Global War 1940 2nd ed.

@barnee said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

@SS-GEN
yea my thinking was if you were concerned with excessive air casualties in the air battle phase you could do something such as, Hit= Die, Miss= Live go onto regular battle and Neutral/No Decision w/e you wanna call it, = doesn’t take place in regular battle but doesn’t Die.

This is represented in regular battle when units miss, but if too many planes either survive or Die in air battle, this would allow another mechanism to regulate the combat.

It could be looked at as a no decision with planes running out of fuel and returning to base after dogfighting or battle damage sustained requiring the same. Not all planes that sustained battle damage were destroyed and not all that did were prevented from completing their mission and engaging in their main, in this case, regular combat either.

Anyway, it may be too tactical for a strategic level game, but thought it could provide an option if air battle casualties were to impactful. So Hit = Die, Miss= Continue, No Result = RTB or Return to Base.

I do follow along here but not 100%, baron can be a little wordy at times : ), so maybe this is already allowed for.

I would love to someday dial your game in for triplea.

Rock On Guys :)

Hi Barney,
long time, no see.
All because of a lady… :)
Do you know if it is a complex matter to translate the D6 mechanics from Triple A into a D12?
Does someone in the Triple A worked out something about Global into a D12 game?

What is the difference between Miss and No Result in your suggestion?
I don’t see the nuance you want to implement.

I made changes. For carriers it looks like your giving a reg Carrier an Attack value ?
Here’s what I’m seeing. Let me know if this was your intention
CR A@3 plane A@5 ship
C.V. A@3 plane D@3 plane 1 dam AD@2 plane
ECV A0 D@3 plane

@baron-Münchhausen

Hi baron

Best reason of all : )

Yea D12 is np for triplea.

What i meant about Miss and No Result is in regular combat, plane attacks and it misses it obviously does no damage. With Air battle before regular combat, No Result would give one another mechanism for balancing air units.
Hit kills a plane and goes on to regular battle, miss = no hit in air battle but makes it through to attack in regular battle. No Result would be a major air battle that uses too much fuel or sustain battle damage forcing one to Return To Base.

Basically, if Air Battle phase is to unbalanced because of potentially too many casualties before regular combat, this would give a way to help regulate it. Lower cost of planes, which you guys are doing, will help as well.

i found with air battle and the price of planes in global (the way triplea uses it), it’s a big risk, especially if you’re heavily outnumbered. All your planes could get shot down or not be able to participate in the regular combat. Defender is worse because if you lose ground battle your planes die anyway without getting to fight at all.

Idk, cheaper planes with lower combat values compared to global is probably a bigger balancer, which is what it seems that you guys are doing.

@barnee said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

@baron-Münchhausen

Hi baron

Best reason of all : )

Yea D12 is np for triplea.

What i meant about Miss and No Result is in regular combat, plane attacks and it misses it obviously does no damage. With Air battle before regular combat, No Result would give one another mechanism for balancing air units.
Hit kills a plane and goes on to regular battle, miss = no hit in air battle but makes it through to attack in regular battle. No Result would be a major air battle that uses too much fuel or sustain battle damage forcing one to Return To Base.

Basically, if Air Battle phase is to unbalanced because of potentially too many casualties before regular combat, this would give a way to help regulate it. Lower cost of planes, which you guys are doing, will help as well.

i found with air battle and the price of planes in global (the way triplea uses it), it’s a big risk, especially if you’re heavily outnumbered. All your planes could get shot down or not be able to participate in the regular combat. Defender is worse because if you lose ground battle your planes die anyway without getting to fight at all.

Idk, cheaper planes with lower combat values compared to global is probably a bigger balancer, which is what it seems that you guys are doing.

Hey Barney I see what your saying. As far as your No Result rule which I still don’t see where it happens but maybe I miss understand it but getting back to your rule there is a rule where you have automatic retreats based on a die roll but that is more complex.
I would be willing to lower all planes except stg bombers to C if 9 if I can get away with it now.
Also I’m a bit hesitant on naval fig D4 in a DF

@SS-GEN yea auto retreat would signify that amongst other things such as miscommunication, breakdowns etc…

Yea I really don’t know your rules well enough to have a real informed opinion : ) just thought that might be another potential option for ya. Yea plane costs will just have to test out, but its good to have baron’s input for starting point. He knows numbers : )
I know you do as well : )

The way triplea works, is you have air battle phase and planes that survive then continue to fight in regular combat phase. If you don’t use your planes in air battle and leave them on the ground, they can’t fight in regular combat. If defending and you lose battle, your planes die.

Your air battle die hit can be different than your regular combat hit but die sides must be the same. So D12 would probably be the biggest balancing factor.

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

I made changes. For carriers it looks like your giving a reg Carrier an Attack value ?
Here’s what I’m seeing. Let me know if this was your intention
CR A@3 plane A@5 ship
C.V. A@3 plane D@3 plane 1 dam AD@2 plane
ECV A0 D@3 plane

For the attack value on Carrier, it is up to you.
There is both case for fleet carrier in various games (D12): A0 D4 and A2 D4.
I know that many people advocate that Fleet Carriers were pretty good specialized AA platforms, hence keeping D4 against plane, as you wrote first.
What is your way of seeing Fleet Carriers? What kind of narrative do you apply to them?

I like that Escort Carrier be at A0 D3 vs plane, but Fleet Carrier have to be better.
Cruiser C10 A@3 plane A@5 ship, seems now better as an all around warships.

The auto retreat works like this for ground d12
Ger 12
Italy 10-12
Japan 11-12
Uk 11-12
So let’s say 10 ground attacking 10 defending ground Ger against UK
Ger rolls there normal attack values. They roll
2,3,7,8,8,2,11,12,1,12
Now you count hits but you rolled 2 12s so now those 2 pieces have to retreat before next round of combat. Same would go for UK. Any piece rolling a 11 or 12 would have to retreat also before next round of combat. So for planes in a DF would be the same. Any plane rolling a 12 let’s say has to retreat before combat.
Or after combat round. Ways to play with it
Man you could also go by if you only have 1 or 2 plane movements left you have to retreat after DF and or combat after 1 round due to low fuel because of prolonged combat fight flying.

@SS-GEN
right on that’s pretty much what i was thinking, for air anyway. Could see why you’d do it with ground too.

Good Action

@barnee said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

@SS-GEN
right on that’s pretty much what i was thinking, for air anyway. Could see why you’d do it with ground too.

Good Action

Ya plus like a smaller campaign game like Barbarossa it would work . Say a tank has to retreat. Could be due to low fuel, mechanical or damaged. That game also has trucks that you need to transport fuel and supply’s to front line.
Anyway off topic now so I’ll stop.

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Also I’m a bit hesitant on naval fig D4 in a DF

Hi SS, what makes you so reluctant about Fighter defending @4 (4/12 is 33%) in a Dogfight?
Most game with DF features allows such Fighter defending with 33% odds.
I’m thinking also about Balanced Mode, which play fighter interceptor and escort @2.

You wrote:
Land-based Fighter C10 A@6 D@7 M5 DF A@3 D@3
Naval Fighter C10 A@5 D@7 M4 DF A@3 D@4

Also, for same 10 IPCs cost, I feel that it is a correct trade off between better offense and range compared to landing on Carriers and a small bonus in dogfight.

You wrote:
Land-based Tactical Bomber
C10 A@7 D@5 M5 DF@1
Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot

Naval-based Dive Bomber
C10 A@7 D@5 M4 DF@1
Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot.

For same 10 IPCs cost, in that case, there is no trade off between better range compared to landing on Carriers.
In addition, with D12, it may be relevant to use the option to increment Dogfight for these two aircraft. After all, 1 out of 6, is not an OP value.
Maybe, you can improve Dogfight of Naval Dive bomber compared to “Stuka” as Land-based TcBomber. If a single value for A/D is what you are looking for these bombers, then @2 might be also correct.

Ya I can deal with this. Without checking history I or your saying a naval fig is better at a DF then a regular fig I’m assuming.
Tac and Dive I can go to DF@2 but in balanced mod there is only a DF for SBR only ? Not a mandatory DF first round combat before regular combat ?

Click on the heart at bottom right of page if you like the posts.

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Click on the heart at bottom right of page if you like the posts.

heh heh.yea maybe djensen should offer a broken heart for down posts lol :)

The so called naval fighter should specialize in targeted attacks against naval targets, like a land based fighter should be able to target land units

During the opening combat phase, fighters should round by round fight each other only and when one side has fighters, that side should be able to choose land or sea targets.

I would further shorten the name to just dive bomber for naval and fighter-Bomber for land. Further, i like having the cost be the same as per Baron.

So on land:

Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
Strategic Bomber

On Sea
Fighter
Dive Bomber

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Ya I can deal with this. Without checking history I or your saying a naval fig is better at a DF then a regular fig I’m assuming.
Tac and Dive I can go to DF@2 but in balanced mod there is only a DF for SBR only ? Not a mandatory DF first round combat before regular combat ?

Click on the heart at bottom right of page if you like the posts.

For game purpose and creative variants of similar aircraft. I have no way of telling which type was more effective in a defensive dogfight…
True for balanced Mode values are only for SBR.

@Imperious-Leader said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

The so called naval fighter should specialize in targeted attacks against naval targets, like a land based fighter should be able to target land units

During the opening combat phase, fighters should round by round fight each other only and when one side has fighters, that side should be able to choose land or sea targets.

I would further shorten the name to just dive bomber for naval and fighter-Bomber for land. Further, i like having the cost be the same as per Baron.

So on land:

Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
Strategic Bomber

On Sea
Fighter
Dive Bomber

Ya well most guys won’t play this way. There so used to playing no DF round if anything.
I know where your coming from but that would change the whole game up to much as of now.
I’m assuming your saying planes attack each other per round of combat only until one side has no planes left for air superiority or is it all planes do there combat rounds first then it’s first round of normal combat with one side having air superiority ?
Then if anything the cost of planes would need to go to 5 or 6.
The air superiority is not going to work in these games based on setup and players imo.
Not every plane was shooting at each other in battles. At least I have a mandatory DF round for every type of battle. Could I go to 2 rounds of DF maybe ? Possible. But now we also have ships getting AA shots at planes. Just think it would make the plane almost obsolete in most battles. I see the point if it’s historical which my game is based on mostly and not the real outcome of ww2 as for allies winning but at least the pieces and many many small worth scenarios that happened in war without throwing off balance.

Also now planes all cost the same. The old way was based on no CR BB Carrier Attack AA guns and the Tac and Gr fig able to M5 and D7.
50/50 chance the C of planes go to 9 if the 2 games we play June 15-16 show to many planes destroyed and will add more to setup.
Why not have it like ships.
Half the ships defend amphibious assault for shore shot and other half of ships attack enemy ships in same sz.
So for the planes have half your planes doing a DF every round and other half doing ground or naval support attacks.
Then when you lose all your planes in the DF you have the option of pulling a plane or 2 from ground or naval support and keep the Enemy DF planes from attacking then next round against your ground or navy ?

Planes fight concurrently with other units but separate until only one side has planes. Not the case that you resolve all plane combat then land combat. That way you can still retreat then to watch your air force get chewed up.

@Imperious-Leader said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Planes fight concurrently with other units but separate until only one side has planes. Not the case that you resolve all plane combat then land combat. That way you can still retreat then to watch your air force get chewed up.

Ya but funny how this concept is not any aa games. Maybe 36 and I’m sure a few personal games.

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

@Imperious-Leader said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Planes fight concurrently with other units but separate until only one side has planes. Not the case that you resolve all plane combat then land combat. That way you can still retreat then to watch your air force get chewed up.

Ya but funny how this concept is not any aa games. Maybe 36 and I’m sure a few personal games.

That is essentially what I’m playing with Fighters at lower cost. It works well.

But, with the new idea of rolling 2 dice for a given unit, I can think of TcB rolling both against aircraft and ground units. Of course, TcB would get a minimal roll vs aircraft while picking ground target at an higher rate.

For instance, using D12, my C8 TcB can be AA@1 and Pickground@4 while Fighter C7 can roll two AA@2 or 1AA@4 until there is no available target then apply roll as usual.

For your game SS, I can think of a Fg doing AA@3 with a regular roll @2 on attack and @4 on defense.

Ya I got ideas to for planes.
Tac @1 plane or @6 ground
Fig AD@3 plane or D@7 ground

Without adding any planes at a cheaper cost, lowered AD could go with no DF
Tac AD@2 blue dice Plane hit
AD @5 red dice pic ground or ship
Fig AD@3 blue dice plane hit
AD@4 red dice pic ground or ship

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Ya I got ideas to for planes.
Tac @1 plane or @6 ground
Fig AD@3 plane or D@7 ground

Without adding any planes at a cheaper cost, lowered AD could go with no DF
Tac AD@2 blue dice Plane hit
AD @5 red dice pic ground or ship
Fig AD@3 blue dice plane hit
AD@4 red dice pic ground or ship

Exactly!
Giving 2 dice means no need to have a dogfight phase.
Each regular combat round is played at 2 level air and naval or land battles.

Now, if all aircraft and major warships are playing on these two level, you need to balance them and specialized each unit according to a different purpose.