AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Or maybe noting zombie kills per nation and for every X number of kills tech is achieved.

@Der:

I would add a level of strategy, which I’m all for. Love strategy.

Why not say everyone can transfer up to 25% of their income to an ally during their purchase unit phase?  The 2:1 loss of production would not motivate me to do it, ever. If I’m the UK and have 40 IPC’s, instead of sending them to Russia so they can have 2 Russian fighters, I’m going to still buy 4 UK fighters and fly them over there. But say I could just transfer 25% over there. (10 ipcs) I would do that and Russia would get the fighter faster because they could buy their own and put it out on Russia with the money, instead of waiting for UK to put out fighters, then fly them over next turn.

@toblerone77:

What about just charging a fee plus the unit cost? For example, the U.S. could build a British destroyer plus a fee of say +2/3 IPCs. The question would be where placement would be allowed. You could in the case of G40, that could be on territory adjacent to a convoy zone. In other versions it could be the nearest industrial complex.

Whether you loan IPCs or have an ally build the unit for you the principal is the same.

It may also be reasonable to implement a system where a die roll is made by the enemy to destroy the convoy shipment. Example: The U.S. builds two tanks to send to Russia. Germany then rolls two dice at 1. Germany rolls a one and a two. One tank is destroyed en route.

Either of those might work, and still be preferable to me, over a scheme that only encourages multination stacks on defense.

I’m open to finding new ways to get a real Loan phase going

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

hmmm… attack zero.

Makes them useless, for 1 IPC more you get 2 points. I would never buy these at all.

should be 1-2-1-2 (a,d,m,c)

OK here you go:

USA:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yc45jzgdk22

Russia:
http://www.mediafire.com/?m9wekdzzzj2

Japan:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yosk8d6aiui

UK:
http://www.mediafire.com/?w9tnjgl1vqs

Italy:
http://www.mediafire.com/?m7k0sjdiphr

Germany:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lz52uo2mddc

@Imperious:

subs only fire preemtive when a ship other than a DD or CA ( and sub) is not present as they have no ASW capability. this has not changed. In this case if you have a CA or DD then they fire back.

Thats not my interpertation of the OOB.
I think SS always fire in opening-fire. Presence of DD only allows your casualties to stay and be removed later rather than in opening-fire.

Secondly, I was talking about realism not how it works in the proposed rule. Surely the defending destroyers have more to worry about than the attacking destroyers and can’t fight as well.
+++ what would be better?

My quick solution, pulled out of thin air, is a -1 modifer for DDs wishing to perform ASW rolls. Screening, a relative passive job, however does not cause -1 modifier.
FTR and BMB could also say get -1 modifier for wishing to perform ASW rolls.

Its already generous when you think about it.

If not then when 1 DD + 1 SS attacks 1 DD….the defending DD would basically get to shoot twice while the attacking ships shoot once each. A bit strange.

1 DD provides early warning against submarine attack for whole fleet so casualties are not removed in opening-fire.
Is that realistic?

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, those air units fire preemptively.
          Land Combat                   Naval Combat
FTR    opening-fire, selective?    opening-fire, selective?
BMR   opening-fire?                   opening-fire?

What about hit allocations?

ok

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”