On the tactical and operational level … definitely.    …  But on the Grand Strategy level (A&A), they are going to eventually end up in the same sea zone.

Retreating fleets disperse and then regroup again once safe.  Look at the Pacific naval retreats … Battle of Coral Sea (both US and Japan got out of there fast and headed back to their respective safe-zones).  Retreating Japanese fleet after the Battle of Midway (again, disperse and later re-group while heading back to base)

It just keeps things simple to do it this way.  You kind of forego the “tactical/operational dispersion part” and jump to the re-group part of the retreat.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

My group wants in implement a house rule that states that upon the fall of London some of the UK Atlantic territories would still fight on upon their own accord.  Basically, the UK Atlantic player can still collect income from these territories and continue production from any factories inside of these territories.

Countries & Territories that continue to produce IPC’s for UK Atlantic with London being under Nazi Control:

• All Canadian Territories

• Union of South Africa

• South West Africa

• Rhodesia

All other territories under UK Atlantic control would not produce any income until London is recovered.

I think this would be historically accurate.  Of course, it is a “what-if” scenerio that fortunatly never played out in real life.  But I don’t see Canada folding if London would fall.  … Quite the contrary!  I think the case could also be made for South Africa.

However, what about Egypt, West India, and other parts of Africa?  They were more “colonial dependent”.  I think the fall of London might have created unrest in these areas and therefore they would not have participated in an organized way.

Hi Carolina,

My group has had pretty good results with the following:

Naval Retreats

• After the each round of combat,  either or both players may opt to retreat.

• If both players decide to retreat: defending player remains in the sea-zone and attacking player moves all forces one sea zone.

• If only one player opts to retreat:  a roll of 3 or less must be made to successfully retreat.  Otherwise, the battle must continue until both players retreat or a successful retreat roll is made by one player.

• If either side has ONLY airplanes:  No retreat roll is necessary from the side with only planes and the battle may simply be “called-off” by that player.  Airplanes can then move their remaining movement allowance in the Non-Combat Movement Phase.

• Retreating player moves all naval forces together to a single sea-zone.

• If player retreats to a sea-zone that contains enemy surface ships, it is treated the same as if a ship has been mobilized in a sea-zone with enemy ships.  No additional combat ensues this round in that sea zone.

Carriers

What about carrier based planes can combat move a total of TWO zones?  (4 zones for non-combat moves)

This would allow the following:

• Attacks on adjacent land-zones

• Attacks on adjacent sea-zones without committing the carrier. (planes can retreat and move one zone back to carrier if attack fails)

• Attacks on sea-zone TWO spaces away.  However, this would be a “committed” attack since the carrier(s) would need to move into the contested sea-zone to retrieve the planes as they would have zero movement allowance left.

The two-space movement allows for the simulation of a strike.  If planes can only move one sea-zone you would have to pre-arrange your fleet next to the enemy’s fleet on the previous turn … it would restrict sea movement too much.

Basically, the OOB rules allow for planes to strike a fleet THREE zones away.  (Three out and one back.  Carrier moves up TWO to “catch” the planes)  … With the revised Naval Combat rules, maybe planes become TOO powerful this way.  …  This revised rule would allow planes to only strike a fleet TWO zones away.  And the carriers would have to end their movement INSIDE of that strike zone.

This reduces the range (and power) of the planes.  It also adds a risk-factor for longer, two-zone strikes.

Land-Based Naval Strikes
I like BM’s suggestion for handling “land-based” naval strikes.  ….  Maybe this would be made even more simple by just eliminating the extra movement allowance that air-bases provide???  That always seemed a little “gamey” to me anyway.  This would achieve what BM is suggesting and still kind of keep air-movements OOB.  That way, air-bases only provide scramble capability.

Narvik brought up an interesting suggestion for planes at sea.  Here is the rule proposal:

Fighters and TAC’s may only COMBAT MOVE one sea-zone.

• If based on land, they can only COMBAT MOVE into the sea-zone directly adjacent to, or surrounding their starting territory.  After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.

• If based on a carrier, they can COMBAT MOVE into a sea-zone or lande zone directly adjacent to the originating carrier sea-zone.  After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.

Analysis
This rules set makes airplanes the true KINGS OF THE SEA.  However, it also gives them their original range.  Naval Combat is simulated on a much tighter time-scale than Land Combat.  Each round of Naval Combat is probably simulating 12-24 hours.  While each round of Land Combat is probably simulating 1-2 weeks.  Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to have combat aircraft flying 2000+ miles over the open ocean and returning!

This range restriction would still allow airplanes to DOMINATE naval combat, but it would also make their historical ranges more realistic.  Overall, I think it will be a better simulation for the game.

I would like people’s input and suggestions.  However, please read the entire Rules Set first because there are a lot of inter-locking changes.  This range rule could not be implemented with the OOB combat system.  It would need to be implemented with this Enhanced Combat System in the original post.

Hi Baron,

To be 100% honest …  we just play with “Pre-Agreed” arrangement as to who will take control of the territory.  Actually, I think this is how I’ll update the rules set, and leave a “random method” as a fall-back incase two players can’t agree.

Let’s look at this in history:

-  Two, or more, friendly nations are going to know WELL in advance how the territory will be governed once the fighting stops.  For instance, Italy didn’t help Germany in France thinking that there was a chance that Italy would gain that territory if their casualties were low and the German casualties were high!

In the games we’ve played, there is a strategic advantage as to “why” Player A is willing to attack a territory together with Player B … even though Player B will take control of the territory.  … Therefore, it is in Player A’s best interest, even though he will not gain any IPCs as a result of the capture of the territory.

Narvik and Kreuzfeld,

Both really good points!  I just had a 7-player G40 game yesterday with the Three-Turn playing System.  This makes it so ships can only hit airplanes @1 with their AAA roles.  In general, it makes for a better modeled game.  BBs and Cruisers are used mostly for supporting amphibious assaults.  Subs and DD’s kind of make their own little “mini-Fleets” or are used as support for the CV’s.  In general, planes are the new Kings of the Sea.

• @Strat Bombers:  We make strats hit Naval Units @2 instead of @4.  For anyone who has any doubts upon why we do this, please click on this link:  https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/f000001/f003725.jpg

• @Aircraft Range over Sea Zones:  Wow.  Great suggestion Narvik.  Limit airplanes to only being able to move ONE sea-zone.  That means they can only COMBAT MOVE into the sea-zone directly adjacent to, or surrounding, their originating territory.  (Non-combat moves may be conducted as normal) … When originating from a CV, they can only COMBAT MOVE into the sea-zones directly adjacent to their originating sea-zone.    This would remove the gamey moves of having the planes leave from a certain sea-zone, and then the carrier moves … etc …

• @Land-Combat vs. Sea-Combat:  I mentioned this in a previous post.  The time-scales for land and sea combat are simulated quite differently in A&A.  Land combat is much more abstract and each combat round happens over a longer period of time.  (probably a week or even 2 weeks per round)  … Whereas Sea-Combat is on a MUCH closer scale.  Heck, CV’s are probably almost simulated on a 1:1 scale … at most, each CV visible on the map probably simulates a “Group” of no more than 4 or 5 carriers.  Each round of naval combat probably simulates a 12 to 24 hour period of combat.  Therefore, it doesn’t make sense, to have fighter planes moving 2000+ miles over open water.

Narvik.  I think your suggestion about limiting airplane range would make a very happy compromise between the awesome “power” carriers and planes had at sea … while better simulating their historical range.  Also, your suggestion will place better emphasis on the importance of controlling key islands in the Pacific … and Malta in the Med.

I would like to discuss this further and do some test-scenarios.  I would also like to open this as a discussion topic in the “Three-Turn Playing System and Enhance Combat” rules set.  Once we test and get any bugs worked out, I would like to implement it into the rules set.

Hi Baron,

Exactly.  I think you hit the nail right on the head!

Hi Baron,.

Yes.  Naval AAA has a little more “punch” than land-based combat AAA.    …. but, remember, AAA is the ONLY way a ship can hit planes.   :wink:  …   so as the old breed admirals quickly learned in the early stages of WWII, their fine Battleships were no longer the kings of the high seas!    …  and they reluctantly removed Mahan’s books from their strategy shelf and placed them into the history pile.

Your A&A fleets should be built around the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, not the Battleships.   Battleships are best used as escorts and for assisting amphibious assaults.

These revised AAA rules (together with the Three Turn Playing System and Enhanced Combat rules set) will help make the game reflect this historical reality.