Bardoly, I like how you do not put a limit on the paratoopers you can build, but with your rules what is the point of them.

that sounds good, 5 might be a little high though, maybe you should make it 4.

And this is instead of rolling? not in addition to it?

I very much like this. Stratigic  bombing should be the most predictible kind of combat in the game but instead it is the most random.

when a bomber rolls one what does that even represent, a whole wing of bombers missed their targets? its not like enemy industry is hard to find, you take a picture of it then you bomb it. stratigic bombing is not like regular combat where terrian and weather and leadership and other factors out the players control come into account, it is a very straight forward kind of warfare that should be very predictible.

at least thats what i think

Also defending subs get to retreat which to me is moving when it is not your turn. Subs can retreat whenever it is their attack and they can chose to retreat instead. Any piece could almost do that, especially planes. So you could chose not to roll your defense roll and retreat instead. Thoughts?
 

I dont like retreating in another players turn, its double movement for units in combat which does not make sense

and i havn't thought about how technology plays into these rules. If your playing with the mobile infatry peice I would suggest getting rid of the Mechanized infantry and rerolling if you roll for it.

realism isn't as important as a fun game

I can agree to that, but all i am doing is adding one rule that is easy to remember and removes almost everything that is unrealistic about A&A battles, plus it adds stratagy which for me = fun.

I havn't tested the exact version of these rules out yet, but i will in my next face to face game and see how much longer they accually make the game and whether it does get rid of unrealistic outcomes.

These rules should also add more stratigic depth to the game which most A&A player I think would enjoy.

I woulnd't play with a house rule if it didn't increase realism and also would not play with a house rule if it did not add any stratagy, most of the fun in playing is that it is a simple stratagy game that appreciates WW2 history in certain ways and I like rules that enchance that.
There are many games that are much better than A&A, but I play A&A becasue it attempts to simulate world war 2 stratagy.
And since that is how the game is advirtised I would find it strange if there were not a lot players they feel similar to me.
 

sounds good

My question is do you think heavy bombers should be more effective at attacking ground units?

Becasue it is my understanding that medium and light bombers were more effective.

Everything looks very clear and functional and crisp.

I agree

add several more steps to combat,

you must have not understood, there are now less steps in combat, they are just different and require thinking instead on mineless dice  rolling.



defender retreat is similar to these rules, but i dont like the concept since the defender has his own turn to move his units and if you allow his forces to retreat it adds an additional concept and gives the retreatent double movement. The beuty behind my rules is that they dont add anything, they just limit what is already in place



I remember reading a version of AAHRE that had a co-exiting rule and limited combat to three rounds, and I agree IL, that rule wasn't very good.
Almost all combats are over within three rounds anyways and the territories are designed to hold one army not two, plus all the rounds were the same, so it was the same boring battle system it was before.

And wont this system  get rid of the rediculously unrealistic amphibious invasions, make the british allies and colonies easier to defend and get rid of the unreaistically desive eastern front battles. Not to mention how much more realistic naval battle would be if they were limited to one round. Becasue thats my goal and I would say that a sizeble amount of A&A players would like to play a game with a little more realism

unessessary rules and complications

name'em

i prefer normal combat to take place, then breakthrough with units that move 2, but at an additional cost. These turns are 4-6 months and one roll of dice is not enough because the results of battle are not decisive enough to remove enough pieces at a time to overcome piece density issues from developing.

Yah this system would probably slow the time scale down to 3-4 months. But it it would play a hell of alot more realistic. There could be alot more stratagy and there would be no stupid attacks that were never possible in the real war.

Allowing units to move 2 does not represent breakthroughs, it represents nothing, becasue tanks did not move faster that infantry on a staratigic scale, and name to me a breakthrough that was hundreds of miles in length.
 With the normal combat rules there is no representation of breakthrough at all becasue in combat all units move at the same speed and attack at the same rate.

And what about blitzkrieg, mechanized units attacking unsported by infantry and artillery, that has no mention in the current rules.

[had]

What if after the first round in all combats the attack had to retreat?

Of course this would make the game longer. But it would also help out the Soveits and make for a more realistic eastern front. It would make egypt and india a little more defendable as well as western europe and germany. It would make amphibious assualts very risky efforts as the attacker cannot retreat, so if they do not win in the first round they are pushed back into the sea and destroyed.

This is a preferable idea to those god-awful co-exiting rules which have two differnt armies in the same territory and this way it is much simpler because its isn't accualy adding any rules to the game, it is just limiting the attackers ability.


You could also create more specail abilities, like in any land battle after the first round of combat tanks/bombers/fighters can attack again in a second round of combat called the breakthrough round. However in this breakthrough round your infantry and artllery cannot attack and cannot be taken as causalties, so your more powerful units are vulnerable.

And before the main round of combat I would also add a blitzkrieg round where your tanks/fighter/bombers can attack, but with out inf and atlilery support (like in the breakthrough round) so it would be very risky and would only occur if the attacker chose to do so. Blitzkrieg attacks would also not be possible in amphibious assaults

I would also add a new unit in the this case, the mobile infantry peice (combination of Mechanized, Motorized and even cavalry) would attack and defend at 1, move 2, cost 3 and can attack and be taken as a casualty in the blitzkreig and breakthrough phases.

so the the battle rounds in a land battle would look like , and remember only the units that fire can be taken as casaulties

1.Blitzkreig round
Attacker( mobile infantry, tanks, fighter, bombers fire)
Defender (all of defender units fire)
2. Main Round
Attacker( all of attackers unit fire)
Defender (all of defender units fire)
3. Breakthrough round
Attacker ( mobile infantry, tanks, fighter, bombers fire)
Defender(all defender units fire)

a battle system like this (along with dogfighting and air superiority rules) really has the potetial to take A&A battles to the next level; making them more realistic and adding a tactical element.

Maybe trucks coluld be an off board abtraction of the overall motorization of your army. Right next to your tech chips you would put the trucks you have purchased. Each truck costs 12 IPCs and allows you to make addtional attacks after your first combat phase. Each truck allows you to attack again with 3 infantry/artllery or 5 tanks/fighters/bombers even if these units have already battled. For the second attack tanks have a movement of 1 and aircraft of 3.You do not lose the trucks each time you use them and you can buy more of them each turn. You do lose one  truck for battles in the second attack phase for every 5 units the enemy kills, but only if you lose the battle.


I think 12 IPC's is pretty costly, but that is becasue it is a special investment and is not neccisarily purchased every game by every country.



I think this should be the rules for trucks

but yours sounds good too, and yours is easy to understand.

ok, but when you use the dogfighting rules the heavy bombers will atack at less that the regular bombers when attacking ground units

How bout they just make the basic rules work as plug and play, then have optional rules for specific situations.

sure, as long as the specific situations includes dogfighting rules.