Updated.
Edit
-
Yes, but that’s the idea that popped into mind. It only works if there is a complete rout of the enemy.
Would work great in mainland Asia, Europe and Africa since you generally see 1 infantry pickets and those generally miss on defense.
As I said, it was just what popped into mind.
-
I would tend to exclude aircraft from breakthroughs. While tanks and mech inf are exploiting gaps in the enemy lines as opportunity develops, aircraft have to plan their movements in advance.
I also tend to think of planes being restricted to an initial attack because of limits on fuel and armaments; they would have to return to base to refuel and reload making it impractical. The armour has to go it alone and hope to be reinforced before the enemy counter attacks them, making mech units rather vulnerable.
Of couse order of play could give one side a big advantage e.g. German tanks breakthrough and can then be reinforced by Italian infantry before Russia gets to attack the vulnerable panzers. This is one reason I prefer the 4 power block breakdown (Western Allies, Axis, USSR, Japan; with all nations within each block played simultaneously).Another idea I’ve used on a similar theme regarding aircraft is in big naval battles, where fighters always have to spend every other (or 3rd?) combat round refueling on their carriers before they can attack again. Ref: Midway.
-
I kind of like that refueling and rearming rules.
I’d probably say every other round. That would account for flying time and being grounded time. Maybe only on attack (since on defense there’s no flying time to and from.)
-
Would it be possible to plan your aircraft movement to anticipate an armor breakthrough? For example, let’s use Germany attacking Russia from Poland into the Baltic States and Belorus.
Germany attacks the Baltic States with a large army with plenty of tanks and mechs. Baltic States is only defended by 2 lonely infantry which are crushed with no defensive hits. So, the tanks and mechs want to move on to Belorus.
A bomber stationed in Germany could move 3 spaces to Belorus then 3 spaces back to land in Germany. So, could you in your combat move send your German bomber to Belorus in anticipation of a breakthrough in the Baltic States?
I think that would be okay on the following condition: if there is NO breakthrough, like if you used Commander Jennifer’s idea and the Russian infantry got defensive hits thus halting the advance of the armor/mechs, then that bomber would have to fight at least the first combat round with whatever forces are in Belorus before it could retreat back to Germany.
However, if there was a breakthrough, then the bomber would simply be supporting the armor units.
That way, you could use planes for a breakthrough battle, but it could be risky.
The main point would be that the combat between the bomber and the Belorus forces be allowed to wait on the result of the Baltic States battle. -
I could see contingencies for air attacks like that. Maybe if there is no breakthrough only defending aircraft, AA Guns and armor could still take a shot at the retreating bombers (or other aircraft?) The idea is they get to their target on time and on schedule but get called off before starting their bombing run, but not before the enemy can start firing on them. (so they don’t get low enough to the ground for General Patton to jump out on a jeep and shoot them down with a handgun?) Just to minimize the risk a bit. (Great scene from the movie btw!)
Maybe allow players to layer their aircraft attacks as well, so: these three fighters attack first, then the fighter, tactical and strategic hit the next round - then it alternates?
-
I’ve always been frustrated by the fact that you can’t exploit a breakthrough in A&A, not to mention the fact that defender morale is never taken into account (I mean, do you think every battle would be fought to the last man?). On the second point, I sometimes implement a rule that says if half the defending force is wiped out in one combat phase, the rest of the defending force automatically retreats.
A blitz/breakthrough rule would be helpful in this scenario, to allow the attacker to follow up when the enemy retreats.
-
Maybe it could work the other way round - the bomber battle is allowed to be fought first - possibly clearing the way for an “after-blitz” if all defenders are eliminated?
-
Ossel…I thought the same.
A couple of year ago, I tried to make a rule about that.
A rule about prisoner of war, defender retreat and reddition but my friends prefer to fight 'till the end!!
Even if it’s not realist… -
Defender retreat if half wiped in one round would be great - for the defender!
-
@Cmdr:
Defender retreat if half wiped in one round would be great - for the defender!
Hence, why soldiers retreat in real battles - they’re trying to save their asses.
But, like I said, to implement a rule like this, it’s absolutely essential to have some sort of follow-up or breakthrough rule, to allow the attacker to proceed with attacking if they want to. If something like this was added, where the attacker could continue his attack into the next territory, this would be a great disadvantage to the defender, because they could potentially lose more than one territory per turn.
-
What about if the defender retreats, the attacking force may attack again as if it had not moved in the combat phase?
-
If the defender retreats, only attacking pieces ( mechs, tanks, paratroopers, planes ) from another territory can breakthrough that first attacking territory and then into where the defenders retreated to. So if you think your going to lose the battle as a defender, you retreat and force the better attacking pieces to attack yours and you can kill his better pieces as the defender.
-
What about if the defender retreats, the attacking force may attack again as if it had not moved in the combat phase?
I was thinking something like this, but how do you limit it so it doesn’t turn into a giant landgrab?
I can see Germany breaking through in Russia and scooping up half of the country in one turn.
This is sort of out of the box, but what about this:
If the defender retreats, the attacking forces may use one additional move and enter enemy territory. This combat is not resolved until the defending player’s turn, at which point they roll as the attacker. -
Have it were it can only happen in 1 attacking territory per turn.
-
I do use it in my G39 games, but if you are strickly talking about G40 now then ya it could be to strong.
-
Yeah, I’m thinking it might be overpowered as well. But then again, it would completely shift the way that defenders deploy their troops, since you have to consider a breakthrough. Definitely more realistic.
-
Thats whats great about a G39 advance games. More things to think about and try.
-
What about if the defender retreats, the attacking force may attack again as if it had not moved in the combat phase?
Maybe I should elaborate a bit more. The attacking force would get only a second attack as it has completed it’s combat moves. The first CM was cancelled only due to the defender retreating.
The same would apply to the defender as if they had been attacking in thier own combat move and retreated thus only one retreat. If the defender moved in retreat to a neighboring friendly occupied territory it would cancel those units from retreating as well.
Possibly an additional requirement would be that the the attacker may only make a breakthrough with the units that made the initial assault.
With all this in mind I don’t think it would be too overpowering and has advatages for both the attacker and defender.
Even better it might speed up a session of G40 given the possibility that more attacks could be made.
-
What about if the defender retreats, the attacking force may attack again as if it had not moved in the combat phase?
Maybe I should elaborate a bit more. The attacking force would get only a second attack as it has completed it’s combat moves. The first CM was cancelled only due to the defender retreating.
The same would apply to the defender as if they had been attacking in thier own combat move and retreated thus only one retreat. If the defender moved in retreat to a neighboring friendly occupied territory it would cancel those units from retreating as well.
Possibly an additional requirement would be that the the attacker may only make a breakthrough with the units that made the initial assault.
With all this in mind I don’t think it would be too overpowering and has advatages for both the attacker and defender.
Even better it might speed up a session of G40 given the possibility that more attacks could be made.
Let me make sure I have this correct with this example:
Germany has a large force in Poland consisting of a mix of units (infantry, artillery, mechs, tanks and planes). Germany attacks Baltic States. The Russians retreat to Novgorod. So now Germany can take that force and follow the retreating Russians to Novgorod? Including the infantry and artillery? -
You should have tokens. For 5-8 IPC each token bought in advance allows non-infantry units to make a second attack to adjacent area they just took.
Tokens are kept in capital till needed. This only works for land combat.
Suggested Topics
