AARHE 1939 map and rule files

That is, these rules are removed/replaced (reasoning for them presented and you’ve not argued against)
*destroyer negating submarine’s opening-fire on 1-to-1 basis
*battleship opening-fire negated by another battleship

+++++++++++++ DD still does this, BB is not negated. that was fixed a few edits ago. BB fires preemptive no matter what

If we have misunderstanding, we’ll look at the naval combat sequence again.

If not, you should realise that due to undetected submarine firing in opening-fire…victims of undetected submarines do not get to fire back. So the currently 33% vs. 11% is deadly.

++++++++++that’s true when its only one ship but 2 or more increases detection be the sheer numbers of rolls going on. 3 rolls will find a sub most likely. a sub works best if hunting…

wait… new idea:  if the sub continues attack after the first round and its not detected, then if he elects to attack a second time then ASW units have automatic detection. That fixes it IMO

Quote
============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1.  These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.
Then super submarine tech shall be changed to gives -1 modifier to ASW search and ASW attack.
That’ll give the ASW search and attack at 1. (if we remain at ASW search @ 2, ASW attack @ 2)

++++++++++ yes thats fine. lets do that! great.

any more issues with the map? or is my work on that finished?

When you created 1 IPC Siam (from FIC) you dropped Kirin from 2 IPC to 1 IPC.
Then I said Kirin is probably the industrised one.
Then you raised Kirin back to 2 IPC but you haven’t reduced FIC to 1 IPC.

++++ i need to fix this and 2 more french, possibly the 2 ipc in africa or split with FIC and afrika.

France is at 11 IPC right now but the chart says 13.

+++++++++++ Frogs needs to stay at 13 for balance reasons ( already calculated based on historical numbers and its accurate)
as i said ill add the 2 ipc to FIC and or africa or possibly france itself.

The 1939 scenario map is more divided and I wonder how thats go with the 4X IPC factory limit.

Maybe the income revision from OOB is only half done. (I guess it was also done at a very early stage of the map.)
I could see…

++++++ Try to find the loophole and post.

Could consider reducing:
Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Borneo

+++++++++++ these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this. One of the kay ideas was to not alter this balance so essentially it all works together.

Could consider increasing:
Australia, Canada

++++++++ then UK is too strong

I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.

++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?

Need Sahara rules.
+++++ why ? they are allready covered under desert up keep rules.

I thought it was weird for destroyer to negate submarine opening-fire on basis 1-to-1 100% of the time.
Thats I proposed the detected/undetected opening-fire/main-round model in the first place.
The two systems together would need additional wording.

What are you modelling with the 1-to-1 rule anyway?
If its fleet protection thats what screening is.

++++++++++++++the negation is only providing the subs are detected. If no detection occurs the subs all fire pre-emtively on the first round. Their is automatic detection if they stay a second round. If they are detected on the first round, then again the ASW ships only negate the preemptive sub shots at a 1 to 1 basis. extra subs still fire preemptively. Screening is different. Cruisers and Destroyers can always screen for ships they escort and this screening is against planes, subs and other ships for the purpose of combat loses. Thats the rule.Secondly, its best to keep it simple and these rules are easy.

We need to picture what units are doing in opening-fire and main-round fire. Make sure units don’t end up being in two places at the same time in the virtual world / gameplay.

+++++ yes i guess the player aid can help in that regard.

Other concerns…

Regarding sheer number of rolls, it seems you want ASW search rolls to be NOT targeted in “combat-move”. (It is targeted in “conduct combat”.) Is that what you want?

++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed… that why i feel the 2 is best rather than 3. ASW search rolls are only performed before the sub first fires and this determines whether they are preemptive.

Regarding auto detected in 2nd cycle of combat. AARe also use such a rule.
While that is good for hunting, does it go well with fleet submarines? Thought I have bad knowledge.

++++ all submarine combat is handled separately while linked with naval combat. You however, perform all ASW search rolls prior to combat to determine preemtive or not… then assign hits from subs followed by surface ships.

Targeted attacks by planes and submarines are time consuming. Though it is realistic as planes and submarines can bypass your formations. But it can also be unrealistic in that hits can be wasted. I wonder if planes and submarines should go back to unselective fire or what can we do.

++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’

planes are separated by CAP and planes going over to attack ships. The ships roll out against the planes. Try it out i don’t think its too complicated. If you just mash all the units together the combat becomes totally unrepresentative of warfare.

The guy who owns the sky will kill lots of ships, proving air power is supreme. Ships w/o carriers are sitting ducks.

also subs need to have some flavor but separate from naval battles.

if you got a easier way to handle it let us know. Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.

Also, another thing… Battleships should be hit completely before you take off an other BB hit? So if you got 3 battleships, you don’t just take off three separate hits and repair the ships. instead you lost 1 BB and a second is damaged and the third is ok. what do you think of this? Its kinda a fix for cheating on BB hits. The same would go for Carriers.

Quote
++++++++++++++++ ASW detection/search rolls are made against all subs as a group. One detection means detection for all subs… they are all screwed.

Oh…had no idea thats what you meant.

I feel “detected” should not represent just a warning to your fleet that there are “some” enemy  submarines “somewhere”. (hence I don’t think its should be 100% detected or 100% undetected)
Rather it should represent detected and tracked hence the submarine loses its sneak attack.

+++++++++++ thats all it DOES represent. It only allows the known condition that “we have enemy subs and we are preparing to sink them with ASW capable ships”

This reduces the surprise effect of the ‘first strike’ as naval surface units change formation to zig zag movement etc…

Now they can attack again rolling out a 2 for a hit.

What else is it supposed to be??

How about one successful ASW search roll means one detected submarine.
Then no need to separately say 1-to-1.

++++++++++ HMMM… this was studied before, and the conclusion is that all the ships react under sub attack conditions, which would burden the rules with now separating the subs into different groups which is clearly something you don’t wish to see. It adds a further layer of complexity because now you have to fight with subs sperately into groups of identified/detected and undetected.

I suppose as a way to compensate under such a system if it had to exist would be to raise the detection to 3-4 or any group of subs larger than 2 is gonna crush ships because remember we have ‘wolfpack’ rules of 3 or more subs attacking at 3. It would prove devastating  and not historical.

rolling a 2 per ship would present detection after 3 rolls on average, and you do understand that both ships and subs tend to flock together so its safe to assume detection would mean ‘the entire enemy sub fleet’

Quote
++++++++++ its basically the sub owner says " i hit your Battleship" the defending player says ‘i allocate this destroyer to take the hit’

The wording of the screening rule does not allow you to decide after knowing the number of hits.
You don’t get to know that its one hit so you allocate it on BB to save the DD.

if 1 DD screens 1 BB

1 sub/air hit -> DD dies
2 sub/air hits -> DD dies, BB damaged

+++++ correct you decide the screening before the roll out. The screening is for potential hit allocations once sub targets have been allocated and if the sub hits beyond the screening units allocated, then the target ship is hit. Additional screening units cannot absorb these hits.

This should be clear… perhaps we need more examples of play or you can provide an example of a players turn?

Quote
Perhaps we can get rid of "targeted attacks and screening and allow the owner to decide, but he will take subs instead of air hits, or air units instead of battleships.

Well our very basic hit allocate restrictions remains.

Subs hits + gun battle hits —> can only go on non-sub naval units
Anti-air hits —> can only go on attacking planes

I can’t see a way to simplify air units yet.
But I think we can simplify to unselective fire for detected submarines. That should be realistic if along my above thoughts of detected and tracked.

+++++++++++ perhaps we just have screening units which work under sub and plane attacks ( in the same manner) and just lump the planes performing torpedo runs together with the surface naval attack rolls, except the defending ships roll out their AA rolls prior to planes targeted hits, followed by enemy surface actions by both parties.

Important question: Historically did fleet submarines work together with friendly gunships? I have no idea and I was guessing no due to danger of torpedo friendly fire. This is why in the pre-colour system I had submarines fire preemptively.

++++++++++ subs were used in advance of the surface fleet as a screening force. subs didn’t attack ships during full surface combat, because they would need to identify which ships were enemy and friendly, and this required bringing up the parascope for long periods which concluded that subs detection. Secondly, the ships were moving at full battle speed and subs cant really hit ships moving at full speed. Subs abilities relied on surprise while enemy was sailing at slower speeds. Surface combat forces many sharp turns and performance at top efficiency, and subs cant compete with this.

Subs are basically like scavengers that pick off wounded ships already slowed down by combat. Thats why these interactions are handled separately.

The whole idea of wolfpack is an accurate term… you have a flock of sheep moving slowly in calm waters and a group of wolfs hunting down the outside ships that may get separated when the convoy is just reacting. The subs pounce on these hopeless ships and the destroyer is activated to then take away the engagement opportunities of subs and conduct ASW.

Quote
+++++++++++ thats all it DOES represent. It only allows the known condition that “we have enemy subs and we are preparing to sink them with ASW capable ships”

This reduces the surprise effect of the ‘first strike’ as naval surface units change formation to zig zag movement etc…

Detection as simply a warning to friendly fleet?
Intel would have told us enemy has submarines. (And there is no fog of war in Axis and Allies.)
In this argument I wonder why the fleet doesn’t use zig zag movement to start with?

====== all warships have limited patrolling range. the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent. Also, transports do not sail at 30 knots and they can barely keep up and move around like a destroyer. Thats where you get " the convoy can only move at the speed at the slowest ship"

And that is why subs hunt from both sides of the convoy at roughly 45 degree angles, to catch a few of these slow ships and isolate them and sunk them before the escorts ( ASW) ships can get to the other side and engage.

Their is not ‘intel’ for submarines if they run silent in stealth mode. Of course once they engage engines a sound will be heard and only limited details will be available to act upon. By then it will be too late…

Quote
++++++++++ HMMM… this was studied before, and the conclusion is that all the ships react under sub attack conditions, which would burden the rules with now separating the subs into different groups which is clearly something you don’t wish to see. It adds a further layer of complexity because now you have to fight with subs sperately into groups of identified/detected and undetected.

Another misunderstanding is found. So you want ASW attack rolls to be against undetected subs too? Like all subs are detected after firing?

============== it works simply: you roll 2 or less for detection and each DD and CA gets one roll. If ANY ship in this group gets the 2, then ALL the ships then get a second roll hitting each sub at 2. thats it. On the second round if the subs decide to attack a second round, then detection rolls are automatic and All ASW ships just roll out the 2 or less to hit each sub. they are not rolling out their normal combat values at any point against subs. NON ASW ships BB, CV etc… dont get to roll at all.

Quote
+++++ correct you decide the screening before the roll out. The screening is for potential hit allocations once sub targets have been allocated and if the sub hits beyond the screening units allocated, then the target ship is hit. Additional screening units cannot absorb these hits.

This should be clear… perhaps we need more examples of play or you can provide an example of a players turn?
But I also like to be short and concise. I’ll make sure I say that air/sub hits WILL be allocated on screening units first.
Not sure what you mean by “additional screening units cannot absorb these hits”. The wording is that screening units always take hits against the target before the target.

=================“additional screening units cannot absorb these hits”….

example:

2 subs attack 1 enemy battleship and 1 destroyer. The defender declared DAS for second round ( 2 naval fighters)

one sub is matched against each ship.

The destroyer cannot screen the battleship because it too is subject to attack

The ASW Destroyer rolls out a 2 for detection ( success)

This means both subs shots are preemptive, but limited by ASW at 1/1 basis.

except detection from a destroyer cancels out one preemptive shot because it does so at 1 to 1 basis ( only one destroyer)

The non-preemptive sub rolls and misses

The preemptive sub hits the BB ( damaged)

now the destroyer CANNOT allocated the BB hit on itself because its not performing screening duty

The BB cannot attack the subs ( its not ASW unit)

The DD rolls out and gets a 3 ( miss…2 or less for as hit)

Second round:

Both subs are automatically detected

also 2 defending naval fighters arrive from island in sea zone

one sub goes on damaged bb, other on dd

fighters are split (one for each)

The sub rolls out against DD and misses…

The second sub rolls a hit on damaged BB…

The defender must allocate hit on BB:

1. because planes cant be hit by subs
2. DD cant allocate hit because it too was under attack and cant perform screening duties if its under attack

BB is sunk…

DD rolls out hit, both planes roll and get 2 more hits… both subs gone

planes return to base

DD remains in SZ.

end combat…

Quote
++++++++++ subs were used in advance of the surface fleet as a screening force. subs didn’t attack ships during full surface combat, because they would need to identify which ships were enemy and friendly, and this required bringing up the parascope for long periods which concluded that subs detection. Secondly, the ships were moving at full battle speed and subs cant really hit ships moving at full speed. Subs abilities relied on surprise while enemy was sailing at slower speeds. Surface combat forces many sharp turns and performance at top efficiency, and subs cant compete with this.
So my thoughts were correct. Subs don’t fight in main gunship battle.
In that case, submarines should ALWAYS fire in opening-fire.
Whether its targeted depends on whether the sub is detected. (with ASW search mechanism still under discussion.)

=============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed?  This looks good.
how will it look?

Quote from: Imperious Leader on November 15, 2007, 11:18:36 am
I guess the Murmansk convoys and all the trouble the Soviets had actually getting lend lease is then largely ignored? This was actually meant for Soviets use only.

Thats from AARe discussion.
What are we doing with our lend-lease? Currently its back to OOB’s IPC teleportation.
Should we use the old system of loading IPC onto transports?

============= no keep the current system… remember 1 ipc lost for each enemy ship in convoy path thing? the other way it too complex…. transports cost too much and too few in number to have allocations for Lend lease… its hard enough for UK to even get enough ships in the water to even play her game.

The system we have in place suits best.

Retreat to combat zone
I realize there are no longer wording regarding retreat to combat zones.
We used to have a system. Units can retreat to combat zones and but are destroyed if territory control is lost. Air units retreat in non-combat move so thats fine.

======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.

DAS
During your enemies’ turn your air units may move to friendly territories or friendly occupied sea zones within two spaces.
DAS is allowed towards friendly territories and friendly occupied sea zones. That means fighters at Germany can help defend Baltic fleet.

Its “friendly” and “occupied” for sea zones so we don’t want complex naval movement interception. Which we don’t want as naval movements are fast and fluid. (Hence we do not allow naval combat reinforcements.)

Funny thing though is that wasn’t air superiority important for a safe cross-channel (English channel) sea ride for amphibious assault?
If so, maybe we should word to avoid them move to unoccupied sea zones so planes can try to kill unguarded transports to stop them from offloading.

Of course, air units besides naval fighter still has to retreat after first cycle.

Air superiority was needed. Thats why we have CA ( counter air missions) so one side can engage only air units killing them and follow up with landing and ground support missions. If the defender still has planes then air superiority combat will take place concurrent with land assault. Planes cannot engage in DAS missions for other territories and sea zones if the territory they are in is under attack

this is what should go in to fix it. Planes from other territories can still fly over to the fleet landing, but thats the risk the attacker is making. The other thing he can do is perform CA missions against those same territories flying DAS to prevent this from occuring.

==========also again what is the decision on the map… france is short 2 ipc… where does the income go to? FIC and?

Yes i am very sorry tekkyy I do forget alot because simply put… alot of information is getting sorted out by only two people and its very tedious. Just keep reminding me. AS you know i work on other games and i have many rewrites to do with them because after playtesting i constantly need to update the rules for my other games and its got similar types of ideas.

I will answer the post you left in the morning.

Quote
the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent.
The zig-zag argument is fine for convoy raids.
But for fleet vs. fleet action you pretty much know about enemy submarines. You don’t have to wait for the destroyers to tell you to sail zig-zag or whatever appropriate.

Thats why I felt “ASW search” shouldn’t represent simply a warning but tracked by sonar.

====== its more than that and sonar was primitive back then. Detection is some known whereabouts and a idea of where to drop charges. A warning is more like " we have reports of U-boats in this area… please be advised…"

Quote
=============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed?  This looks good.
how will it look?
So we both agree that fleet submarines screen the friendly fleet and does not fight at the same time as gunship battle.

What happens to those victims? Do they stay afloat long enough to fight the gunship battle?
What happens if its a destroyer that was hit? Can it still chase and hunt the evading submarine with efficiency?

1. correct they do not fight with friendly ships… they are a screening force, but pick off damaged ships from battle. ( scavengers of the sea)
2. All submarine interactions should be performed either before or after surface combat ( the attackers choice) . This way these interactions are separate and deal with the “scavenger mentality” In this way we keep it separate and easy to play. So to answer the question. All results either way are resolved so their is no carryover of hits or loses.
3. again under #2 all interactions are separate. results of hits and loses do not carryover to other combat actions or results. ( A sunk ship is sunk, it cannot perform anything latter)

Quote
======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.
Do realise that means you can prevent defender retreat most of the time?
You can send one infantry on a suicide attack to possible retreat territory. Or you can attack the territory for one cycle with an air unit.

You find the old rule was too complex or have you forgotten we had a rule?

+++++++++= yes but these cases are few exceptions. Many of the territories are not surrounded but linked to the interior and cannot be attacked simultaneously. Also, you cannot attack land units with only air units. that was changed long ago. You need equal amounts 1 to 1 basis. If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:

If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.

Example: you block a retreat by sending 2 infantry to attack X, while your main attack is against forces at y. Defending forces in excess of your 2 infantry are not blocked and arrive to defend against your attacking 2 infantry.

ASW search
Doesn’t matter if its my “tracked by sonar” or your “some known whereabouts”. Similar idea. This part I think you should roll.

Your “we have reports of U-boats in this area” I am saying is not needed. Because you ought to know enemy fleet has submarines. This part I think you shouldn’t have to roll. And you shouldn’t have to wait til 2nd combat cycle to know we have U-boats.

++++++++= but thats just it Subs didn’t travel with the fleet. They only go 6-12 knots and fleets move at 20-24 knots or faster. When in battle they move at faster speeds (perhaps 28-35 knots depending on ship) subs are not any part of “fleets” these are sent in ADVANCE of the main fleet when time permits and as part of some overall plan ( say at midway). In nearly every case you dont see any subs being used with naval combat because its like taking cripples into a track event.

Subs only really interact against slow moving convoys that happen to move into or thru an area under sub patrol. The detection roll is ONLY the definite engagement of ASW against subs and NOT some “keep your eyes open mr. brimley for enemy subs” type of event

Hence I think “ASW search” roll should be the “some known whereabouts” and not “we have reports of U-boats in this area”. As such we would have each successful roll detect 1 enemy submarine.

+++++++++++++ OK if we allow one successful detection roll= only one sub located… then it becomes too many seperate battles.

1. you have subs not detected
2. subs detected
3. enemy ships
4. enemy planes and CAP
5. preemptive BB rolls

thats too many categories do deal with a few ships. Its a burden to the system to introduce yet another seperation.

Please make an example of play using all these new ideas… then we can have a clearer picture of how it actually effects play ( more fun or less fun)

Then the undetected submarines would fire selectively. Detected submarine fire unselectively. Both ASW search and attack rolls are unselective.

This makes sence but it will make thing too complex. lets see examples of play.

This was our discussion about counter-air mission.

T: Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
I: actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
T: Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
Air units might dogfight first.
So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
I: Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.

I didn’t realize you want to remove air-only attack in normal combat.
Hence I said “So you can already do everything in combat” against having specific counter-air mission rule.

I don’t like disallowing air-only attack. I thought one cycle combat before having to retreat due to no land units is a good model.
In the same sense we allow air-only defense to fight one cycle before having to retreat due to no land units.

======== their is a difference between counter air and ground support missions. IN counter air planes attack only planes w/o any land units being used in an effort to sap the enemy air strength ( battle of Britain stuff)

Ground support missions is the classic air units bringing to bear against enemy tanks… at time the enemy will put up air defense and aerial combat will occur for control of the sky , while a land battle rages below. These eventually are more than linked, they are mixed once one side has control of the sky and no opposition.

Quote
If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.
This isn’t consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory.

Which was the idea behind the rule that attacking land units must retreat the way they came from. (ie. You can’t do the OOB example of attacking China from Sinkiang + Manchuria and all retreat to Manchuria.)

Oh course I understand its not entirely realistic in letting them retreat to combat zone and then if land control is lost at the end of conduct combat then they are destroyed. But it was the best thing us two and others like theduke came up with at that point.

Other options examined include playing out all combats cycle by cycle. That was rejected as too complicated.

OK then so which idea do you want? Im lost here.

Map
Don’t worry about look back at the post. I’ll save you time and just repost here.

France 2 IPC where
All territories in the region are 1 IPC except Kirin. Don’t have FIC at 2 IPC unless its realistic. How about 1 IPC to Dakar and 1 IPC to France.

ok got it.

Australia
Quote
Try to find the loophole and post.
IPC spent at IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory income value. Australia is broken up into 3 x 1 IPC territories. It can’t produce anything besides artillery. Possible fix give all IPC to New South Wales.

yes good point!!! good job. You know the way that reads really needs an example. i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

im not sure what the solution should be…

Germany
I know Germany is not split. But all 18 IPC is in Eastern Germany at the moment. Should Western Germany get some?

====== that line and the one in poland is for special reasons. This allows forces of different sides to occupy ( enemy and friendly) but the side in the main territory holds the IPC. This is to allow the co- habitation of Poland of German and soviets and the POLITICAL control of Germany by allied forces for historical victory conditions ( need to fix this)

East Indices, Borneo
Now that we have oil fields I sugguested East Indices and Borneo can be set to a realistic value like 2 IPC.
Quote
these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.
Then what did happen historically?
Maybe we need a war mobilisation or efficiency rule and formalise it on the map. Which US territory is getting the +10 IPC per turn? We had a war industrial NA for Germany. And maybe we have one for Japan too and Japan would get the 1942 production levels.

======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.

British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland
Quote
I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
What I mean is are those two territories significant? We don’t represent Hong Kong separately. These two territories are bigger of course but are they significant? It makes Italian East Africa harder to hold then neccessary.

========== the British territory is a location to land planes. If i leave it out the map looks weird.

Sahara
Its not an actually territory so I don’t know what you mean by existing desert upkeep rules.
Do you mean 1 IPC per unit to cross Sahara?
If you didn’t pay upkeep the balance carries forward. But what happens to those units?

========== they remain. sometimes they are moving out of this zone. the money must still be paid.

You can throw out this rule if you like. heres some other ideas:

each unit rolls a die a 6 results in loss

or

unit enters sahara to move again it rolls a die only once per turn ( it must roll its hit point or less to move)

example: infantry must roll 2 or less to move, tanks 3 or less to move only one space.

Ok after more reflection after lunch….

Heres some new ideas:

Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo

I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.

I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

Heres a naval combat example of all our rules at work:

Japan and USA each have the following fleet:

1 Battleship
1 Carrier w/ 2 planes
1 cruiser
2 destroyers
3 submarines

Its Japans turn and she attacks defending Americans in the Hawaii sea zone. The Americans also have a fighter in Hawaii land territory. Neither side has ASW
technologies of any type.

Round 1:
3 USA ASW rolls for detection ( 2 DD, 1 CA) – results is 2,4,3 ( one detection succeeds)

The American player lays his surface ships on the naval battle board…

The 2 undetected Japanese subs are allocated against the Carrier and Cruiser, These ships cannot be protected by screening duty by ASW units because they are undetected. The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).

Both undetected subs hit at three because we have 3 subs ( wolf pack rules) ( Results: carrier gets a hit, cruiser is gone and cant fire back due to preemptive nature of  undetected sub)

The detected sub rolls out and misses. the remaining ASW units ( 2 Destroyers roll 2 or less to hit) they score one hit and that sub is gone.

That concludes sub interactions this round…

Main naval combat:

Japan has remaining:

1 Battleship
1 Carrier w/ 2 planes
1 cruiser
2 destroyers
2 submarines

Americans have remaining:
1 Battleship
1 Carrier ( has one hit)  w/ 2 planes
2 destroyers
3 submarines

plus fighter in Hawaii ( Note: the fighter has been dispatched under DAS mission and will arrive in second round)

Japans preemptive Battleship fires and scores a hit ( American BB is taken as hit)
American preemptive battleship fires and hits ( japan BB takes hit)

Japan allocates both fighters to attack enemy ships ( going against US BB and CV)
American player keeps one fighter as CAP and other to attack enemy ships

USA rolls out AA defense:
for carrier it gets one roll
Battleship gets 2 rolls
two destroyers get 1 roll each… for a total of 4 rolls ( 2,4,3,6) all misses–it needs a one to score a hit

The Japanese fighters are matched against the American plane used as CAP The Japanese player scores 2 hits and the American fighter also scores a hit… each side loses a fighter and the extra Japanese fighters hit does not carryover to naval hits because the sky was not clear at the start of naval combat.

The American fighter that was sent over meets no opposition from enemy CAP and targets Japanese Cruiser 
Japanese ships roll out AA defense: two BB, one CV, three CA, and two DD rolls all hitting at one… the plane is missed out of 8 rolls…
The American plane kills the  jap cruiser

Japans remaining carrier, and 2 destroyers score roll out and score 2 more hits ( America loses 2 subs)
American remaining fire with 1 Carrier ( w/ one hit)  and  2 destroyers getting 1 hit… Japan loses a destroyer…

Round two:

Japan has:

1 BB w/ hit, 1 CV w/hit, 1 DD, and 2 subs, plus 1 fighter

American player now has the new fighter from DAS ( Hawaii) plus the fleet consisting of:

1 Carrier w / one hit , 1 BB w/ one hit, 1 fighter from the carrier, 2 destroyers, and 1 sub

The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically… as per current rules… they roll out and score one hit ( note they have 2 rather than 3 and now attack at 2 or less)  the sub hit is targeted against the Battleship… but since screening is allowed the destroyer takes the hit and is removed from play ( note: subs are preemptive every round)

The Japanese decide to stay and play some CAP and the American player has 2 fighters and they also stay as CAP ( note: in every case CAP or attacking enemy ships are decided in secret by each player… place planes up or down to designate duty)

thus no planes are rolling out this turn…

Main fleet attacks: Japan rolls out for BB and hits…The American BB rolls out and also hits… each player takes off a sub? ( this doesn’t sound right but its the current rules)

Japans carrier rolls, its destroyer also rolls out… gets one hit …America takes off DD
USA rolls out with DD as its last shot, plus Carrier… gets… no hits

third round:

Japan has:
BB, CV, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 SS ( BB CV damaged)

America has: 1 BB 1 CV 2 fighters ( BB CV damaged)

Japans sub rolls out and goes against BB and hits… the BB cannot fire back because it cant do ASW
In fact America has no remaining ASW ships…no defense…

Air allocations: Japan keeps its plane as CAP, America send both to attack ships…

Air battle: results in Japan fighter gone and no hits on USA fighters

Main naval battle: Japanese battleship fires and hits… US carrier gone…and cant fire back ( preemptive)

American player has no ships left to fire back… combat is over… the remaining fighters land in Hawaii… note this included one plane from carrier. If this was in an empty sea zone the planes would be destroyed w/o any further combat…

Japan wins with 1bb,1cv,1dd,1ss and 1 fighter

air-only attack (normal combat)
Air-only attack was not removed “long ago”. Its a post-colour change. We allowed it in pre-colour.
Air-only attack is similar to air-only defense.
Usually one-cycle only, you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.
Better than completely remove air-only attack right?

Air only attack?… if you mean Counter Air thats what its called. This is a must. Its one round of air combat of only planes. no, land. Obviously no DAS ( which is round 2 or latter)

Note that during SBR this would also occur with defending planes in targeted territory. Of course ID rolls are made in both cases…

1. Your 1-to-1 retreat blocking rule. (Not consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory. Which is why we don’t allow OOB example attack of China from Manchuria+Sinkiang to all retreat back to Manchuria.)

2. Allow retreat to combat zone, units destroyed if combat is lost at the combat zone. (Only unrealistic in that units can be destroyed outside of combat action.)

3. Play out combats cycle by cycle to see where defender you can retreat. (Complicated.)

option 3 is out of the question. Option 2 is no good because a defender could be retreating alot of units intending to temporally vacate a territory and counter attack on his own turn. A territory retreated too may be of a battle involving 1 against 1 unit and now all retreating units are lost if that smaller battle is lost? i don’t think so.

Lets try option 4:

Units retreating to territory’s under attack themselves participate as reinforcements under the reinforcement rule. They are considering arriving on the second round.

4X IPC
Quote
i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

Rule is important. OOB build limit is by no. of units.
Not realistic. 1 IPC territories can deploy battleship. 2 IPC territories can deploy 2 battleships!
This is why we had the 4X rule in the first place. Its for IC only because VC already has its only build limit.

++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built. The Total number of units is a factory territory are still limited by the IPC value. The 4 times rule limits the types of units being built. A 2 IPC territory can only build * IPC or less costing units ( no carriers, no bombers, etc)  A  1 IPC territory with a factory can build INf, Art, and Mechanized only.

So to be able to build tanks at your new factory your territory must have a 2 IPC value or more.

To build a battleship your territory must have a value of 5 or more and a factory.

Example: UK can build any unit in the game ( value is 6x4=24) and it can place up to 6 non-infantry AND 6 infantry, but the cost of the 6 infantry is limited to its variable infantry cost index. ( some of these 6 will be 2, 3 and 4 IPC)

Its only weird now because in 1939 map Australia is more divided. I think its fair to just give most of the IPC to New South Wales. I think thats where the war industries were right?

Since you gave +1 IPC to Australia. Its now 4 IPC. It could be New South Wales 3, Queensland 1.

====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…

Proper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo
Quote

++= sorry what you mean here?

======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.
The US mobilisation +10 IPC per turn hasn’t been formalised. Now we do it all together. This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.

Each game round is 6 months. 1-2 1939. 3-4 1940. 5-6 1941. 7-8 1942. 9-10 1943. 11-12 1944. 13-14 1945. 15-16 1946.

+++++++ US Mobilization? you talking about wartime economy growth index? Remember USA starts at limited income and can only lend lease till specific turn. When she is activated then you start increasing gradually her income ( which is realistic) … So start that turn by turn beginning on her turn of activation…

1939 map rules, War industry
The following territories income increases per turn for the following values.

start          end                value
Eastern US        activation    activation+4    8 IPC 
Germany          turn 9        turn 13            4 IPC
Japan              turn 1        turn 4              1 IPC

where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based. Also, the only reason why USA goes up is because Germany has been calculated to go up relative to soviets. If Germany goes up then its out of balance again. Only that NA should address the possibility of German wartime economy. The only time the Germans got their economy into war mobilization was by the fall of 1944, so perhaps they get the turn 13 increase but thats it unless they draw the lucky NA ( Speer economy option)

Map
Quote
Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo
I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.
Just need you to confirm FIC is industrialised enough to be the 2 IPC territory in the region full of 1 IPC territories.

======= yes ill look at harrison… a few numbers wont change much however, unlike the war time mobilization idea…

Submarine fire
Quote
I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

My idea was detected is targeted. Undetected is not targetted.
Your idea is no screening for undetected.

We could really simplify it (for more gameplay fun).
No more screening.

++++++++++ why is it "we found your sub and know where it is… so you have the leeway of attacking who you want at your leasure?

The idea makes no sence to me. it should be the opposite. If your sub is not found then  no ship can be able to protect it because they don’t know where you are and cannot make arrangements to stop you from picking off who you want.

Undetected submarine hits are targeted. Detected submarines hits allocated by victim.
Air hits are allocated by victim. (not too bad since you can’t allocate on submarines and transports are last)

OK now your saying it correctly… I agree with this.

Screening
Quote
The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).
Well I don’t think subject to attacks herself would stop sthe cruiser from hanging around the carrier.
But as above, we could get rid of screening completely.

Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"

screening is just another layer of complexity where ways of explaining the same idea are possible.

ASW search
Quote
The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically
We now both agree its not simply a warning but some known whereabouts.
So why auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat?

OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

Example
Better if examples were concise and consistent in style.
Attacker: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 2 SS, ASW tech
Defender: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 1 SS, 1 FTR (DAS), ASW tech
Headings in hold…
1st cycle: pre-combat
Screening
etc…

The point of my example was to see weakness in the structure of play. I immediately see problems with defending submarines… they don’t have any relevant interactions. It seems they are just combat fodder and thats not good. But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?

Land combat anti-air
So we’ve simplified ASW search and ASW attack to non-targetted.
We could also simplify land combat Anti-air search rolls to non-targetted.
Anti-air attack rolls remains targetted otherwise bombers don’t get hit.

i am not clear on this . provide an example…