Build totals only tells us after all the reasoning involves the powers together build as many tanks as fighters.
It doesn’t neccessary mean we need to put tanks in the same category as fighters.
As mentioned they are quite different.
With breakthrough idea we do have biltz and panzerbiltz…
The extra shot, reflects to the breaktrough and exploit of the lines by tanks. Tanks were the first to breaktrough the enemy lines. And to put them more in the same category as fighters for strength, this because build totals had been the same in WWII.
++++ this is a good goal to incorporate… except how does it simulate the other aspects of Blitzkreig? it contains no movement after breakthru or has any aspects of envelopment attacks.
thinking…
how bout in every battle where the enemy has no armor forces ( destroyed in combat?) your mech units ( air, artillery, tanks) have a special ability as follows:
example: 3 tanks, 1 artillery, and 5 infantry attack 1 tank, and 6 infantry.
The attacking tanks kill the enemy tank and also take out 2 defending infantry…but the defending tank causes a hit ( attacker must lose one armor— he chooses the artillery)
thus with his three tanks the defender must select 3 infantry and 3 d6 are rolled… 2,5,1… thus one infantry is captured… the owner of this unit gets back one ipc on his next turn as partial compensation.
The defender decides to retreat its 4 infantry…
I think not only INF but ART is also slow and should be capturable by ARM.
The rule should require overwhelming ARM. Try 2-to-1?
Although so far I feel the complexity is not worth it.
Also, I doubt salvaging INF ammunition is all that useful. Gureilla forces probably maybe not armies.
Yea its probably a reach and too tactical….
I feel our land combat rules are almost complete.
Oh yes we have to sort out those air missions thingo.
Any updates?
well do we make cutbacks or modifications? more or less?
Oh I just realise our quick solution of
“At the end of a land combat cycle, the side with no land units must retreat.”
prevents Battle of Britain type attacks. This can be a problem.
Also, it seems great at the start that land fighters can’t keep firing at enemy naval units (unlike naval fighters which can with carrier support). They can only fight for 1st cycle and retreat (not able to rearm in the SZ).
And then I felt is 1 combat cycle too little? A turn is 6 months and we only allow one “contact” with the enemy?
This leads me to one of your proposed air missions, taking 1-cycle to travel to adjacent territory to help hence starting to fight from 2nd cycle.
Maybe land fighters from Western Europe can keep firing at naval units in SZ 7 but takes 1 cycle to rearm each time? fighting every 2nd cycle?
But this is meaningless unless we implement a combat cycle limit, to say 6 cycles (1 cycle per month you said once?). But this is a huge change that was reasonably dismissed previously.
You proposal many air missions. Quite complex.
So lets start with you describing the most (or one of the most) important idea/phenomena you want to model and mention the respectively “air mission”?
Yea…. the basic idea is the ability of the defender to allow his planes to participate as local air support. This would be possible when his land forces are under attack and he is in or adjacent to the attacked territory, or defending as interceptors when SBR occur, or in any situation from the adjacent territory. The various air missions merely place these ideas in a context of actual military lexicon. It is not really complicated after playing them. They are basically all the same just different enviroments where they are involved. Air interdiction is close to what we have in OOB D-Day.
So the most important idea is the calling of planes in adjacent territories to help defend.
Are they allowed to fight more than once?
(UK player attacks Western Europe and Germany.
Germany player DAS some planes from Germany to Western Europe to help.
UK pklayer chooses to resolve Western Europe first.
If that Western Europe attack failed. Germany player movees planes back to where they came from - Germany.
But this happens at the end of the “combat phase” so no problems.
What if that Western Europe attack won, or Germany retreats?
This comes with defender retreat too.
Where can they retreat?)
Are they allowed to help in friendly territory?
So the most important idea is the calling of planes in adjacent territories to help defend.
Are they allowed to fight more than once?
+++++ yes once when its their own turn and once as the defender. The same planes cannot fight in multiple battles while as attacker or defender.
(UK player attacks Western Europe and Germany.
Germany player DAS some planes from Germany to Western Europe to help.
UK pklayer chooses to resolve Western Europe first.
If that Western Europe attack failed. Germany player movees planes back to where they came from - Germany.
But this happens at the end of the “combat phase” so no problems.
What if that Western Europe attack won, or Germany retreats?
This comes with defender retreat too.
Where can they retreat?)
++++ in the case when the territory that DAS mission was flown from was captured… those planes have to fly to another territory in flight range. Also the same plane can only DAS in one of the attacked territories. so he may want to seperate his force.
Are they allowed to help in friendly territory?
++++ only one
Note: some missions should be allowed in addition to a combat mission like air transport.
@Imperious:
++++ in the case when the territory that DAS mission was flown from was captured… those planes have to fly to another territory in flight range. Also the same plane can only DAS in one of the attacked territories. so he may want to seperate his force.
Its not only captured. Another case is “pending-combat”.
Should retreating forces be allowed to move into “pending-combat” territories?
Because they could end up fighting again.
But if we don’t let retreatment into territories with pending-combat, it gets restrictive.
Ok the plane must make one choice as the defender namely: perform DAS or coastal defense. if he leaves his original territory and fights only to find his originating territory captured… he cannot perform in any other mission and must retreat to yet another friendly territory within 1/2 flight range. Its that simple.
So how about normal retreatments?
Can you retreat into a territory with pending combat?
And how attacker must retreat attacking forces to the territory it came from…
(To stop hopping over the enemy…like in OOB rulebook example.)
it means you gotta keep track of losses according to this? You must declare exactly which unit you are using to take a hit?
Rather than trying to track each casualty, it might be easier to just record what came form where, and at the time of retreat, the person retreating can choose what goes where, with the restriction that you cannot exceed the original deployment levels.
So, if 3 INF are from Norway and 4 INF are from Eastern and forces retreat after 1 round of combat in Karelia taking 3 losses, Germany can withdraw the remainign 4 INF as they choose, but no more than 3 can go to Norway (and had more than 4 survived, no more than 4 could go to Eastern)
This would be easy to track with online play, since the combat movement post would list what units came from where, so that information is already recorded.
RETREATS
Except for strategic air missions, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, either player may decide to withdraw and retreat. After any combat round, retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territory where the attack began. Defending units that cannot retreat ground units on an island, or evacuating ground units in excess of transport capability must remain and continue to fight. Note: These ground units that engage in combat which results in automatic retreats simply take no further part in combat. They retreat back to their original territory and do not suffer return fire.
Note: Any defending Infantry that decides to retreat after any combat round is subject to a roll of one D6 and is lost on a roll of one. This is to simulate the ability of the attacker to “envelop†and capture enemy forces that did not escape the retreat.
Air Units
Attacking air units that “withdraw†from combat may now play to any friendly territory not exceeding the balance on unused movement points. They return to land during Returning Air Movement. Defending air units have to retreat to an adjacent friendly territory. If no adjacent friendly territories exist, retreating defending air units fly to the closest friendly territory within their flight range. If there are no friendly territories within their flight then these defending air units cannot retreat.
Naval Units
Naval units retreat by “withdrawing” from the combat sea zone. Retreating transports may not unload their units.
Ground Units
Ground units may retreat to any combination of friendly adjacent territories. Defending ground units must remain in the embattled territory and “fight to the death†only if no other retreat options are available.
Naval Evacuations
Attacking ground units in amphibious assaults may evacuate and retreat to their transports after any combat round. However, each armor and artillery unit must first be converted to a regular infantry unit. Defending ground units have the option of retreating onto friendly transports in adjacent sea zones during regular ground combat. In both cases, the evacuating transports may not move and Ground units in excess of transport capacity may not retreat.
here is a basic outline of retreats… ill come back to these posts from you two latter today.
So I see…
Air and naval units “withdraw” when they “retreat”, hence no return fire or live capture.
We still need to think about whether units can retreat to territories with “pending combat” in the various cases…
With defending strategic air missions I think maybe they should continue to fight from 2nd or 3rd cycle or something.
But some of this stuff may not make sense unless the time aspect is tuned.
Air and naval units “withdraw” when they “retreat”, hence no return fire or live capture.
+++ no return fire… but looking at forcing each defending infantry to roll d6 and a one result = capture… what you think?
We still need to think about whether units can retreat to territories with “pending combat” in the various cases…
With defending strategic air missions I think maybe they should continue to fight from 2nd or 3rd cycle or something.
But some of this stuff may not make sense unless the time aspect is tuned.
+++ok sure. The pending combat thing is not that big a deal. if it is then each territory can be done together round by round so that if any retreating territories are lost then the fight is to the death at least for defender.
@Imperious:
Air and naval units “withdraw” when they “retreat”, hence no return fire or live capture.
+++ no return fire… but looking at forcing each defending infantry to roll d6 and a one result = capture… what you think?
(No return fire for this case or for land/naval/air retreats?)
Yeah we discussed a little about “live capture” before.
As before I think it should depend on relative army sizes.
We don’t want 1 ARM to capture many many INF.
So instead of one roll for each retreating defending INF…it should be each attacking ARM.
And then I think artillery is slow too so should be envelopable too?
But if defender has land units left to fight…would all this still make sense?
Say attacker has 3 ARM left, defender retreats 3 INF and leaves 2 ARM behind…should the 3 attacking ARM be able to envelop the retreating defending INF?
So its quite complex.
+++ok sure. The pending combat thing is not that big a deal. if it is then each territory can be done together round by round so that if any retreating territories are lost then the fight is to the death at least for defender.
Thats what I was thinking too. Very realistic.
But I am scared of having so many “combat boards”?
Pending combat can be a big deal. Defending units can end up fighting in more than one combat while attacking units can’t?
Imagine the powerful FTR piece defending at 4…defending at multiple territories…
Of course we could not let the units participate in more than 1 combat…but gotta think of the rule to deal with that.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 09, 2006, 10:59:15 PM
Air and naval units “withdraw” when they “retreat”, hence no return fire or live capture.
+++ no return fire… but looking at forcing each defending infantry to roll d6 and a one result = capture… what you think?
(No return fire for this case or for land/naval/air retreats?)
++++ naw not fair.
Yeah we discussed a little about “live capture” before.
As before I think it should depend on relative army sizes.
We don’t want 1 ARM to capture many many INF.
+++++ very good idea…brilliant actually! for every armor unit the defender rolls one die for each infantry unit and its captured on a six or one.
So instead of one roll for each retreating defending INF…it should be each attacking ARM.
++ yes right
And then I think artillery is slow too so should be envelopable too?
+++= right to slow… they are in fixed positions
But if defender has land units left to fight…would all this still make sense?
+++ of course they can fight… its just some penalty for defender retreat and modelling being surrounded in an abstract game.
Say attacker has 3 ARM left, defender retreats 3 INF and leaves 2 ARM behind…should the 3 attacking ARM be able to envelop the retreating defending INF?
+++ yes two rolls capturing them on a six 1-5 no effect ( they retreat) defending tanks dont “sheild” this. presumably the territory is large and getting surrounded can occur within other parts of the same territory ( look at western europe… its a huge area)… remember that in the stated example tank hits go on enemy tanks before another unit.
So its quite complex.
++++ if you play it its quite easy once you do it… and it seems alot more realistic
Quote
+++ok sure. The pending combat thing is not that big a deal. if it is then each territory can be done together round by round so that if any retreating territories are lost then the fight is to the death at least for defender.
Thats what I was thinking too. Very realistic.
But I am scared of having so many “combat boards”?
++++ you dont need this… this example is quite remote for practical play and at most theirs allways one spot to retreat too because of interior lines. at most one other battle board.
Pending combat can be a big deal. Defending units can end up fighting in more than one combat while attacking units can’t?
Imagine the powerful FTR piece defending at 4…defending at multiple territories…
+++ were not allowing that so defending planes can be involved in more than one DAS mission… of course different planes can be allocated to different missions. only not the same plane twice… remember one mission as attacker and one mission as defender each plane.
Of course we could not let the units participate in more than 1 combat…but gotta think of the rule to deal with that.
++++ huh? its allready stated NOT MORE THAN ONE MISSION AS DEFENDER OR ATTACKER.
exceptions is air transport for bombers.
