AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Imperious Leader

I cant find this section: I think you want multiple air battles over British skies?

OK so heres a possible solution: German planes can fly over British territory and SBR its industrial complex with one round of combat. this is the only current method where we allow such a dogfight for its own w/o any land units involved… Now say we use any remaining movement points left over that the German planes have to force additional combat rounds with each additional round costing one additional movement point.

example: lets give the fighters 6 movement points and bombers 8 MP however the planes have to land exactly where they came from… no more take off from UK to bomb Africa and land in north Africa…thus in western Europe German planes can expend 2 MP to get to england and use 2 MP to get back… this leaves 2 free MP which allows up to 3 rounds or air combat over england ( using those modified aerial combat values).

thats one free round as per normal rules and one round for each free MP available.

tekkyy

thats a big change from the “retreat when you have no land units left” rule

is this “additional round per movement points” rule only for dogfighting or also for bombing?

I duno if we should force planes to land where they started though

but this idea I think can be applied to land planes combating in sea zones, but only for sea zones adjacement to a friendly territory

I am actually ok with our current rules
see the philospies behind them
just wondered if you think it was ok because you bought up “battle of britain” when we first discussed whether planes need land control to operate

Guerrilla Guy

Planes needing land control? What about mainly “Airpower” being stationed at Gibraltar? I understand the Rationale, but maybe you should consider allowing Aircraft to Retreat when being attacked alone?

GG

Imperious Leader

The stated rule can also be used universally to solve the sub stall debate and also fix the idea of stopping a naval fleet with a single ship ( also stalling it).

example:

The phasing player has two MP he spends one moving into a zone occupied by enemy naval units. the attacking player can decide to force combat and end his combat move in this territory. The defender can now decide he is unwilling to block the fleet and allow your fleet to pass thru the SZ and move into a new sea zone. Note: the attacker decides first whether he wants to attack and the defender has a second option also to engage. If neither side wants combat the ships may pass. In this latter case the same routine occurs with each side having an option to attack or be attacked. Each round of combat beyond the first combat phase costs one MP.

If we decide to change naval movement to 3 this idea would work better, but 2 is also ok… except as you know Carriers and Cruisers move 3 anyway under the new ideas. (fast carriers and new cruiser unit)

The very same idea can be extropolated from this same idea… namely with air combat Â beyond the first round costing one MP. Planes may even be able to attack in one territory and continue into another territory if they have MP left… this is a new idea.

tekkyy

@Guerrilla:

Planes needing land control? What about mainly “Airpower” being stationed at Gibraltar?

Thats different. I was referring to if enemy control the territory can you fight there for extended period of time.
Currently you have to retreat if you have no land units there.

“At the end of a land combat cycle, the side with no land units must retreat.”

But now I think it should be extended to

“At the end of a land combat cycle, if only one side has land units remainig the other side must retreat.”

I understand the Rationale, but maybe you should consider allowing Aircraft to Retreat when being attacked alone?

Certainly.
We did lots of work for attacker retreat in phase 2.

Guerrilla Guy

Tekkyy
Would Agree, I assume you activate a new round of “Dogfighting” if only Aircraft remain after any combat phase… ?

Imp
The problem with making SBR able to make more hits is trying to identify whether they are on the same run and just have more bombs, or is it a different run with planes in the same bombing group… I think it is “legal” when dealing with Naval Fleets, since they have a one way ticket 'till I send them a new order, but planes are different… Isn’t that more of the risk you take (lost MPS’s)?

GG

tekkyy

@Guerrilla:

Tekkyy
Would Agree, I assume you activate a new round of “Dogfighting” if only Aircraft remain after any combat phase… ?

Yeah. Combat (dogfighting only) can then go on for multiple cycles.

Imperious Leader

Yes and thats something you wanted a while back… i think it would reflect the war better… the air combat values have to be possibly modified to the 1-2 range or entire air force may get wiped out in a single turn.

Guerrilla Guy

Imp,
Did you see what I wrote in response to you?

GG

Imperious Leader

Yes sir. well have to see what happens on that.

rawdawg

I believe that all units should be able to retreat after enduring 1 round of fire. It is very unrealistic to have an attacking force completely wipe out a defending force. The British were cornered in France and retreated back to England, Rommel retreated from the British counter offensive in Africa. The only times where the attacking force completely wiped out the defending force was not only, but usually in the Pacific rim. It just seems more historically accurate to me to be able to give both sides the option to retreat after 1 cycle of combat.

If this has already been said, I apologize. I am new to these forms and there is so much to read and I am suffering from a heat stroke.

RD

Imperious Leader

Guerrilla Guy writes:

“Imp
The problem with making SBR able to make more hits is trying to identify whether they are on the same run and just have more bombs, or is it a different run with planes in the same bombing group… I think it is “legal” when dealing with Naval Fleets, since they have a one way ticket 'till I send them a new order, but planes are different… Isn’t that more of the risk you take (lost MPS’s)?”

The concept of SBR remains at one combat round and the mission is over. The only time when they have multiple air combat is when a player sends out his planes for “dogfighting missions” the Attacker can sustain combat but each additional combat round beyond the first combat round costs one MP. this idea may require planes having more movement than before possibly going to 6 spaces and bombers 8. The idea of more than one round consists of a sustained bombing campaign where each sortie is counted in days and every day consists of a new sortie. Thus a turn should in theory allow for more combat rounds.

rawdawg

This is always the way I thought bombers should work.

When included in a ground battle, the bombers would sore in and sweep the area, allowing the ground forces to get ready and attack while the opposing side confused. Bombs were not dropped while units were engaged with the enemy within the cities.
With that being said,

A bomber fires in the opening step, casualties are removed immediately. The bomber may stay in for 1 more turn and repeat it’s opening fire step with a cost of 1 movement or it may fly into a second combat situation, sbr or battle.
If the bomber starts out the resolve combat phase in a SBR, then the AA shots fire first, followed by the bombers 1 die at IPCs, at this point the bomber may fly into a different combat situation, or stay in the SBR at a cost of 1 movement and enduring another AA shot before rolling a second dice at the IPCs.
In a naval battle, all kinds of air units were subject to anti aircraft fire from gun placements on battleships, therefor, I believe that aircraft should endure AA fire in the first round of combat, unless they are accompanied by a surface ship.

I know I am forgetting something and I will post it later.

RD

tekkyy

@Imperious:

Yes and thats something you wanted a while back… i think it would reflect the war better… the air combat values have to be possibly modified to the 1-2 range or entire air force may get wiped out in a single turn.

Oh no. Imperious Leader. I thought we could do multiple cycles of dogfighting already? (with dogfighting values and as long as you have land units left in the territory)
I only made a small change from that.

tekkyy

@rawdawg:

A bomber fires in the opening step, casualties are removed immediately.

Yep currently we let bombers fire in opening-fire. Althoght it is dogfighting rather than bombing if the other side has air units too.

rawdawg

So we are going to allow bombers to dogfight? Or are they going to have to take hits with out being able to hit the fighters back?

Guerrilla Guy

They are more like “stuck” to dogfight… Wouldn’t you rather bomb the IC without facing the fighters…

Imperious Leader

So we are going to allow bombers to dogfight? Or are they going to have to take hits with out being able to hit the fighters back?

Bombers dont dogfight… rather they are set up in box formation to prevent loses. That way they can cover all the firing angles… look at them like naval transports in the air… they have a payload and only are destroyed as a last resort. They can defend at 1 in air combat.

tekkyy

hm…

so you want to make BMR like 0/1 in dogfight…basically struck to “dogfighting” until enemy planes are gone…

and then for SBR, BMR can somehow skip the dogfighting…I mean we not allowing multiple cycles for SBR so it has to be

Imperious Leader

SBR is only a one round thing. Thats the only time where this occurs. everything else is based on MP= rounds of combat… as long as both sides want it and dont retreat.

AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Many ways of figurating air-to-air combat in general combat

Compatible Game Pieces and 3-Axis Player Variant

G1940 Alpha+3 Italy Goes Before UK

Simple Air Combat Rule?

AARHE 4.0 text revision checklist

AARHE Japan oil reserves 1939 version

AARHE: Phase 4 Land Combat

Another bold concept for AARHE

46

17.3k

39.9k

1.7m