@Imperious:
… If each tank was placed into some kind of gladiator combat thing. The germans would come out on top 100 out of 100 events. The t-34 shots would never really harm a German tiger 1-2 . if a Sherman vs t-34 duel was possible id say the T-34 would win, but it would be close.
Yep, Impy I agree with you here! German machines are and still (BMW, Porsche aso) are the best when it comes to performance! However the seamy side of the outstanding performance is the high cost of production! So theduke is also right! If a T-34 tank should be used in A&A:R I would say it should be a price advantage due to massproductionn A&A:E it is better off to raise defense to 3, due to the IPM effect that is a evident shortcoming for Russia in all A&A games! By the way, another important thing for tanks was radio communication. Russian tanks lacked radiocommunication (mostly), hence were not as effective as their combat capabillity allowed them to be!
Massproduction bonus for T 34:
Your tanks basic price is reduced to 4 IPCs for every unit purchased after the first two tank units.
Ok great but we still beed all the goodies for the other “cheaper unit” NA’s. good start!
What I mean is the contrast. The “Enahanced” varient was not about historic accuracy but a goal of gameplay balance.
Just a useless piece of information. Its not important.
I thought Enhanced Realism Rules were designed for a more historic accuracy! How ever I would like to know if you find the opening fire variant in “Enhanced” balanced? As far as I know it was for Heavy Artillery - a technology?
He was refering to that horrible varient they play at avalonhill.com its all about balance with those guys… they have no clue about History or reality. They dont even bother to read a book on anything. AARE is only a balance issue not any historical based rules. For example they allow sub to sub combat! and trannys are fodder in all naval battles… that is no problem for these guys… they dont feel it needs to be changed. BTW they dont even have a map done… its just a page of rules nothing more… no nifty player aids? nothing!
@B.:
Massproduction bonus for T 34:
Your tanks basic price is reduced to 4 IPCs for every unit purchased after the first two tank units.
To catch up:
Yeah but we got worried about Russia’s small 25 IPC income and we last put it as 2 tanks for 8 IPCs. We were worried about Russia having to spend most of its income on tanks to take advantage of the rule. Russia raised lots of infantry too historically so we made it just a pair-discount-deal for tanks.
@Imperious:
They dont even bother to read a book on anything. AARE is only a balance issue not any historical based rules.
And they won’t listen when we sugguested their varient had too much of a fantasy factor as side effect of their ad-hoc development. Pulling things out of their ***.
Anyway, enough bad mouthing for now.
I think the opening fire variant for artillery will work out historically for Katyusha Rockets instead of an increased attack on a 3, for the first cycle of combat! Any comment???
5. Katyusha Rockets
The Soviets were able to supplement the artillery with massed batteries of rocket launchers. The sheer volume of fire more than compensated for individual lack of accuracy.
Your artillery have a first-strike ability at an attack factor of 2. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. This first-strike ability is for the first cycle of combat only. The artillery unit fire as a regular artillery after the first cycle of combat.
The katyuskas are great… now we need all the NA’s and some for italy… just slowly work on the entire list post it and together we will have a look/ possible changes.
Yep Katyuskas is already in the pre-draft baseline list thingo.
Yep Katyuskas is already in the pre-draft baseline list thingo.
Were can I read about this pre-draft basline list thingo???
Oh by that I meant what Imperious Leader posted at page 1.
B. Andersson, Game Master just come up with the entire list of NA with some for Italy as well. Your the master of the NA’s if their ever was one!
remember about 10 each and a point system based on value… use your skills on game theory and get it done.
Oooh game theory.
Are we talking about the technical/theoretical term or the everyday term?
Its his self described method of assigning value and balance to game design.
Oooh game theory.
Are we talking about the technical/theoretical term or the everyday term?
The academic term!
Ooooh. Thats neat.
But don’t forget our theme :wink:
Impy I know you wrote this somewhere else:
"Japan (Lance Torpedo) = FTR gets +1 attack modifier in naval combat, DD fire in the opening-fire instead of main-round for first cycle of naval combat. "
So far we have used this NA for submarines only. Perhaps it would be a better play to go for a modifier for destroyers, attack during opening fire step of combat during the first cycle of combat only! Subs were armed with a smaller versions of the Type 93 torpedo that had a shorter range (5,000 to 12,000 meters), called Type 95 and 97. I dont think the Long Lance were airborn so a +1 modifier for fighters isn’t right in a historical point of view.
The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo (Long Lance). The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall. In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. This weapon, coupled with the flexible night battle tactics practiced by Japan’s cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared.
Long Lance Torpedoes (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
The Japanese Navy possessed superior torpedoes in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power.
During the first cycle of combat only (both attack and defense qualify) your destroyers fire in the opening fire step of combat. Any cassualties destroyed are removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. In succeeding cycles of combat, your destroyers fire in the attacking units fire or defending units fire step of combat. This special ability is cancelled if enemy fighters are present.
I like it.
Also according, this site http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm It’s really correct for Destroyers instead of planes. Plane Torpedo’s were much smaller and had a max. range of only 2000m…
Yes right, but you have to have some benifit for the better torpedo bomber pilots that represented the cream of the IJN torpedo bombing pilots… they developed the specialized shallow water toprpedo that didnt hit the bottom of the harbor when it was dropped from these planes. This has to be represented in the game as its own NA.
the USA player has to have some “hellcat” fighter NA representing the appearance of these planes in mid 1943 forever shifting the balance against the jap Zero as the pacifics best all around fighter.
Also you might want to also add the japanese skill at night surface actions during the initial period of the war as a third NA.
