Oh…
I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
:disappointed:
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
Three Turn Playing System and Enhanced Combat - G40
-
re: Vichy - I am making a separate posting for Vichy rules. Vichy is simple if France falls first turn - which should happen about 99.9% of the time. But it gets complicated fast if France is able to move and control other territories past the starting OOB.
-
THREE TURN PLAYING SYSTEM and ENHANCED COMBAT
Attacking Together Casualty Selection-
Axis and Allied forces that attack together randomly select casualties for the same unit type. (For example, if there are 3 German and 2 Italian infantry and they decide that an infantry will be the 1st casualty, the Germans roll 3 dice and the Italians roll 2 dice. Whoever has the higher sum takes the casualty.) Any other “random” method may be used as well
-
Occupation may be pre-decided. However, if the attacking players cannot agree: Country with the largest army remaining at the end of the battle takes control of the occupied territory.
What about something which doesn’t need any additional roll?
The greatest number of units takes the casualties and when you reach equal number of units, each nation pick 1 unit at a time, starting with the other friendly units.
Example: 5 UK and 3 US Infantry, and must take 1 hit, so you loose 1 UK Inf.
Next combat round, 4 UK and 3 US, suppose 2 hits, UK loose 1 Inf, US loose 1 Inf.
Next combat round, 3 UK and 2 US, suppose 1 hit, UK loose Inf,
Next combat round, 2 UK and 2 US remain, players agree which is the first casualty, then pick alternatively.OR
You pick casualty according to a rough ratio between attacking nations:
around 1:1, the largest number is picked first, the other second, alternatively,
if even, both players should agree about who take first casualy, then alternate,
around 2:1, the largest number is picked twice first, the other take 1 casualty, alternatively,
around 3:1, the largest number is picked three times before taking the other once,
around 4:1 and above, 4 units are picked on the largest group, then 1 unit of the other.
Since this ratio can change each combat round, you apply accordingly to the actual ratio.Example: 5 UK and 3 US Infantry makes 1.67 ratio, and have to take 1 hit, so you loose 1 UK Inf.
Next combat round, 4 UK and 3 US, ratio is at 1.33, nearer 1:1, suppose 3 hits have to be chosen, UK lost 2 Inf, US 1 Inf.
Next combat round, 2 UK and 2 US remaining, still 1:1 ratio, players agree which is the first casualty, then pick alternatively.No special roll required, so when rolling dice in game, it stays focus on combat.
IMO, it is simpler. -
-
Hi Baron,
To be 100% honest … we just play with “Pre-Agreed” arrangement as to who will take control of the territory. Actually, I think this is how I’ll update the rules set, and leave a “random method” as a fall-back incase two players can’t agree.
Let’s look at this in history:
- Two, or more, friendly nations are going to know WELL in advance how the territory will be governed once the fighting stops. For instance, Italy didn’t help Germany in France thinking that there was a chance that Italy would gain that territory if their casualties were low and the German casualties were high!
In the games we’ve played, there is a strategic advantage as to “why” Player A is willing to attack a territory together with Player B … even though Player B will take control of the territory. … Therefore, it is in Player A’s best interest, even though he will not gain any IPCs as a result of the capture of the territory.
-
Narvik brought up an interesting suggestion for planes at sea. Here is the rule proposal:
Fighters and TAC’s may only COMBAT MOVE one sea-zone.
-
If based on land, they can only COMBAT MOVE into the sea-zone directly adjacent to, or surrounding their starting territory. After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.
-
If based on a carrier, they can COMBAT MOVE into a sea-zone or lande zone directly adjacent to the originating carrier sea-zone. After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.
Analysis
This rules set makes airplanes the true KINGS OF THE SEA. However, it also gives them their original range. Naval Combat is simulated on a much tighter time-scale than Land Combat. Each round of Naval Combat is probably simulating 12-24 hours. While each round of Land Combat is probably simulating 1-2 weeks. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to have combat aircraft flying 2000+ miles over the open ocean and returning!This range restriction would still allow airplanes to DOMINATE naval combat, but it would also make their historical ranges more realistic. Overall, I think it will be a better simulation for the game.
I would like people’s input and suggestions. However, please read the entire Rules Set first because there are a lot of inter-locking changes. This range rule could not be implemented with the OOB combat system. It would need to be implemented with this Enhanced Combat System in the original post.
-
-
Fighters could make London to Berlin - so rule seems too restrictive. Change the rule to be restricted to carrier based aircraft only. They can move 1 out and 1 back in combat mode. This allows attacks in adj sea zones or adj land territories. If doing a non-combat move only from carrier - allow the full 4.
-
@Carolina:
Fighters could make London to Berlin - so rule seems too restrictive. Change the rule to be restricted to carrier based aircraft only. They can move 1 out and 1 back in combat mode. This allows attacks in adj sea zones or adj land territories. If doing a non-combat move only from carrier - allow the full 4.
IMO, an AirBase over an island should be treated like a non-movable carrier.
You can fly outside the surrounding SZ, 1 Sz a way. -
Carriers
What about carrier based planes can combat move a total of TWO zones? (4 zones for non-combat moves)
This would allow the following:
-
Attacks on adjacent land-zones
-
Attacks on adjacent sea-zones without committing the carrier. (planes can retreat and move one zone back to carrier if attack fails)
-
Attacks on sea-zone TWO spaces away. However, this would be a “committed” attack since the carrier(s) would need to move into the contested sea-zone to retrieve the planes as they would have zero movement allowance left.
The two-space movement allows for the simulation of a strike. If planes can only move one sea-zone you would have to pre-arrange your fleet next to the enemy’s fleet on the previous turn … it would restrict sea movement too much.
Basically, the OOB rules allow for planes to strike a fleet THREE zones away. (Three out and one back. Carrier moves up TWO to “catch” the planes) … With the revised Naval Combat rules, maybe planes become TOO powerful this way. … This revised rule would allow planes to only strike a fleet TWO zones away. And the carriers would have to end their movement INSIDE of that strike zone.
This reduces the range (and power) of the planes. It also adds a risk-factor for longer, two-zone strikes.
Land-Based Naval Strikes
I like BM’s suggestion for handling “land-based” naval strikes. …. Maybe this would be made even more simple by just eliminating the extra movement allowance that air-bases provide??? That always seemed a little “gamey” to me anyway. This would achieve what BM is suggesting and still kind of keep air-movements OOB. That way, air-bases only provide scramble capability. -
-
Carriers
What about carrier based planes can combat move a total of TWO zones? (4 zones for non-combat moves)
This would allow the following:
-
Attacks on adjacent land-zones
-
Attacks on adjacent sea-zones without committing the carrier. (planes can retreat and move one zone back to carrier if attack fails)
-
Attacks on sea-zone TWO spaces away. However, this would be a “committed” attack since the carrier(s) would need to move into the contested sea-zone to retrieve the planes as they would have zero movement allowance left.
The two-space movement allows for the simulation of a strike. If planes can only move one sea-zone you would have to pre-arrange your fleet next to the enemy’s fleet on the previous turn … it would restrict sea movement too much.
Basically, the OOB rules allow for planes to strike a fleet THREE zones away. (Three out and one back. Carrier moves up TWO to “catch” the planes) … With the revised Naval Combat rules, maybe planes become TOO powerful this way. … This revised rule would allow planes to only strike a fleet TWO zones away. And the carriers would have to end their movement INSIDE of that strike zone.
This reduces the range (and power) of the planes. It also adds a risk-factor for longer, two-zone strikes.
Land-Based Naval Strikes
I like BM’s suggestion for handling “land-based” naval strikes. ….Maybe this would be made even more simple by just eliminating the extra movement allowance that air-bases provide??? That always seemed a little “gamey” to me anyway. This would achieve what BM is suggesting and still kind of keep air-movements OOB. That way, air-bases only provide scramble capability.What about a 1 move penalty when flying over SZ?
That way, carrier base Fg and TacB get only 3 movement points.
Fg or TcB from Island Air Base keep 4 move points (4 +1 AB -1 SZ), so can come back to AB up to two SZs away.With 3 Move points on a Carrier, you cannot go three SZs and come back 1 SZ to land on the same Carrier, which moved 2 SZs, unless the Carrier can reach third SZ with Naval Base bonus. But if a friendly Carrier reached in the third SZ, it is still possible if well coordinate to move planes to this maximum 3 SZs and this friendly Carrier will be part of the battle. In either case, a Carrier will be part of naval combat and at risk.
-
-
Question on your HR;
What happens if planes only with TPs attack a fleet made of warships only?
All warships hits will be allocated on TPs, right? -
Really cool concepts!!
Anyway, if Italy come first, and so before UK, i’m wondering is too good for Axis.
Infact you can destroy the whole UK fleet in sea zone 98 on first turn (normally the UK could play first).
Same problem in Alexandria, UK troops could be wiped out by Italian forces in Tobruk.Any solution? Repositioning of UK starting units? Italy can’t attack UK on first turn?
See ya! :wink: -
Hello Zaibach,
Sorry for the late response. Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system. It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.
However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously. It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.
We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.
Suggested Topics
