small change: “Interdiction missions in a territory is also cancelled”
to
Interdiction missions in a territory are also cancelled
ok I change
“Interdiction missions in a territory is cancelled if there are enemy air units at the end of your turn, at which point the BMRs retreat to friendly territories with remaining movement points.”
to
“Interdiction missions in a territory are cancelled if there are enemy air units at the end of your turn, at which point the BMRs retreat to friendly territories with remaining movement points.”
and
“Interdiction missions in a territory is also cancelled if enemy air units attack the territory during the enemy’s turn.”
to
“Interdiction missions in a territory are also cancelled if enemy air units enter the territory during the enemy’s turn.”
During discussion of Straits Interdiction (Gilbratar, Denmark, English Channel…) we thought air units should be included.
But currently we have already…
Defensive Air Support (DAS)
Declare in enemy’s turn, air units can defend in adjacent territory or sea zones instead.
Air Interdiction
Declare in your turn, air units stay in a territory and remain there until next turn or interrupted by enemy air units.
So I propose changing Air Interdiction to a rapid response movement like DAS. Declare during enemy’s turn.That way it goes along with Strait Interdiction better.
I don’t want a special/extra air interdiction within Strait Interdiction because thats not a good model IMO. Fighters can’t be in two places at the same time.
sure just use DAS in place of straights interdiction. we certainly dont need any special air mission for this. Basically DAS covers any defensive response in combat.
Wait a minute.
DAS at a strait sea zone would start a normal combat.
The hostile naval units gets to shoot back.
Its not the same as Interdiction.
I’m not using the correct terminology.
interdiction and DAS are different of course…
but interdiction is what the rule should be, forget the DAS.
I was using your “strait interdiction” not realizing it was a subset of interdiction.
DAS is a rapid response called during enemies turn.
Air Interdiction is called during your turn.
Strait Interdiction is also a rapid response called during your enemies turn.
This is what I am getting at.
If you want to use Air Interdiction (air units) along with Strait Interdiction (batteries) then you need to change Air Interdiction so its called during enemies turn.
Ok lets make the change then
Ok you see I mean. So we redo the Air Interdiction rule.
Range? In DAS’s case, it was 1 or adjacent.
Can’t be sent to territory with enemy air units? Otherwise you would have combat (or a special air only combat) before actual air interdiction mission and timeline would be sketched.
But over-flying air units would not interrupt air interdiction.
Other details of draft Air Interdiction
*BMRs only
*each BMR gets a rolls against each enemy land unit (powerful?)
*on a 1 destroyed, on a 2 movement (in or out) of territory prevented
bump!
any comments before I have a go at wording the rule?
Other details of draft Air Interdiction
*BMRs only
*each BMR gets a rolls against each enemy land unit (powerful?)
*on a 1 destroyed, on a 2 movement (in or out) of territory prevented
++++ each enemy land unit that moves into or out has to roll. If they stay they do not roll.
the rest is good.
This is modified from AH D-Day
ok got ya
I’ve been thinking about the defender being able to retreat units.
Sure, it’s realistic. However, it affects the game. I can save some of my units in wru. As UK I could save the fighter in egy. As America I could retain half of my Pearl Harbour fleet, and perhaps my fighter from China… it opens up many new possibilities, which is good. However, I hope it doesn’t ruin the balance of the game.
The rule by itself will affect the balance of the game.
There is no doubt in that!
But actual balance is seen overall and verified by playtesting. (I’ve done some, but Imperious Leader done the most so far)
AARHE’s apporach has been to model realism, while mantaining practicality (otherwise combats would be resolved simultaneously…) and not going into tactical level (say different attack values for different units vs. different units).
Part of my philosophy being that if you model things correctly, there will be no strange situations, no game-breaking moves.
This is unlike other house rules such as AARe (Axis and Allies Revised Enhanced) made by Avalon Hills forum community. Their approach was to increase gameplay options. When balance is broken another rule is introduced to counter it.
My philosophy is that the AARe’s approach is a bit ad-hoc and unjustified. This is the main reason I came to this project instead.
If it’s been playtested…
Imperious Leader has made many many variants and house rules for axis and allies.
Defender retreat in particular has been playtested.
There are some rules yet to be playtested.
And things can be very different when used in conjunction.
So we hope to do some good playtesting when we wrap up phase 2.
Can I help? Pweeeaaasseee :-D
Yea playtest the rules! but use them all. if you leave out something the “system” breaks down.The rules act as a team
Btw, me and my bro are going to try and playtest this system soon, as soon as we have determined Phase 2 complete… Possibly with some other guys…
GG
yeah definitely playtest with other guys too
“black box” testing
