitimate written order for a combat move would simply be an order which directs a player’s forces to move into a territory which has a hostile status at the time when the player writes his orders.
3. Conduct Combat (Powers at War Only)
In this phase, players would obviously only be able to conduct combat in territories or sea zones in which opposing forces are in contact with each other. This would be determined by the result of adding up all the pre-written moves made in the previous game phase – a result which could lead to some unexpected situations. Player X, for instance, might have written orders to move his forces into Hostile Territory Y (which was occupied at the time of the order-writing part of Phase 2) with the aim of attacking an enemy force located there…only to discover (after the order-implementation part of Phase 2) that the enemy has moved his forces out of it. Alternately, Player X might discover that Player Z (one of his partners) has likewise moved some of his own forces into Territory Y. In principle, however, Player X should never run into the situation in which an enemy force pops up in an unoccupied Territory Y because, from the enemy’s viewpoint, Territory Y is a friendly territory and he therefore can’t make a combat move into it.
The players would need to check the board after Phase 2 is complete and make an inventory of all the places where enemy forces are in contact, to determine what battles need to be fought. I guess there would be two ways of actually fighting them. One would be as a purely sequential set of individual battles. The alternative, which would speed things up and would keep more people busy with fewer time-outs, would be to run as many simultaneous battles as could be managed at a time. For instance, there could be a Germany-versus-USSR battle + an Italy-versus-UK battle + a Japan-versus-US battle, followed by a Japan-versus-UK + a Japan-versus-US battle, and so forth.
4. Noncombat Move
This one may actually be quite straightforward. The rules say “In this phase, you can move any of your units that didn’t move in the Combat Move phase or participate in combat during your turn.” The “didn’t move” criterion is determined by what happened in Phase 2 (as recorded by the written orders) and the “didn’t fight” criterion is determined by what happened in Phase 3 (as recorded by the inventory of forces needing to be involved in battles), so it would be easy to identify the remaining unaffected units which would qualify for non-combat movement. Likewise, the criteria pertaining to which friendly territories or zones can be moved into or through would be easy to apply, since they simply depend on the map status of territories or zones that resulted from the previous phase.
All of this, of course, would be a major departure from how A&A normally functions – so even if it was workable, it might be too radical from a redesign point of view.
Are you saying that the GER/ITA combined turn and US/ANZ combined turn would take place every Round? Or just two times during the whole game?
If you like to eliminate Italy as a “can-opener” for Germany and intend to balance the greater offensive power of the Axis especially in Africa by a combined US/ANZAC move,
then you have to make this combined turnes during the whole game.
CWO Marc, maybe I’ve understood your proposal wrong, but I think It’s not possible to work with written orders in A&A1940 due to the immense number of units some players have to handle. I think it would simply take to much time.
Although it is a nice idea because in this way your best plans might be spoiled by the enemy. :evil:
Btw. is there any kind of initiative or are all orders being executed simultaniously?
And what happens if say Axis forces move from territory a to territory b while allied forces move from b to a?
Do they simply swap the spaces or do they clash at the border?
@The:
CWO Marc, maybe I’ve understood your proposal wrong, but I think It’s not possible to work with written orders in A&A1940 due to the immense number of units some players have to handle. I think it would simply take to much time.
Although it is a nice idea because in this way your best plans might be spoiled by the enemy. :evil:Btw. is there any kind of initiative or are all orders being executed simultaniously?
And what happens if say Axis forces move from territory a to territory b while allied forces move from b to a?
Do they simply swap the spaces or do they clash at the border?
The ideas I outlined were just a preliminary attempt at seeing if, at first glance, a Diplomacy-type system of written orders might be compatible with the G40 system of game phases. I didn’t develop it in any detail, so I didn’t think about any elements related to initiative or border clashes, or much of anything else for that matter. I was mainly interested in seeing how the concept sounded to others, and in seeing what flaws (either glaring or subtle) they thought the concept might have. The point you mentioned about the large number of units posing a practical problem is certainly a good one.
@The:
I think It’s not possible to work with written orders in A&A1940 due to the immense number of units some players have to handle. I think it would simply take to much time.
On the other hand, note that under the current rules most of the players spend most of their time sitting around doing nothing as they watch one particular player taking his turn…so instead of spending time being bored, maybe they’d prefer spending time writing orders. At least that way everyone would be occupied most of the time. :-D
I think there are two ways to use the time while it’s not your turn:
One part of our group uses smartphones playing games or leaving the room for a smoke,
while the other studies and analyses the moves of their opponents and make plans for their next turn. And I think the latter ones are the more successful players… :wink:
… Bases are a bit better because you can build them anywhere. A lot of the gameplay interest and strategizing for this game revolves around where to place bases, or how to use existing bases, or how to counter enemy bases.
Thanks for the quick recap Barney. Helps to keep us focused. If new units or unit modifications  are something we want to explore, then the game will need a new battle board. Something that can be printed out showing the relationships with whatever attack/defense hits are altered, for easy reference. Or a printable cost/abilities chart indicating whatever combined arms might be in play.
I agree the most problematic units are cruisers and aaguns, as I almost never see these purchased. The Tac B is rather underwhelming, though it has some uses for carrier attack.
I like the +2 only if taking off from an operational airbase as suggested by YG. The airbase is probably the most important unit in the game.
I wonder if anyone else finds the OBB scrambling system a bit weird? It slows down email and forum games considerably, with constant confirmation requests. Sometimes I think its a little silly, but it’s such an important part of what makes G40 unique from a combat perspective, that I’m reluctant to change it dramatically. I feel like the air base scramble should have been more like an AAgun roll or Kamakazi token. You know, instead of putting actual fighter units into the fray, it could just be some automatic combat advantage, a free hit or whatnot. Some combat feature of the air base itself, rather than the fighters parked in the territory.Naval bases might be handled in a similar way. Basically giving both base types some functionality independent of the defenders combat units (or lack thereof.) The idea being that an airbase always has at least some kind of air defense or aircraft in place. Similarly a naval base might be assumed to have some naval defense vs ships built in.
If it was an automatic combat bonus, you wouldn’t need to constantly ask. And it avoids the issue of turn order exploits (scrambling your friends fighters) or building an airbase just to get a combat bonus exploit out of an ally’s aircraft. Also avoids the situation where a player chooses not to scramble, for fear of losing a fighter, in a situation where it would obviously have made sense to scramble if it was a battle in the real world.For example:
Air base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the territory itself or adjecent sea zone.Naval base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the sea zone itself or adjacent sea zone.
This way there is always some basic combat benefit for a base that the player can utilize automatically, and just preserve the interaction between bases and combat units as purely movement/repair related.
Alternatively if you think a defensive hit is too potent, you could make it a hit absorption instead. Then at least the airbase could “scramble” (ie absorb a hit) during an attack on the actual territory where the base is housed.
Anyone else think its odd, that there is no scrambling during an attack on the land territory where the base is actually located (the base plays no role in such instances, since the fighters are already in place defending regardless.) OOB scrambling is basically just something that happens in adjacent sea zones. But we could improve on that and make a more automatic ability instead of one that requires the attacker to wait while the defender to make a decisison.
The OOB system kind of messes turn sequence I feel, it makes planes behave a bit like subs. Where the attacker has to wait for the defended to decide, or click a prompt.
These issues about Air Base should be discuss IMO.
How many Triple A player would like a game with no OOB scramble?
If a redesigned Air Base is introduced, I believe it should simulate at least 1 Fighter presence.
Such as giving an additional hit and a defense @4 for all SZs surrounding and another D4, 1 hit for the TTy defense.
The defender can keep rolling the defense as long as the hit is not taken for casualty.
Taking the hit doesn’t affect Air Base status, only a Tactical Bombing Raid can.
(This can still be an interesting dilemma, whether applying the hit to an actual unit or to this buffer hit.)
Such feature would be like giving 1 renewed defending Fg each turn on each possible combat zone within the area of the Air Base.
