High Luck: 1940 Global

[the_jetset]

@Your Proposal.  Wow.  Very interesting.  …. A bit scary!  …  But interesting!!    :-)

It would maybe also encourage a little more spending on “High-Value” units.  Before, your bombers and fighters were always safe behind your “meat shield”.  Now, that’s no longer necessarily the case.

Requires a bit of extra dice rolling though.  But if this was combined with the 3-turn system, the game length is greatly reduced anyway, so it wouldn’t really matter.

On the realism and historical accuracy level, it plays out.  If a high-value target presented itself on the battlefield, people went for that target first!  It is unrealistic that all infantry and artillery units are eliminated before the tanks.

[BadassMooseSWE]

@Young:

I have an idea that relies heavily on high luck, so basically it’s the opposite of low luck games.

During the resolve combat phase, both attacker and defender will roll for all units in the first combat round counting all hits made as usual, however, they will add a new element in their combat sequence called casualty rolls.

Casualty Rolls

The attacker rolls for hits, counts casualties, and rolls that many dice for casualty rolls. Any 1s, 2s, or 3s are applied to units defending @1 or less, or @2 or less, any 4s, or 5s are applied to units defending @3 or less, and any 6s rolled are applied to units defending @4 or less. If no units exist in columns assigned by casualty rolls… defender will choose those casualties for themselves.

Next… the defender rolls for hits, counts casualties, and rolls that many dice for casualty rolls. Any 1s, 2s, or 3s are applied to units attacking @1 or less, or @2 or less, any 4s, or 5s are applied to units attacking @3 or less, and any 6s rolled are applied to units attacking @4 or less. If no units exist in columns assigned by casualty rolls… attacker will choose those casualties for themselves.

Casualties are removed, and the next combat round begins if necessary.

Summary

Obviously this idea needs a lot of refinement, but the benefits are many…

• Creates a sense of realism knowing that no unit is safe in combat
• Makes for interesting and shorter games when strong units are being removed more frequently
• Allows defending forces a chance to make a small difference against overwhelming odds
• Replaces the desire to give ships separate AA capabilities knowing their fire can hit diverse units
• Could even make transports and attacking aircraft carriers vulnerable under this system
• Might help prevent fighter stacking for defense, or bomber stacking for offence
• Players still retain a small element of choice when removing casualties, however, combat rounds should go quicker when players are forced to remove certain units.

Though being new to A&A I would say this is gold.

This would prevent me from going in with enough cheap units ground units to survive the defender first round whilst killing em with fighters and what not. Now my precious fighter are too in the dangerzone!

This needs to be tested!

[Young Grasshopper]

Would have to design a special battle board I think, just to help track casualty rolls and which ones hit in empty columns… as far as a play test, all you need to do is roll out the first combat round of popular 1st game round battles, and see how casualty rolls effect the game.

The Fall of Paris

France
1 AA gun (all hits must be applied to aircraft)
6 Infantry
2 Artillery (1 belonging to UK)
2 Tanks (1 belonging to UK)
1 Fighter

Germany
7 Infantry
4 Artillery
4 Mech Infantry (paired with artillery)
6 Tanks

The 110 Royal Navy

United Kingdom
1 Battleship
2 Cruisers (1 belonging to France)
3 Scrambled Fighters (1 belonging to France)

Germany
2 Submarines (may not hit aircraft)
1 Battleship
2 Fighters
2 Tac bombers (paired with fighters)
1 Strat bomber

The 111 Royal Navy

United Kingdom
1 Battleship
1 Cruiser
1 Destroyer
1 Scrambled Fighter

Germany
2 Submarines (may not hit aircraft)
2 Fighters
2 Tac bombers (paired with fighters)
1 Strat bomber

The Taranto Raid

Italy
1 Battleship
1 Cruiser
1 transport (no defense value)
3 Scrambled Fighters (1 belonging to Germany)

United Kingdom
1 Aircraft Carrier (no attack value)
1 Cruiser
1 Destroyer
2 Fighters
1 Tac Bomber (paired with 1 fighter)
1 Strat bomber

Ethiopia

Italy
2 Infantry
1 Artillery

United Kingdom
3 Infantry
1 Artillery
1 Mech Infantry (paired with artillery)
1 Tank

The Philippines

United States
2 Infantry
1 Fighter

Japan
1 Infantry
1 Artillery
1 Infantry (paired with artillery)
1 Tank
1 Fighter
1 Tac bomber (paired with fighter)

[the_jetset]

YG.  Giving your proposal a think.

Maybe it would be good to exempt attacking air units in land battles.  The reason being is that attacking air units are potentially subject to a round of AAA fire by the defender.  It might put too much pressure on the air units.

This could be historically modeled by saying that casualties for attacking air units were relatively low when hitting ground targets with no AAA protection.

For attacking air units in sea battles, your rule would apply as normal.  This is because attacking air units received very high casualties when trying to hit ships.

But it makes it a little bit more complicated …

[Young Grasshopper]

@the_jetset:

YG.   Giving your proposal a think.

Maybe it would be good to exempt attacking air units in land battles.  The reason being is that attacking air units are potentially subject to a round of AAA fire by the defender.  It might put too much pressure on the air units.

This could be historically modeled by saying that casualties for attacking air units were relatively low when hitting ground targets with no AAA protection.

For attacking air units in sea battles, your rule would apply as normal.  This is because attacking air units received very high casualties when trying to hit ships.

But it makes it a little bit more complicated …

Using a system like this, I think I would rather make AA artillery less effective during land battles.

I’m thinking maybe 1@1 each but for every combat round, or 1@2 each for the 1st combat round only, and all this would be regardless of how many planes are attacking. If that makes AA artillery too weak at 5 IPCs each, we could drop the cost to 4 IPCs.

The way in which the resolve combat phase works in oob, planes are usually the last units standing, which over values them at 10, 11, and 12 IPCs. We could therefore drop the cost of fighters to 9 IPCs to better fit with their new found vulnerability under the high luck system.

[Young Grasshopper]

Also, something that might help the attacker in naval combat…

For any casualty rolls of 6 while defending, the attacker may choose to remove available transports instead of units in the @4 or less column.

[baron Münchhausen]

Same spirit but without additional rolls:
When rollling a hit, look at the number rolled.
“1” apply casualty as usual.
On land,
“2” may choose MI or Art instead of infantry.
“3” may choose Tank or TcB or Fg, or less.
“4”  may choose a bomber or anything else.

At sea,
“2” may apply hit on DD or Sub, as you wish.
“3” may apply hit to Carrier or Cruiser, or lower
“4” may apply hit on Battleship or Transport.

No additional roll. Just grouping by similar number.

[the_jetset]

@Baron:

Same spirit but without additional rolls:
When rollling a hit, look at the number rolled.
“1” apply casualty as usual.
On land,
“2” may choose MI or Art instead of infantry.
“3” may choose Tank or TcB or Fg, or less.
“4”  may choose a bomber or anything else.

At sea,
“2” may apply hit on DD or Sub, as you wish.
“3” may apply hit to Carrier or Cruiser, or lower
“4” may apply hit on Battleship or Transport.

No additional roll. Just grouping by similar number.

Wow Baron!  That is a cool variant on this idea.  It makes it so unsupported infantry are basically slugging it out with other infantry.  But Artillery could potentially hit other artillery.  ….  And Tanks could potentially hit other tanks etc …   VERY COOL.   And also a quite realistic way to model the battle.  And I definitely like that there is basically no additional steps.  Just set your “Hit Dice” below the enemy column that it applies to.

Would just need to add a sub-text that if no “1’s” are available for an enemy casualty, then the hit automatically goes up to the next column.    Would that be correct??

[baron Münchhausen]

@the_jetset:

@Baron:

Same spirit but without additional rolls:
When rollling a hit, look at the number rolled.
“1” apply casualty as usual.
On land,
“2” may choose MI or Art instead of infantry.
“3” may choose Tank or TcB or Fg, or less.
“4”  may choose a bomber or anything else.

At sea,
“2” may apply hit on DD or Sub, as you wish.
“3” may apply hit to Carrier or Cruiser, or lower
“4” may apply hit on Battleship or Transport.

No additional roll. Just grouping by similar number.

Wow Baron!  That is a cool variant on this idea.  It makes it so unsupported infantry are basically slugging it out with other infantry.  But Artillery could potentially hit other artillery.  ….  And Tanks could potentially hit other tanks etc …   VERY COOL.   And also a quite realistic way to model the battle.  And I definitely like that there is basically no additional steps.  Just set your “Hit Dice” below the enemy column that it applies to.

Would just need to add a sub-text that if no “1’s” are available for an enemy casualty, then the hit automatically goes up to the next column.    Would that be correct??

I’m glad you like it.
It still need finer tuning.
To be less unbalancing, we can keep owner still choose which specific unit is the casualty inside a number category. For instance, a “3” can applied to a tank before a fighter.
Also, if there is no unit type available, it can simply be an ordinary hit instead. For instance, a “3” is considered like a “1” if there is no more tank or plane.
What do you think about this?

Would just need to add a sub-text that if no “1’s” are available for an enemy casualty, then the hit automatically goes up to the next column.    Would that be correct??

It seems like applying normal casualty, isn’t?

I forgot to place AAA somewhere.
On which number should it be targeted?

[Young Grasshopper]

Yes, great ideas on this BM… would eliminate the extra dice rolls as well. I think we would have to evaluate all units in the @1 column during battle, would you expose transports in this system?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

Yes, great ideas on this BM… would eliminate the extra dice rolls as well. I think we would have to evaluate all units in the @1 column during battle, would you expose transports in this system?

IDK about TPs.
I brought a basic principle, I’m not sure about details.
What do you mean by:
“we would have to evaluate all units in the @1 column during battle,”?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

Yes, great ideas on this BM… would eliminate the extra dice rolls as well. I think we would have to evaluate all units in the @1 column during battle, would you expose transports in this system?

IDK about TPs.
I brought a basic principle, I’m not sure about details.
What do you mean by:
“we would have to evaluate all units in the @1 column during battle,”?

Sorry, misunderstood your concept for a second… never mind.

[the_jetset]

BM and YG.  I have a couple of questions for you guys.

I have a game scheduled for 08-May.  I want to implement the following house rules into it:

• Three-Turn System that we discussed before.  Called “Axis & Allies & Comintern”

• This “High Luck Casualties” system.

• The “Naval Air Attack and Naval Rules” system

I think these three rules sets should integrate well.  I just have one question regarding the Naval Air Attack.  I also have one question regarding the transports.

Using High Luck with Naval Air Attack
In the Naval Air Attack rule, we left it that TACs could choose their target when rolling a “@1” when attacking.  This might go very well together with this “High Luck” proposal.  BM was worried that limiting the TAC roll to a “@1” would make the TACs too weak.  But now, if they also roll a “@4” … or even a “@3”, their hit has to be placed in a higher value column.  Grant it, the attacker will not actually be able to “choose” their target with a roll of a “@3” or a “@4” … but at least the hit will go towards a higher-value target.  Do you think this combines the two rules correctly?

Transports and CV’s
I would recommend placing the “Transports” and the Aircraft Carriers in the “@4” group.  What do you think?  This would allow them to potentially be hit by BB’s and modified TAC’s.  (Also by Strat Bombers if the Modified Naval Rules are not used)

AAA
I would recommend putting the AAA in the 2 column.  It is more expensive than an infantry.  Also, AAA would be a bit further behind the actual front line … AAA would be probably be more behind the front covering supply dumps, logistics and high-value infrastructure.

Add a Statement - “Defender can choose a higher column to receive the hit.”
Finally, I would recommend to let the defender choose a higher column for the hit if they choose to do so.  For instance, the defender might want to select a BB @4 to receive a hit instead of a lower unit.  Again, what are your opinions on that?

Cheers

[baron Münchhausen]

@the_jetset:

BM and YG.  I have a couple of questions for you guys.

I have a game scheduled for 08-May.  I want to implement the following house rules into it:

• Three-Turn System that we discussed before.  Called “Axis & Allies & Comintern”

• This “High Luck Casualties” system.

• The “Naval Air Attack and Naval Rules” system

I think these three rules sets should integrate well.  I just have one question regarding the Naval Air Attack.  I also have one question regarding the transports.

Using High Luck with Naval Air Attack
In the Naval Air Attack rule, we left it that TACs could choose their target when rolling a “@1” when attacking.  This might go very well together with this “High Luck” proposal.  BM was worried that limiting the TAC roll to a “@1” would make the TACs too weak.  But now, if they also roll a “@4” … or even a “@3”, their hit has to be placed in a higher value column.  Grant it, the attacker will not actually be able to “choose” their target with a roll of a “@3” or a “@4” … but at least the hit will go towards a higher-value target.  Do you think this combines the two rules correctly?

Transports and CV’s
I would recommend placing the “Transports” and the Aircraft Carriers in the “@4” group.  What do you think?  This would allow them to potentially be hit by BB’s and modified TAC’s.  (Also by Strat Bombers if the Modified Naval Rules are not used)

AAA
I would recommend putting the AAA in the 2 column.  It is more expensive than an infantry.  Also, AAA would be a bit further behind the actual front line … AAA would be probably be more behind the front covering supply dumps, logistics and high-value infrastructure.

Add a Statement - “Defender can choose a higher column to receive the hit.”
Finally, I would recommend to let the defender choose a higher column for the hit if they choose to do so.  For instance, the defender might want to select a BB @4 to receive a hit instead of a lower unit.  Again, what are your opinions on that?

Cheers

It will be quite a challenge to mix all these rules with no inconsistencies…
For now, my first idea on TP, Carrier and Battleship is use your - “Defender can choose a higher column to receive the hit.” But keep Carrier “3”. That way, someone can save Carrier or TP by taking a hit on BB.
IDK if TP should be “3” OR “4” with your additional rule.
Fighter roll @4 on defense but not TcB.

[the_jetset]

@Transports - I did some test battles.  I think it is better to leave transports on the OOB system where they have to be chosen last.  Otherwise, they will just become meat-shields to protect BB’s (when empty).  Or, they will become too high-value targets when full.

For my personal playing system and House Rules set, I’m just going to have transports be able to be targeted when a TAC rolls a “1”, otherwise they must still be targeted until last.

Also, @Baron.  I accidentally hit -1 instead of +1 on one of your posts on this topic thread!  Sorry about that!  It has been corrected.  :-D