@timothy-gengarella all the forts and coastal guns in the zone are lost if you lose the territory
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-DThis is excellent news! It was by far my favorite game. I don’t know how many more runs we get out of A&A in the future, but if AA50 (or AA60 I guess by now? haha) ends up in a enough hands, I’ll be pretty happy to call it the zenith for the mid scale casual game. I will probably have to start digging up my old HRs for that one and floating them again in anticipation.
I think it should pair well with 1940 (who knows, maybe it gets a 3rd edition after all, if sales of the Anniversary are strong enough) but for now I’m just stoked that someone at AH had their ears to the street for a re-print, and that Kevin got a chance to comb over the rulebook too. So glorious
-
I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-DInteresting. Where did you get your intel Black_Elk?
Although I suppose that re-issuing is something we can expect more of. Seems like every brand these days is seen first and foremost as a cash generator. It either has to keep evolving with new products or re-issued/re-booted version of previous products… all to keep that money flowing in. While they could develop more theater or battle-level spinoff games, AH really can’t take the Global A&A game farther than they already have. To keep the flagship game selling and relevant, they are re-issuing the novelty item.
Really AA50 doesn’t need to be re-issued. It’s not even 10 years old. In terms of OOB gameplay and balance, it is my impression that most people think it is one of the better A&A games. So I am a bit jaded over this being the latest episode of the constant-hype culture we live in.
Yet I am interested to see how they tweak the existing version. Maybe we see some rule changes that have been bandied about on this thread. They could make this version a very tight, fun game; neither too big and complicated like G40 nor small and confining like G42.
So who is going to buy up a bunch of copies expecting them to more than quadruple in value like AA50?
-
I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-DInteresting. Where did you get your intel Black_Elk?
Although I suppose that re-issuing is something we can expect more of. Seems like every brand these days is seen first and foremost as a cash generator. It either has to keep evolving with new products or re-issued/re-booted version of previous products… all to keep that money flowing in. While they could develop more theater or battle-level spinoff games, AH really can’t take the Global A&A game farther than they already have. To keep the flagship game selling and relevant, they are re-issuing the novelty item.
Really AA50 doesn’t need to be re-issued. It’s not even 10 years old. In terms of OOB gameplay and balance, it is my impression that most people think it is one of the better A&A games. So I am a bit jaded over this being the latest episode of the constant-hype culture we live in.
Yet I am interested to see how they tweak the existing version. Maybe we see some rule changes that have been bandied about on this thread. They could make this version a very tight, fun game; neither too big and complicated like G40 nor small and confining like G42.
So who is going to buy up a bunch of copies expecting them to more than quadruple in value like AA50?
The info on game is in the news thread with a person to person you tube announcement.
As far as AH taking the 40 game further is correct in what your saying. Guys have been house ruling that game for awhile including some guys here. Only way they can make it go further is by adding all the special advance pieces and some rules. You start adding more neutrals and it starts getting closer to the 39 games.
-
@SS:
The info on game is in the news thread with a person to person you tube announcement.
Thanks SS
-
After reading some comments on the other thread, the reasoning may be even more insidious and less outright cash grab than I thought. Though that is still a part.
-
I haven’t heard anything about major substantive changes to the game other than the manual being cleaned up and the errata included. But compared to 1942.2, I think AA50 has a lot to recommend it as a legacy board. You get a 6 man option, on a clean map with the boxed materials all looking pretty slick. The ruleset is more complex than 1942.2 (with technology, objectives and the like) but without being overly cumbersome. The production and VC spread is good and the vanilla balance is pretty tight, with a more moderate bid.
I think the basic game is a bit more adaptive for HRs than 1942.2, because you already have concepts like Objectives and Tech advances built in, as well as options like escort/intercept or closing the Black Sea etc. All of which might open the door to try things with HRs that give the game a new flavor, but perhaps with less of a Pandora’s box effect than we see with Global HRs, still being somewhat grounded by the smaller scale and simpler overall ruleset of AA50 relative to the 1940 games.
Plus I already have a couple go to rules for AA50, like the China first turn order sequence, that are more established and time tested in my playgroup. So less work I’d have to do rethinking things for balance correctives haha. Usually I can convince my friends to play AA50 for a casual pick up game. I think it has a status similar to Classic or Revised for familiar re-play, but with the advantage of being newer, and still more or less compatible with the rulesets that have followed it in recent years.
Sure a new game would be awesome, but there’s also something to be said for a bit of consistency and longevity too (especially in A&A, where there have been so many different editions since Classic.) A popular and solid midscale world theater A&A game in more people’s hands is something I can definitely get behind. If I had to pick one A&A board that gets perpetually reprinted every decade for cash grabs (the way they do for Risk or Monopoly) it would be AA50. Also I think it’s much better from a branding standpoint, if the flagship mid-scale game is called Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition (50th, 60th etc) as opposed to like Spring 1942 Second Edition. I was honestly starting to fear that we might not even see another A&A game printed at all, so this is really welcome news.
I think the Anniversary will be a good workhorse for HRs when things start to get dry. I dig it
-
Hopefully they don’t cheap out on us again though: No money, shabby and too few pieces… I hope they continue the deluxe-ness. However, the original AA50 box was kinda ridiculous. Wouldn’t be surprised if they bring that back down to earth.
-
Yeah hopefully they give it the little touches like paper bills, and the cool national storage boxes with the set up cards built in. I really liked how it all fit together.
Another thing AA50 has going for it is the duel start dates, with different scenarios for 1941 and 1942. Even if 41 was more popular it’s cool to have the later option too for a change of pace.
By switching some of those roundel control markers around and maybe including some new objectives I think the AA50 board could easily support an HR 1940 scenario, where you have France or Norway controlled by Britain, and things of that sort. Or you could do a 1943 scenario with certain technologies already in play. It might be more acceptable than trying something similar with the 1942.2 board, since the base Anniversary game already incorporates the idea of multiple start dates, and has more advanced mechanics that could be retooled to make em work.
Not sure if they’ll give us anything for the 60th reprint that we didn’t see in in the 50th, as a draw for collectors. Who knows? But I’m sure I’ll pick up a copy regardless just to have a back up haha
-
Not sure if they’ll give us anything for the 60th reprint that we didn’t see in in the 50th, as a draw for collectors. Who knows? But I’m sure I’ll pick up a copy regardless just to have a back up haha
Although it is about 10 years later, I don’t think it will be branded as 60th. Just 50th Anniversary Reprint. Which will be kinda confusing, but whatever. The lady from AH said it would be out this fall.
-
@Baron:
**@Black_Elk:
I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.
Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.
The simpler road placing both DD and Sub at 7 IPCs. But 8 IPCs you hinder Germany U-boat production.
3 boats at 7 IPCs… Not much variety for purchase.Maybe, in that case TP may be put on 6 IPCs spot?
Or we can look on the other simulations with higher depth charge factor and weaker DDs such A1 D1.
This last one makes for a good fit inside OOB cost.
And simplify casualty selection because DD is cheaper, and weaker in itself.
A player will prefer to save a 6 IPCs First strike unit @1 over a simpler 5 IPCs @1.
Also, the offense /defense ratio between such DD and BB is only 5% stronger.
So BB is not outclass and since DDs no more block Subs, it is not as attractive.The cost effectiveness of such DD is far better than OOB but not the highest.
IMO, it needs a play-test to say it is broken. Also, it is still easy to implement.
However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
So Fg and TcB will both have part in attack and defense.Group 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
SFR OOB
6 DD C5 vs 5 SS C6 77-79% DD win 60-63% DD win5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5 61-64% SS win 90% Sub win
6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub winThis would be much simpler to test (and be in line with intended simpler SF rules):
This roster can work and is pretty near the OOB cost structure and remains probably much balanced within himself. Considering that weaker Subs (compared to this cheap 5 IPCs DD unit) have much survivability than ever.
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1Destroyer A1 ASAD1 D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundCruiser A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, no air operation if damaged
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZFighter A3 ASA1 D4 ASD1 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 ASD1 M4-6 C11, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 or 1? dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1AHere is a different Philadelphia Experiment (lower planes cost and 3 planes Carrier) roster built for tabletop with simpler interactions between units as develop above with San Francisco Exp., the main things is that all warships get very similar OOB values and costs but more hits for Cruiser and Battleship. Also, air is cheaper but lower combat values to keep balance.
Open to any comments:@Baron:
@Baron:
I’m trying to find the correct balance for 3 planes Carrier and lower cost planes.
ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
Second version, 3 planes Carrier, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB, simpler interactions and 5-6-9-12-15-18 cost structure:
Transport, defenseless
A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundTransport working as warship (Military Armed TP being escorted by a few DEs)
A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
carry 1 Inf or MI +1 any ground unit (might help faster US deployment: MI+Tk)Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
2Ds in Convoy SZDestroyer
A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
ASA1D1,
1D in Convoy SZEscort Carrier (optional)
A0 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
No dice in Convoy SZCruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
Shorebombard @3,
1D in Convoy SZCarrier
A0 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits,
carry 3 planes, damaged Carrier carry 1 plane
No dice in Convoy SZBattleship
A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
Shorebombard @4,
1D in Convoy SZStrategic Bomber
A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6Fighter
A2 D2 M4-6 C6, 1 hit,
SBR A2 D2, always hit air first, then AAA
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZTactical Bomber
A3 D2 M4-6 C7, 1 hit,
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZAnti-aircraft Artillery
A0 D1* M1 C3, 1 hit,- @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, each combat round.
It is not preemptive but a regular roll.
@Argothair, Black Elk and Barney
what do you think of this last roster and cost structure?
It keeps mostly the same dynamics between Subs and DDs but all combat values are much nearer OOB and warships roster is scaled on within 3 IPCs increment, except TP 7 PUs and using C5 for Sub:
SS5, DD6, CA12, CV15, BB18 and TP A0 D1 M3 C9And this will totally increase action in water without adding too much heavier ships such like Advanced Shipyard Tech would.
You built sturdier but still a high cost.TP C9 acting as warship will increase independent action and gives total freedom on casualty selection for better reenactment of Subs vs TPs + DDs naval combat. And planes being cheaper than TP can be acceptable losses when attacking TPs.
Also, combat between Fg, TcB vs warships keeps near similar odds to OOB.
No need to add transport Marines capacity or AAA to Cruiser and BB to balance vs DD A2 D2 C6, as the case actually in G40 Redesign with DD A1 D1 C5.Tactical A3 D2 C7 (no more combined arms needed) and Fg A2 D2 C6 may compensate for lack of A4 bombers C12.
According to the type of play, you choose between TP A0 D0 M3 C7 or TP A0 D1 M3 C9.
Here’s that pair of bulleted lists we discussed from a couple of pages ago! Let me know if you have anything to add to either list, or if you see any goals that have no methods that would help achieve the goals, or if you see any methods that don’t help achieve any goals.
| GOALS
-
Balance Allies vs. Axis
-
Offer alternatives to a joint Axis attack on Moscow
-
Offer alternatives to having all players focus on the center
-
Encourage Japan & USA to fight in the Pacific theater
-
Allow the USA to get into the game more quickly
-
Give China a chance to resist the initial Japanese attacks
-
Offer more opportunities for players to build navies
-
Reduce time needed to get troops across an ocean
-
Encourage Germany to defend the Atlantic Wall in Western Europe
-
Reduce power of strategic bombers when used against warships
-
Encourage interceptions and dogfights vs. strategic bombers
-
Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death
-
Increase the focus on the Battle of the Atlantic / submarine raids
-
Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships
-
Reduce ‘gamey’ incentives when liberating a dead ally’s territory
-
Help ensure an interesting role for France, Italy, Canada, and/or ANZAC
-
Simplify purchasing decisions
-
Give players something to buy for 5 IPCs
-
Increase ‘thematic’ feel of submarines
| METHODS
-
Standard bid of extra units
-
Bid of extra cash income each turn
-
Alter the turn order (America first, China first)
-
Increase territory values in Pacific
-
Increase national objectives in the periphery
-
Increased number of victory cities
-
Victory cities provide lend-lease ‘warchest’
-
Limited movement b/w Russia & Western China
-
Discounted ships / redesigned naval cost structure
-
C5 defenseless bombers
-
Additional airplane types
-
Defender gets to soak free hits vs. purely amphibious attacks
-
‘Fortress Europe’ national objective for unbroken control of Western Europe
-
M3 transports / cruisers / all boats
-
Enhanced naval bases, air bases, infantry bases
-
Double warchest bonus after reaching threshold # of victory cities
-
Convoy zones for submarine raids
-
Alter special abilities of destroyers vs. subs vs. planes
-
Cruisers / BBs can fire anti-aircraft shots
-
Cruisers / BBs can carry marines
-
All ships are cheaper
-
Standardize ship prices at $6 - $9 - $12 - $15
-
Territories become pro-neutral after capital falls
-
Liberation / return of territory to original owner is optional
-
Vichy France / France joins Nazis
-
French partisans placed w/o capital
-
French capital in London or Africa
-
Redistributions of British economy / turn among Canada, ANZAC, UK Pacific
-
Revamped factory system (more tiers? Higher unit caps for all factories? X units + 2 infantry?)
|
Edited per Baron Munchhausen’s additions
AA_Baron M_Redesign units & set-up charts for 1942 2ndEd_1941_AA50.doc
AA_Baron M_Redesign units & set-up charts for 1942 2ndEd_1941_AA50_home version.doc** - @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, each combat round.
-
Method: Defender gets to soak free hits vs. purely amphibious attacks.
Narvik suggested in this thread to apply 1914 preemptive Artillery strike against invaders:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1473295#msg1473295For amphibious assault bonus,
I look at DK’s video and thread :
https://youtu.be/R_Jb5RxBuso@Der:
In actuality, even with the extensive defensive preparations of the Japanese, the casualties they inflicted upon the Americans were rarely better than 30-50% of their own; often, the Japanese would suffer 10x US casualty rates in these encounters.
Yes, but this was in the face of OVERWHELMING US firepower. For instance, there were 18 US carriers around Okinawa. Not to mention all the BBs, cruisers, and other sea units. If you bring that much firepower you should win easily, even with hit chips. But one battleship and one transport with two infantry on it should not be able to take an island with fanatic Japanese defenders on it without getting hurt badly or repelled.
Your rule will, inevitably, favor one side over the other. The Axis, as an early-game attacker, will be punished by it when they try to equalize their IPCs, and the Allies, as a late-game attacker, will be punished by it when they go in for the final kill. Overall, my feeling is that this will harm the Axis far more than the Allies, by taking the edge off of their attacks in a game wherein they already seem to be systematically disadvantaged (AA40 v.3.9)… This is my main beef with it.
I haven’t extensively gametested this, and am working with an AA 1942 map, but I suspect it will even out or even help the Axis. At the beginning of the game the Axis are generally trying to expand over land anyway - trying to take out Russia and China. Operation Torch would be delayed a couple of rounds. (in the AA '42 setup now the USA can take West Africa rather easily in the first round!) The Atlantic wall would become a real challenge for the Allies. In short, I think Germany and Japan would benefit from it, as they wouldn’t have to “watch their back” so much while concentrating on China and Russia.
As for buying entrenchment, no chips are ever put on the map in my idea. The chips are just put on the battleboard as a consequence of making a pure amphibious assault without land support. They are a penalty to the attacker, not an advantage to the defender that can be bought. The chips are the deep water, the pounding surf, the water soaked equipment, the seasickness, the confusion and the wide open beach. If a landing force is defeated and there are still chips left, the chips just go back in the tray. If the island is attacked again next turn, it resets to five chips again, because the chips represent the attackers ineffectiveness, not the defensers effectiveness.
3 or 5 soak free tokens is very arbitrary and non-linear per pure amphib.
My first idea would be to add 1 hit free per ground unit defending, up to 3 hits, if purely amphibious assault.
Do you think this might also :
Goal: Encourage Germany to defend the Atlantic Wall in Western Europe?However, this is great on tabletop but not easy done in Triple A.
This thread is about Amphibious Assault and ways to make it harder.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38685.msg1588717#msg1588717@Der:
In the current versions of Axis and Allies historically difficult places to attack like Gibraltar and Leningrad are treated like any other territory. I believe this can be fixed. I also believe that amphibious assaults are too easy for the attacker - in fact they are easier than regular land battles, because of the free shots BBs and CAs get to make without return fire.
I’ve fleshed out some rules here for entrenchment which combine my former posts about entrenchment and the amphibious assault bonus. I think these rules are simple and reasonable, and can help make the any edition of the game more realistic. These brown “dirt” chips can be ordered from HBG - I printed the “E” stickers for them. I was going to use a shovel pic but couldn’t find one that looked right at that scale. The chips are nice and convenient because you can just add another to the top of the stack instead of sliding one under a different symbol.
ENTRENCHMENT
Introduction:
• Brown colored chips in the game marked with an “E†represent
entrenchment.Entrenchment represents any trenches, tunnels, barbed wire,
concrete barriers, etc. built and used by infantry in order to help protect
defending units. Entrenchment has no defense value - it only helps by absorbing
hits meant for defending land units.• During the opening phase of his turn, each player may place one entrenchment
chip on the map in any infantry occupied land zone he currently owns.
Entrenchment chips cannot be moved once placed. The maximum placed
entrenchment level for any one territory is 5.Resolving Battle:
• When defending infantry are involved, place any entrenchment chips that are in
the same territory in the entrenchment area on the battleboard. When suffering a
hit during an attack, you may choose an entrenchment chip as a casualty instead
of a land unit. (This works with pre-invasion ship bombardments also. You can
choose an entrenchment chip as the casualty.) Entrenchment chips cannot be
used in the battle if there are no defending infantry.• Units other than infantry cannot make use of entrenchment. In this case, if the
attacker wins, he would get to keep the unmanned entrenchment for himself.
After a battle with entrenchment concludes and the attacker wins, 1/2 of the
defenders’ placed entrenchment is restored to the attacker, rounded down. This
represents the surviving tunnels and trenches that the enemy can now use for
himself.Amphibious Assaults:
• All Units (not just infantry) defending against a pure amphibious assault get a
bonus of 3 entrenchment chips placed on the battleboard during the battle.
(these bonus chips are not kept on the map like the regular placed chips and last
only for that battle) These bonus chips represent the extra difficulty and
disorganization attackers have while wading in to the beach during such battles.
(No bonus is allowed if the Amphibious assault is combined with an attack from
an adjacent land zone.) This means a fully entrenched territory facing a pure
amphibious assault could theoretically be entrenched to a maximum of 8.
• If desired, all entrenchment chips in territories that you have owned since the
beginning of your turn can be removed during the noncombat phase.
• Historically Fortified zones of the map like Gibraltar may begin the game with
certain levels of entrenchment. Setup Entrenchment levels:
- Gibraltar: 3
- Leningrad: 3
- Caucasus: 3
- Moscow: 2 -
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
Here, I want to explore what can be 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits Battleship configuration if Fighter are at 8 IPCs.
ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
Second version, 2 planes Carrier, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB, simpler interactions and 5-6-9-12-15-18 cost structure:
Transport, defenseless
A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundTransport and Destroyer A2 D2 C13, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/13^2) = 0.43Transport working as warship (Military Armed TP being escorted by a few DEs)
A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
carry 1 Inf or MI +1 any ground unit (might help faster US deployment: MI+Tk)Defense factor:
36*(1/9^2) = 0.44Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense:
36*(2/5^2) = 2.88
36*(3/5^2) = surprise strike 4.32
Defense:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44
36*(1.33/5^2) = surprise strike 1.92Destroyer
A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
ASA1D1,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00Escort Carrier (optional)
A0 D2 M2 C9, 1 hit,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
No dice in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*(0/9^2) = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*(2/9^2) = 0.89Escort Carrier and 1 Fighter
A3 D6 M2 C17, 2 hits,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
Offence:
36* (3/2)/(17/2)^2 = 0.75
Defence:
36* (6/2)/(17/2)^2 = 1.50Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
Shorebombard @3,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36* 3 / (12^2) * 2.618034 = 1.96Carrier
A0 D2 M2 C15, 2 hits,
carry 2 planes, damaged Carrier carry no plane
No dice in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*[0/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.84G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 2 Fgs A6 D8 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
6/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.18Defense factor:
10/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[5/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.9610/4 C31/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.5/ (7.75^2)] = 1.50
Until further investigation, I believe this average is better: (1.96+1.50)/2= 1.73
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+2.25) = 1.78G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 1 Fg+1 TcB A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
7/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.21Defense factor:
9/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.569/4 C33/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.25/ (8.25^2)] = 1.19average is better: (1.56+1.19)/2= 1.38
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+1.08) = 1.39Battleship
A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
Shorebombard @4,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (18^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.88Strategic Bomber
A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6Offense SBR only:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36Anti-aircraft Artillery
A0 D1* M1 C4, 1 hit,- @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
It is preemptive shot.
36*(1.33/4^2) = surprise strike 3.00 per plane for first combat round only.
Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2)= 1.56
It seems balanced between warships and such 8 IPCs Fighter.
Tactical bomber seems a bit weaker but it has Anti-Sub Attack and Defense.
In addition, it can be possible to introduce a special targeting against warships for tactical bomber in naval combat when playing F-2-F on boardgame.
Here is how I see the procedure: after Anti-Sub phase and Sub surprise strike phase, tactical roll first.
Any hits are allocated on a given warship unit according to TacBs owner’s choice.
Then all other units rolls.This is more functional since Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier have multiple hits and make Subs rolls and TcBs less effective.
Edit: This make for a better match between naval and air units.
However, one issue is about 6 IPCs Tank A3 D3 M2 and other land units.Lowering Fighter A3 D4 M4 to 8 IPCs, make them much more interesting as versatile and highly mobile unit.
In such scenario, maybe to compensate: AAA should cost only 3 IPCs.
That way, higher mobility and strength will be compensate by an higher vulnerability to AAA roll compared to Tank.
In this case, AAA strength would be:
36*(1.33/3^2) = surprise strike 5.33 against only plane and 1 roll per plane for first combat round only. - @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
-
This might come in handy, from Variant forum…
@Ben_D:Turn Order
Production and Research Phase:
-
(production is as explained in the GW36 rule manual).
-
(research is as explained on the National Reference Sheet).
Combat Movement Phase:
-
1. Air Combat Movement Rounds:
-
1.1 Flying to the destination:
-
1.1.1 The attacker declares which territories or sea zones the aircraft is/are going through.
-
1.1.2 Defending Combat Air Patrol fighters in sea zones may intercept at 1D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology. Attacking/escorting fighters may roll 1D12@3
once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology, and all bomber aircraft types roll 1D12@2 once each versus defending aircraft units. Casualties are removed immediately and
combat ceases after one round. -
1.1.2 Defending fighters on airbases and/or aircraft carriers (both with the RADAR technology) may scramble to intercept and roll 1D12@3 once each or @4 once each with Jet
Technology. Attacking/escorting fighters may roll 1D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with Jet technology, and all attacking bomber aircraft types roll 1D12@2 once each versus
defending aircraft units. Casualties are removed immediately and combat ceases after one interception round. -
1.1.3 Defending anti-aircraft guns may fire once (1D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with RADAR technology) at aircraft units flying over the territory. Attacking/escorting fighters
and all attacking bomber aircraft types may not fire back. Casualties are removed immediately and combat ceases after one round. -
1.2 Arriving at the destination:
-
1.2.1 Defending anti-aircraft guns may fire once (3D12@3 once each, or @4 once each with RADAR technology) pre-emptively at attacking aircraft units arriving at the territory.
Attacking/escorting fighters and all attacking bomber types may not fire back when pre-emptive shots are made. Casualties are removed immediately. Defending anti-aircraft
guns that fire at this point do not fire at all on the first Full Combat Round that proceeds this Combat Movement Round. -
1.2.2 Defending fighters and tactical bombers may scramble from territories containing air bases and/or aircraft carriers with the RADAR technology to adjacent territories or sea
zones. -
2. Land Combat Movement:
-
2.1 (As explained in the National Reference Sheet).
- Should I cover our blitzkrieg rules? They’re in the reference sheets I think: better than original rules. I mention this because this also involves aircraft.
Combat Phase:
-
3. Full Combat Rounds:
-
3.1 Air Combat round (meant for engaging military units):
-
3.1.1 Attacking fighters roll 1D12@6 once each or 1D12@8 with Jet technology once each versus defending aircraft units. The defender assigns casualties for defending aircraft.
-
3.1.2 Defending fighters roll 1D12@6 once each or 1D12@8 with Jet technology once each versus attacking aircraft units. The attacker assigns casualties for attacking aircraft.
-
3.1.3 Attacking bomber aircraft that have been assigned as casualties roll 1D12@2 once each versus defending fighters (never other bomber aircraft).
-
3.1.4 Defending bomber aircraft that have been assigned as casualties roll 1D12@2 once each versus attacking fighters (never other bomber aircraft).
-
3.1.5 All aircraft casualties at this point are removed.
-
3.1.6 The attacker may also chose to retreat a portion of or all aircraft (refer to the Retreat section for more information). The defending fighters may chase if conditions are met
(refer to the Chase/routing section for more information). -
3.1.7 The defender may also chose to retreat a portion of or all aircraft. Refer to the Retreat section for more information. The attacking fighters may chase if conditions are met
(refer to the Chase/routing section for more information). -
3.1.8 If the Full Combat Round has finished, all attacking aircraft units may proceed to land in the Non-Combat Phase, and retreating/scrambled defending aircraft units may land in
the Non-Combat Phase if they’re able to. -
3.1 Strategic Bombing Combat Rounds (meant for devastation to industry and base utility):
-
3.1.1 Interception:
-
Defending fighters on airbases in the targeted territory, adjacent territories containing airbases and/or on aircraft carriers (with the RADAR technology) in sea zones adjacent to
the target territory may scramble to intercept at 1D12@3 once each or @4 once each with Jet technology. Attacking/escorting fighters may roll 1D12@3 once each, or @4 once
each with Jet technology, and all attacking bomber aircraft types roll 1D12@2 once each. Casualties are removed immediately after and combat ceases after one round. -
Defending facilities may fire once (D12@3 or @4 with RADAR technology at each attacking bomber aircraft targeting the facility). Casualties are removed immediately after and
combat ceases after one round. -
3.1.2 Strategic Bombing:
-
Attacking tactical bombers roll 1D6 to determine the number of damage on a targeted facility.
-
Attacking naval bombers roll 1D6 to determine the number of damage on a targeted facility.
-
Attacking heavy bombers roll 2D6 to determine the number of damage on a targeted facility.
-
Attacking strategic bombers roll 3D6 to determine the number of damage on a targeted facility.
-
3.1.3 The Strategic Bombing mission/s end/s and all aircraft participating in the strategic bombing round/s proceed to land in the Non-Combat phase.
-
3.2 Land and/or Naval Combat round:
-
3.2.1 Attacking aircraft units that have not rolled any combat dice in the Air Combat round may fire in the Land/Naval combat round:
-
Attacking tactical bombers roll 1D12@7 once each versus defending land units OR 1D12@4 once each versus defending naval units.
-
Attacking naval bombers roll 1D12@4 once each versus defending land units OR 1D12@6 once each versus defending naval units.
-
Attacking heavy bombers roll 3D12@2 once each versus defending land units OR 3D12@1 once each versus defending naval units.
-
Attacking strategic bombers roll 5D12@2 once each versus defending land units OR 5D12@1 once each versus defending naval units.
-
Attacking fighters roll 1D12@2 once each versus defending land units OR defending naval units.
-
3.2.2 Attacking anti-aircraft guns roll 1D12@3 (1D12@4 with RADAR technology) versus defending aircraft or 1D12@2 (1D12@3 with RADAR technology) versus defending aircraft
that have retreated in the Air Combat round.[/lu]-
Any hits scored on defending aircraft units by attacking anti-aircraft guns are not considered pre-emptive while attacking on any combat round.
-
Defending anti-aircraft guns may be assigned as casualties before other land units if there are attacking aircraft units present in the battle (the exception is the German Flak 88 if
it is used as artillery, not AA). -
3.2.3 Attacking land units (excluding anti-aircraft guns) may engage defending air units:
-
at the value of 1D12@2 instead of defending land units during a combat round at a ratio of 2 land units per 1 air unit when defending land units are present.
-
that are stationed in the contested territory at the value of 1D12@2 for only one combat round if there are no defending land units in the combat round. Combat ceases after one
combat round and the attacker may take the territory if there are attacking land units that have survived combat. The defending aircraft units must then retreat as described under
the applicable section under the Retreating mechanics. -
that have scrambled from an adjacent territory’s air base at the value of 1D12@2 (no ratio) for an unlimited amount of combat rounds if there are no defending land units.
-
at the value of 1D12@1 vs defending aircraft units that have retreated in the Air Combat round instead of defending land units during a combat round at a ratio of 2 land units
units per 1 air unit when defending land units are present. -
at the value of 1D12@1 vs defending aircraft units that have retreated in the Air Combat round with no ratio for an unlimited amount of combat rounds if there are no defending
land units. -
3.2.4 Defending aircraft units that have not rolled any combat dice in the Air Combat round may fire in the Land/Naval combat round.
-
Defending tactical bombers roll 1D12@7 once each versus attacking land units OR 1D12@4 once each versus attacking naval units.
-
Defending naval bombers roll 1D12@4 once each versus attacking land units OR 1D12@6 once each versus attacking naval units.
-
Defending heavy bombers roll 3D12@2 once each versus attacking land units OR 3D12@1 once each versus attacking naval units.
-
Defending strategic bombers roll 5D12@2 once each versus attacking land units OR 5D12@1 once each versus attacking naval units.
-
Defending fighters roll 1D12@2 once each versus attacking land units OR attacking naval units.
-
3.2.5 Defending anti-aircraft guns roll 1D12@3 or 1D12@4 with RADAR technology versus attacking aircraft starting on the second Combat Round.
-
Any hits scored on attacking aircraft units by defending anti-aircraft guns on the second combat round and combat rounds thereafter are not considered pre-emptive.
-
Attacking anti-aircraft guns may be assigned as casualties before other land units if there are defending aircraft present in the battle (the exception is the German Flak 88 if it is
used as artillery, not AA). -
3.2.6 Defending land units (excluding anti-aircraft guns) may engage attacking air units:
-
at the value of 1D12@2 instead of land units during a combat round at a ratio of 2 land units per 1 air unit when attacking land units are present.
-
at the value of 1D12@3 if there are no attacking land units and only attacking aircraft units in the combat round (no ratio).
-
at the value of 1D12@1 vs attacking aircraft units that have retreated in the Air Combat round instead of attacking land units during a combat round at a ratio of 2 land units
per 1 air unit when attacking land units are present. -
at the value of 1D12@1 vs attacking aircraft units that have retreated in the Air Combat round with no ratio for an unlimited amount of combat rounds if there are no attacking
land units. -
3.2.7 Attacking and defending units that are assigned as casualties are removed from the board.
- Note: Submarines are considered to be revealed to all units if they fire (roll) on a combat round, therefore making submarines able to suffer casualties from any air or naval unit. I
figured this had to be written down because of past experiences of lacking clarification.
Mechanics section
-
Retreating mechanics (for aircraft):
-
Attacking fighters, jet fighters, tactical bombers and naval bombers may chose to retreat up the amount of movement they have left after the combat round. A sea zone must contain
a friendly aircraft carrier capable of being in the sea zone that has available space if the aircraft unit is landing in a sea zone. Aircraft carriers may provide a landing area by moving
into the sea zone in the Non-Combat Phase, when planes land. Long Range Aircraft technology permits retreating up to a maximum 4 territories/sea zones away (5 from an airbase) for
attacking fighters, jet fighters, and tactical bombers, and 5 away (6 from an airbase) for naval bombers. -
Attacking heavy and strategic bombers may chose to retreat up the amount of movement they have left after the combat round. Long Range Aircraft technology permits retreating up
to 7 territories/sea zones (8 from an airbase) away for attacking heavy and strategic bombers. -
Defending fighters, jet fighters and tactical bombers may chose to retreat up to 2 territories, or two sea zones, or a combination of a territory and a sea zone away (or 3 from an
airbase). A sea zone must contain a friendly aircraft carrier that has available space if the aircraft unit is landing in a sea zone. Aircraft carriers may provide a landing area by moving
into the sea zone in the Non-Combat Phase, when planes land. Long Range Aircraft technology permits retreating up to 3 territories/sea zones away (remains at 3 from an airbase) for
defending fighters, jet fighters, tactical bombers and naval bombers. If there are no friendly territories or friendly aircraft carriers available for landing, the aircraft is/are destroyed. -
Defending heavy and strategic bombers may chose to retreat up to 3 territories, or two sea zones, or a combination of a territory and a sea zone away (or 4 from an airbase). Long
Range Aircraft technology permits retreating up to 4 territories/sea zones (remains at 4 from an airbase) away for defending heavy and strategic bombers. -
Chasing (or routing, or whatever name, I don’t know…) mechanics:
-
If all attacking aircraft units retreat, defending fighters or jet fighters may choose to chase all attacking aircraft by using interception mechanics; 1D12@3, or 1D12@4 for jet
fighters only once each. Remove all assigned casualties from the board after one chasing round. -
Retreating fighters and jet fighters forfeit combat rolls.
-
Retreating bomber aircraft that have been assigned as casualties as a result of chasing may roll 1D12@2 once each versus chasing fighters and/or jet fighters
-
If all defending aircraft units retreat, attacking fighters or jet fighters may choose to chase all attacking aircraft by using mechanics similar to interception; 1D12@3, or
1D12@4 for jet fighters only once each. Remove all assigned casualties from the board after one chasing round. -
Retreating fighters and jet fighters forfeit combat rolls.
-
Retreating bomber aircraft that have been assigned as casualties as a result of chasing may roll 1D12@2 once each versus chasing fighters and/or jet fighters.
-
If only a portion of the attacking or defending aircraft units have retreated and fighters remain on both sides, chasing may not occur.
Non-Combat Phase
- Aircraft that are landing are subject to section 1.1 of the Air Combat Movement Rounds under the Combat Movement Phase.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@Baron:
Here, I want to explore what can be 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits Battleship configuration if Fighter are at 8 IPCs.
ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
Second version, 2 planes Carrier, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB, simpler interactions and 5-6-9-12-15-18 cost structure:
Transport, defenseless
A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundTransport and Destroyer A2 D2 C13, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/13^2) = 0.43Transport working as warship (Military Armed TP being escorted by a few DEs)
A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
carry 1 Inf or MI +1 any ground unit (might help faster US deployment: MI+Tk)Defense factor:
36*(1/9^2) = 0.44Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense:
36*(2/5^2) = 2.88
36*(3/5^2) = surprise strike 4.32
Defense:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44
36*(1.33/5^2) = surprise strike 1.92Destroyer
A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
ASA1D1,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00Escort Carrier (optional)
A0 D2 M2 C9, 1 hit,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
No dice in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*(0/9^2) = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*(2/9^2) = 0.89Escort Carrier and 1 Fighter
A3 D6 M2 C17, 2 hits,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
Offence:
36* (3/2)/(17/2)^2 = 0.75
Defence:
36* (6/2)/(17/2)^2 = 1.50Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
Shorebombard @3,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36* 3 / (12^2) * 2.618034 = 1.96Carrier
A0 D2 M2 C15, 2 hits,
carry 2 planes, damaged Carrier carry no plane
No dice in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*[0/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.84G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 2 Fgs A6 D8 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
6/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.18Defense factor:
10/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[5/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.9610/4 C31/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.5/ (7.75^2)] = 1.50
Until further investigation, I believe this average is better: (1.96+1.50)/2= 1.73
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+2.25) = 1.78G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 1 Fg+1 TcB A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
7/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.21Defense factor:
9/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.569/4 C33/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.25/ (8.25^2)] = 1.19average is better: (1.56+1.19)/2= 1.38
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+1.08) = 1.39Battleship
A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
Shorebombard @4,
1D in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (18^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.88Strategic Bomber
A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6Offense SBR only:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36Anti-aircraft Artillery
A0 D1* M1 C4, 1 hit,- @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
It is preemptive shot.
36*(1.33/4^2) = surprise strike 3.00 per plane for first combat round only.
Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2)= 1.56
It seems balanced between warships and such 8 IPCs Fighter.
Tactical bomber seems a bit weaker but it has Anti-Sub Attack and Defense.
In addition, it can be possible to introduce a special targeting against warships for tactical bomber in naval combat when playing F-2-F on boardgame.
Here is how I see the procedure: after Anti-Sub phase and Sub surprise strike phase, tactical roll first.
Any hits are allocated on a given warship unit according to TacBs owner’s choice.
Then all other units rolls.This is more functional since Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier have multiple hits and make Subs rolls and TcBs less effective.
Since 10 IPCs TcBs are a bit weaker in this new configuration against 8 IPCs Fg and 2 hits Naval units, I wonder if there is some tactical impact to the game or plain unhistorical factor if combined arms is also allowed in defense?
Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A/D to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3-4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A/D if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZOffense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D7 C16, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D8 C18, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(4/9^2)= 1.78For Carrier defense, both Fg+Fg (C16) and TcB+Fg (C18) would provide 8 defense points but cost is not the same.
With 2 Fgs you save 2 IPCs. Keeping Fgs far more cost efficient for defense (2.25 vs 1.78) and still on par for offense (1.69 vs 1.56).The only bonus TcB get is for Anti-Sub attack and defense which might sink Sub before doing any damage.
@Baron:
@Baron:
The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.
Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.
Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.
But then it will not longer be A&A
You are describing tactical situations which need to be translated somehow in a Strategical game.
I agree on this:
“the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.”It is not an easy task, very often as I revised some old ideas I saw easily how far I am from it.
But, sometimes a simpler solution arise. And I’m the most happy man because of the simplest joy of the discovery. Â :-DThat is easily done if you leave the stats OOB, except allow TBs to defend at +1 when paired with a fighter. You could even do this with the StB if you really wanted to.
Also, with lower cost, 20% lower for Fg and 10% for TcB, it makes sense to compensate, by an additional Dogfight phase prior to the main battle, this increase in strength compared to ground units which are far less versatile and mobile.
AAA would be part of it and would allow defender to still protect his air fleet against invaders.
For further thinking on dogfight phase and get a reference to a Tactical Bomber thread:
@Baron:
Okay, I think I see Baron’s problem with the attack/defense values of fighters, tac bombers and strat bombers in relation to the difference between air to air combat versus air units attacking ground targets. Yeah, if you look at one unit versus one other unit, perhaps the attack/defense values may not make as much sense in some cases. For example, a tac bomber or strat bomber attacking @ 4 against a fighter defending @ 4 does seem kind of ludicrous. Of course it seems equally ludicrous to think of an infantry defending @ 2 taking out a strategic bomber.
The problem is Axis & Allies had to provide a general attack and defense system to make the game playable and somewhat simple. To say unit A can attack unit B at this value but it can attack unit C at a different value and so on would simply make the combat too complicated and probably scare away all but the most hard core gamers.
Also, I’ve got to say increasing a tac bomber’s defense to 4 and lowering a fighter’s defense to 3 is just silliness. That is not the way to fix your problem, at least not with just general combat situations.
I think the best way to address air to air versus air to ground combat would be to have two separate combat phases (only if both sides have aircraft in the battle). First, you have a special air to air combat phase. Since fighters are definitely the superior craft in strictly air to air combat, perhaps they should attack and defend @ 4, tac bombers perhaps 2 or 3 because they do have some dogfighting ability, just not the same as fighters. Strategic bombers would be low, perhaps attack @ 1 or 0, defend @ 1 or 2. This air to air combat phase would continue until one side or the other has NO planes left.Then, when the air to air combat phase is complete, then you go to the main battle. In this case, I could see fighters only attacking and defending @ 3 while tac bombers would attack @ defend @ 4. In fact, I would say that even defending strategic bombers could defend @ 4 because they would be defending the territory by flying over the attacking ground forces and bombing them from above (remember, at this point there would be NO attacking aircraft to pester the bombers).
In a case where it is aircraft vs. ground units, attacking or defending fighters would be less effective against ground targets than tac bombers or strat bombers so I could see changing their values now.
Another thing I have considered is the possibility of catching enemy aircraft on the ground. In a lot of the early blitzkrieg battles, one reason the Germans were so successful was that the Luftwaffe managed to strike at many enemy airfields thus eliminating effective air defense from their victims. The US was pretty successful at this as well in several of the later battles of the Pacific war (Philippines, Okinawa, New Guinea).
So, I was wondering if there were some way to incorporate that aspect into this game. Like if you attack an enemy territory that has aircraft, and you are attacking with aircraft, roll a die and if you get a “1”, you catch your enemy off guard and destroy their planes on the ground. A roll of 2-6 would accomplish nothing.
Would this be a good idea? Or too overpowering?Without talking directly on a topic about HR development, I could say that you describe many aspects which I consider about the game or the historical aspect. I bolded them.
When it covers some HR dimension, I just see it as an illustration of where it could have go, having much time to think about. And now, there is also the 1914 A&A mechanics which can give other kind of Larry Harris endorsement rules mechanisms.For now, I’m mostly concerned about the way “we see offence and defence” for air units, and specifically TcB, at a strategical games which is not intended to be a total war simulation of WWII.
- @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
-
This can be played on triplea now. It’s under Experimental entitled “Global 40 House Rules”. It also has the Canada Mod that simon33 created “Global 40 House Rules with Canada”. The Canada Mod currently doesn’t work with the new techs.
The only main change from the previous test versions is the “SubsCanEvadeDestroyers” Tech. Destroyers will now fire at Subs when subs pass by in combat move or ncm. They have a 1 in 10 chance at a hit. They also have another 1 in 10 chance at a hit in the Combat Phase. Explained in detail in the Game Notes.
Next will be to integrate Canada with all the new techs and adding all of the BM house rules.
-
Thanks Barney! Sounds killer
I was MIA for a while there, bunch of RL issues came crashing in on me and I had to give up the ghost for a bit to get caught up. Had to pull one of those semi-annual Houdinis, but its nice to see people are still around. I haven’t had a whole lot of time to play G40 lately or to mess about in tripleA (though I did swoop a backup copy of AA50 last time I was at the game shop, just in case things open up for me one of these weekends.) Anyhow, will have to download the latest tripleA build and see what’s new on that front.
To the rest of the gang, hope all has been well. Will drop back by from time to time when I get a free minute to talk shop. Catch you next round
ps. looks pretty rad man! Just loaded up the experimental to mess about for sec. Nice work!
-
You have been missed . Thanks for coming back to explain.
Keep well. -
heh heh good to hear from ya Elk. :-)
Gotta a fix for the " Sphere of Influence " that needs to be put in. Russia nuts up after a few rounds. Can still play by edit but I’ll go a head and update soon -
Got Canada dialed in with the rest of the countries. Hopefully anyway : ) but confidence is high. Got a test game going now.
Anyway, added a “Canada Boost” Tech for the Canada Mod. BC, Yukon and Labrador all get a Loonie. Haven’t played to see how much splitting Canada away from England control affects the game, but it seems that Britain/Canada will be weaker than having no Canada.
Currently Canada has “1” National Objective if “Sphere of Influence” Tech is activated. Unfortunately for Canada, it is a negative Objective. : )
So question is, what National Objectives should Canada have ? Some Objectives are offensive and some defensive. Would be nice to see one of each imo.
2 PUs for control of all of Canada ? Would be similar to some of the US ones. One land unit in Western Europe is another 2 ?Anyway, probably take some game play to shake it all out. :)
On a side note, don’t see myself playing Global without Canada much in the future. The Map just looks too cool. simon33 did a Great Job !
-
Gonna hold off on the NO but gonna add another tech. Alberta +2 inf and Ontario a Tac.
Prairie Boys ain’t sitting this one out : )Should it be called “Mobilize Canada” or “Canadian Mobilization” ?
Personally I like them both. Also UK might need to get a couple dudes in London. Yea they do maybe idk : )
Suggested Topics
