AARHE 1939 map and rule files

ok hers the latest file

i added those items you wrote…

I now leave the editing up to you to complete.

Lets finish that list and anything of major changes we will go over here.

when you upload a new file and includes anything more than grammar changes… then publish the change in a colored text.

here you go:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1vv9nxr0klb

http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=xyljlmagtmj

ASW
Currently
Destroyer: 2 or less to search, 2 or less to hit (11%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)

Did you intend submarines to be this powerful?
Remember UK on average gets ASW tech on turn 6. (1free+1buy tech roll, 1of3 boxes in 1942)

++++++++= yes at start its two. Remember EACH ASW unit gets the roll. After the first round they can retreat anyway.

Propose
Destroyer: 3 or less to search, 3 or less to hit (25%)
Submarine: 2 or less to hit (33%)

too strong because it become a 4 after asw tech and thats too high

Submarine advantage remains. Slight edge, opening-fire bonus, and slightly cheaper.

Super submarine tech
Currently, submarine tech negate ASW tech search/attack bonus.
But should it make it harder to detect whether or not enemy has ASW tech?

And I see super submarines is stealthier, and has bigger fire power. But should they actually have better armour?

============ super subs cannot be attacked by ASW… perhaps only a 1.  These ships traveled faster than the destroyers. thats their defence from ASW.

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?