New flak rules for AA gun

@SouthsideCH:

It seems every time we play there are certain things we just don’t understand. While we understand the rules sometimes they just do not seem rational.

Does anyone have house rules addressing the following?

Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

If I move a sub or a destroyer-less navy into a convoy sea zone, forcing the enemy to submerge, why can they convoy me?

It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers.

I get that Kamikaze attacks have to choose their target. But if I bring in 3 cruisers, 2 battleships and a carrier and they choose to hit the battleships, shouldn’t the cruisers get to bombard? They can’t take part in the defense against the Kamikaze.

Convoy Disruption seems easy. There are no ill effects to the disruptor. If you can intercept when facilities are being attacked it makes sense a navy in that sea zone should be able to do the same.

I would love to hear some input on these as well as any house rules ideas.

In terms of house rules, are you looking for balance or realism?

I always argue realism before balance so.

1:No, Artillery should not be able to support infantry during sea invasion, that’s why battleships should be used.

2:I argue they should. The sea territory is vase and submarines are loved during WWII because they are a pain to track down, they are basically the naval sniper.

3: I am not sure the exact issue. Fighters and Tacts can be used offensively and scramble protects your navy. I personally think all allied aircraft should scramble regardless of what nations navy is being attack as long as the nations allows it.

4: Kamikaze wings traditionally went after Battleships and Aircraft Carriers first because taking those out would give the IJN fairness as the IJN had a lot of smaller ships. I personally think Kamikaze wings should also be allowed to target transports.

5: So what’s the issue with Convoy Raids then? It makes you force yourself to deal with an enemy navy.

As you can see CWO, Japan is more or less stationed in Saigon and the Philippines protecting there money islands they have control of after 4 turns.
Also they seem to be buying a few more bombers due to there range from airbases in Saigon and the Philippines.

This setup does change the game for Japan and the allies. Right now it is making UK spend more money in the Pacific as far as more ships.
It also has made the US buy more in Europe due to UK has no control in Africa and not spending any money in Europe side. The US right now is doing Operation Torch for support in Africa but may shift to London with troops. With the UK Pacific ship buy support, its seems to give US a little more room to focus some troops else where.

UK is not split up as for as the money goes. They start with 75 icps and can buy anywhere. If this was a split economy ( UK, Canada,  FEC, and Anzac ) it would probably make the US buy all in the Pacific because UK Pacific side would be in a world of hurt with Japan focusing everything down by thee islands.

Just thought you like to see how it was going with the territory value changes and moves.

I personally like to keep with the idea of allowing each nation to have the possibility to access each of the new units, because Even Japan and Italy had some heavier tank designs and prototypes, but they just never had the production to actually put them into full production. With the research system proposed however it does accomplish your goal to an extent. Since each research would be 4 stages to progress through, if a country has no bonus to what stage they start on it can take quite a few turns and money to get some researches especially if one has to roll a 6 or a 5+ with one die to progress one stage. Italy does not have the money to spare, and Japan probably wants to spend more money on ships and taking islands and tank upgrades wont suit them unless they are trying to crush Russia. I could also add another research of mass production which the US, and probably Russia has a bonus in, and it will reduce the cost of all of their units by one IPC.

You can find some good light tank pieces on Historical Board Gaming, they are about 0.65 cents per piece

Thanks for the inputs I think I will go with the advanced mediums, and I am currently taking a look at the board to see how some of these could be included in the starting setup

Not convinced.

Rather Tankograd in URALS should be represented  ( large IC). Possibly as second choice a small IC in Archangel (wherever Murmansk is on the map)

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

Thanks Tekkyy

dakgoalie38:

check out this section of what we came up with on paratroopers and air transport.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7594.30

My only problem with LL type SBR rules are, they are a distinct advantage for the side that already has the lead.  Say a Japan earning 40+ vs. a Russia earning 20 or a US and UK earning a combined 55 vs. Germany earning 30.

Once you have the economic lead the cumulative effects can be devasting even if you are only doing 3 damage while also losing 3 each time.

I’ve thought about keeping the regular AA fire rules, but for the attacker 1’s and 6’s are removed.  So you can still do 2,3,4,5 in damage but once again the extremes are removed.

++++ or you can do this:

roll one D6:
1-2= 2 ipc lost
3-4= 4 ipc lost
5-6= 6 ipc lost

or
1-2=1 ipc lost’
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=4 ipc lost

I’ve also thought about making aa-fire two-fold.
First you roll, then if you get a “1” that means you’ve done damage to the Bomber.
So, a 1/6 shot at doing damage.
Now you roll to see how much damage.
On your second roll if you roll a:

1 or 6:  Bomber is destroyed (about a 5% chance when first roll is taken into account - I think)

2, 3, 4, or 5:  Cash damage to attacker

(alternative)
2,3,4: Cash Damage
5:  Non-lethal hit to bomber, no damage.

In the real war only 10% of sorties were lost on avarage due to flak batteries ( ground based causes)

under our system rolls one d6  if you get a one roll again

if you roll one a second time its destroyed, 2-3 it must return to base no mission. this is dont before any defender can even engage the SBR planes and/ escorts.