Defender Retreat Option

@SS:

Nice ideas for all suggestions posted but way to many things involved here for most people. It’s your game so no knock against it. You want to get away from KISS that’s fine too. I would not use somethings and make it all more simplified. Why not just try the reduced costs and a tech tree for starters?

I had a lot of ideas, and went to write them all down. These posts are the end product of all that. I have tried the combination of the reduced costs and the tech tree myself. But it was playing against myself, solo. So I don’t know how well it would work against a good face-to-face opponent. I liked them, but that’s not saying much.

I do group them into rules I always want to play, and rules I only sometimes want to play. I would list these as follows:

Always
Cruisers; Paratroopers & Cargo Planes; Armored Cav., Troopers, Heavy Art’y; New Unit Surcharge; Revised Strategic Bombing Raid rules; & Unit Price Reduction (I’ve tested the reduction in costs against myself but not the balance of a larger Axis setup). These rules, minus the Strat. Bomb rules, are the core of my original ideas. And these rules amount to 6 new units, a fee that almost never comes up, cheaper units (I have player’s aids with the correct pricing information so that comes easy), and remembering to add a 2 to every die thrown for a result in Strat. Bombing. I don’t think they’re all that much.

I then got some other ideas and wanted to see where they went. Thus, the sometimes or optional rules

Optional
New Research Rules; New Research Tech Tree; New National Advantages; and SF and all of their rules. These rules sound like something I’d really like to try out, but I’d need a good gaming group first. Chickens, eggs, and all that. These rules really re-write some rules for A&A - which can be a good thing if you’ve an established group that is looking to shake things up. I won’t say that tossing a new player into all of these rules would be a good idea. But as they’re options, and listed as such, your group can take what you like and leave the rest behind. As you do.

Once I’m happy with these rules, I would like to eventually write up versions for A&A 1942 and A&A 1940. But first, I want to get them in their best shape for this game before expanding the beachhead.

I hope that clears things up for you, SS.

-Midnight_Reaper

@barney:

wow ! Nice looking map SS

yea Baron I was thinking EP /Belarus junction for the east border, west one would be correct. I don’t think it would change anything though. Just a visual thing. Pretty cool how you did that though : )

Thanks goes to IL. Its his 2005 WW2 map.

I totally agree with you on terrain. Played a huge role obviously, and just can’t be shown on this map. Weather as well at times, but again, only so much you can do.

You make a fair point on limiting rounds of combat because of how far and fast some fronts moved compared to others. Again, not 100% how to quantify that in a game though. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re talking about a similar idea without limiting the number of rounds of combat to three. But what’s stopping the defender from retreating after one round of battle each time then? I guess I feel it still doesn’t fix the problem of fast moving fronts, but I don’t know.

You’re right, naval combat is another thing all together as well. I’ve thought on that one too, and my initial thought process is that combat shouldn’t necessarily happen every turn. If we assume ships can share a territory in the same manner that land units can finish a turn contesting a territory, we could role a die before each naval combat, a role of 1-4 battle commences, but at a 5-6 nothing happens during combat, as the two navies couldn’t locate each other. Having planes out scouting could add one to your dice role though, to better help search for the enemy fleet.

I haven’t come up with any decent idea about air combat either, but again, I agree, it would be nice to have some sort of aerial combat that would dictate local air superiority in each battle.

here it is

http://www.mediafire.com/?dimyejzoykd

ok always on then.

if you want to be able to move through enemy submarines in non-combat move, I am ok with it

yes they can pass thru. no special dispensations.

if you want to be able to retreat into a sea zone occupied by enemy submarines, I am not sure about that (as mentioned)
if so I rather we let defender retreat into ANY adjacent sea zone

They can retreat to ANY sea zone not occupied by enemy surface warships ( so they can enter SZ with subs or transports)

From now on subs and transports don’t do anything unless its their active turn.

Of course you can send ASW units and try and kill them by hunting them down.

also,have some new ideas for subs which are extremely simple, listed under AA50 house rules.

I want to make a new AARHE version for AA50 once we fix these semantic issues and clarifications.

I have a map that’s the best map you have seen. Id say its at least as good as the new map and done in the same style. Its 98% done. adding artistic items. I will release this and alot of files in a few weeks time.

I thought i might just bring up this old post out of of the blue because the funny thing is the units listed in many cases became the various new units over the years.

Cruisers, BB price drop, Mechanized infantry, Artillery, fighter-bomber, etc…

still a small AC Bomber could take out BB