Not a bad idea. I don’t play much Anniversary Edition but this makes me want to bust it out.
Edit
-
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.
-
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?Yes. Remember though, the Russians would not have to retreat and the Germans don’t have to pursue. However this moves away from the original concept of breakthrough. It was just an idea with a similar flavor.
-
Yes. Remember though, the Russians would not have to retreat and the Germans don’t have to pursue. However this moves away from the original concept of breakthrough. It was just an idea with a similar flavor.
At first I am thinking “Why wouldn’t the Germans pursue? They could get Leningrad in the first round.” Then I thought maybe the Russians have a large stack of defense there and the German force may not be big enough to handle that.
That brings me to another question.
If we allow defender retreats like this, could both the defender and the attacker choose to retreat? Like in my previous example, Germany attacks Baltic States, the Russians there retreat to Novgorod where Russia has a big stack of defense. Then perhaps the German player notices a large amount of tanks and mechs in Bryansk, Smolensk and/or Archangel, or perhaps spread between all three to make it look like not as much, along with Russian planes at the air base in Moscow. He realizes that by taking Baltic States, his force is falling into a trap so he wants to back up to Poland and reinforce.
Can this possibly happen? It would basically leave Baltic States empty and still under Soviet control, but it seems possible to me.
This could make for an even longer game as each side tried to out build the other. Germany is usually making more money by this time but also has the UK and possibly US harassing him from the other side. Interesting problem. -
It would definately need play testing for sure. It think it could be a fun or interesting feature to the game. I can see there could be potential problems too. I’m out of town at the moment and will be busy with Christmas stuff, but I’d like to work on this when I can get at my games.
-
Yes. Remember though, the Russians would not have to retreat and the Germans don’t have to pursue. However this moves away from the original concept of breakthrough. It was just an idea with a similar flavor.
At first I am thinking “Why wouldn’t the Germans pursue? They could get Leningrad in the first round.” Then I thought maybe the Russians have a large stack of defense there and the German force may not be big enough to handle that.
That brings me to another question.
If we allow defender retreats like this, could both the defender and the attacker choose to retreat? Like in my previous example, Germany attacks Baltic States, the Russians there retreat to Novgorod where Russia has a big stack of defense. Then perhaps the German player notices a large amount of tanks and mechs in Bryansk, Smolensk and/or Archangel, or perhaps spread between all three to make it look like not as much, along with Russian planes at the air base in Moscow. He realizes that by taking Baltic States, his force is falling into a trap so he wants to back up to Poland and reinforce.
Can this possibly happen? It would basically leave Baltic States empty and still under Soviet control, but it seems possible to me.
This could make for an even longer game as each side tried to out build the other. Germany is usually making more money by this time but also has the UK and possibly US harassing him from the other side. Interesting problem.I maintain it probably needs testing, but the ability to keep your opponent guessing in the situation you describe is where I see the fun.
If the example Russian forces were routed first round I’d let the Germans have the opportunity to pursue. If they (The Russians) last a second round let the Russians decide to retreat or stand their ground. The Russians may want to set a trap or they may simply want to stall the Germans just like the OOB play.
We could also go with the example from amphibious attacks. Once a breakthrough or secondary attack is declared, there is no retreat for the attacker and they are committed to victory or defeat. The territory that the defender retreated from is considered “blitzed” and is capture territory.
Suggested Topics
