New version of these optional rules
AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)
-
As of now I prefer rockets for Russia, but we’ll have to redo how it’s presented so it has more of an attack advantage feel to it, if you know what I mean. IMO rockets are the best idea we have yet.
We will continue to disagree about allowing the nation’s unit advantage and attack advantage to apply to the same unit/s. I put in my 2 cents, that’s all I can do.
I really like the idea of limiting Russia’s adv. to 2 arm per turn, Germany’s to 1 cheap sub per IC where no surface unit is built, and UK’s to 1 cheap fighter in London per turn. For japan, i think inf is the best cheap unit. i think allowing 1 to defend at 3 for every yellow territory is a good idea.
From wikipedia on spitfire:
Another contemporary, the German Luftwaffe’s Messerschmitt Bf 109, was similar in attributes and performance to the Spitfire. Some advantages helped the Spitfires win many dog fights, with maneuverability the attribute most often quoted. Good cockpit visibility was probably a greater factor, as these early Bf 109s had narrow, paneled heavily framed cockpit windows. Where possible, Spitfires were assigned the task of taking on the Bf 109Es, while the Hurricanes intercepted the bombers. Nonetheless, seven of every ten German planes destroyed during the Battle of Britain were shot down by Hurricane pilots.Even though the Hurricane seemed to perform better, for some reason the Spitfire is the symbol of the British resistance in the Battle of Britain and is better well known. This might be because the spitfire is the ‘most beautiful’ plane ever made.
-
OK then lets do those Katyuskas as the Soviet since you went with Jap infantry and the defend at 3 thing. Thats good. Teckky make the record to reflect this and now we can move on. What is the current state with neutrals? WE only need this to finish Phase one! lets get a move on.
-
Changes highlighted in bold.
Ok so UK is 1 cheap FTR only.
We actually haven’t said how to model Katiuskas rockets. As far as I know they are for saturation bombing and is mainly defastating to infantry. They are highly mobile.
The 1 infantry thing for Japan is weak compared to others. It is also defensive (modelling dug-in but not banzai).
National Units
USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Moscow for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = Once per turn, 1 FTR can be purchased and placed in London for 8 IPC.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.National Attack
USSR = ART hits on 3 and fire in opening-fire instead of main-round, for first cycle of combat only.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = 1 in 3 INF defending in yellow territories gets +1 defense modifier, assigned at beginning of combat.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the first cycle of combat of amphibious assault.
Analysis of national attack:
USSR: 100% ART 16% once per combat (100%) =
Germany: 100% FTR 16%(+16%) when no enemy FTR (25-50%) =
UK: 100% FTR 16% in London (10%) =
Japan: 33% INF 16% in yellow (50%) =
US: 100% INF 16% once per amphibious combat (20%) =But its not important. Should talk about balance in overall game not individual rule. Individual rules are for realistic historic modelling.
-
I think we still need some modifications to the national attack. As with the Russian tanks, I don’t think the the national unit and national attack should apply to he same unit/s. This is why I don’t think Japanese inf should be the unit and the attack. It’s effectively just double ‘counting’ for that warrior code advantage no matter how it’s justified. I still like kamikazes best even if that means they have to be redefined from what they are now.
Minor point, but we need to be sure to change London to UK in order to be consistent between capital and territory.
I think it’s important that the national units only apply to costs, defense and/or movement and not apply to attack in order to clarify its distinction with national attack advantages. This distinguishes Japanese Warrior Code (defense +1) from kamikazes (suicidal attack).
I also think it’s important how we present this set of rules to minimize the debate between other players that we went through while designing the rules. I think we should define the national units to symbolize that nation’s military production strength. By defining it as such I think people will agree that the units should be the Russian t-34, German type vii u-boats, UK spitfires, Japanese infantry, and US CVs. Some could argue that German Tiger tanks might also symbolize Germany’s strength, but since they don’t symbolize productive strength as well, the type vii subs are a better candidate.
-
As with the Russian tanks, I don’t think the the national unit and national attack should apply to he same unit/s.
Thats done. Russia is currently tank unit and artillery attack.
I pull the attack rule ot of no where and is keen on hearing how you think we can model Katyuskas rockets.This is why I don’t think Japanese inf should be the unit and the attack. It’s effectively just double ‘counting’ for that warrior code advantage no matter how it’s justified. I still like kamikazes best even if that means they have to be redefined from what they are now.
Yeah but IL was saying Kamikaze was only used when Japan was desperate. Hence the argument that it shouldn’t be standard. I actually like the no-retreat Banzai attack/defense thing more. Was that used before Japan started losing? But if attack shouldn’t be infantry as well then for Japanese attack then we can look at modelling Japan’s Navy?
Bing! Didn’t IL wanted Lance torpedo?Minor point, but we need to be sure to change London to UK in order to be consistent between capital and territory.
Yep it shall be United Kingdom, Russia and Japan respectively.
I think it’s important that the national units only apply to costs, defense and/or movement and not apply to attack in order to clarify its distinction with national attack advantages.
Thats done.
I think we should define the national units to symbolize that nation’s military production strength. By defining it as such I think people will agree that the units should be the Russian t-34, German type vii u-boats, UK spitfires, Japanese infantry, and US CVs.
Thats done.
National Units
USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Russia for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = Once per turn, 1 FTR can be purchased and placed in United Kingdom for 8 IPC.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.National Attack
USSR = ART hits on 3 and fire in opening-fire instead of main-round, for first cycle of combat only.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = DD fire in the opening-fire instead of main-round,for first cycle of combat only.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the first cycle of combat of amphibious assault. -
On the Japanese Destroyers… why? Lance torpedo is a naval fighter weapon… so how bout Japanese planes get a +1 modifier against warships in the opening round of combat… or all rounds?
-
What’s more well known, even among people who don’t know history that well? Kamikazes, banzai infantry or lance torpedoes. I think we can all agree it’s kamikazes. I think people will be more likely to raise a fuss if we omit kamikazes rather than lance torpedoes.
We can always modify kamikaze rules to portray any additional ideas we want to include, like Japan being desparate. -
But we are making a “historical edition” and the Lance torpedo was a major development and achieved more than those pesky Kamikazes. It caused the sinking or destruction of 8 battleships at hawaii. A far greater glory for Japan than the “desperate” and limited abilities of Kami. Kami will be a NA under phase two. It cant be the major principle of what Japan had offered ww2 in terms of some military achievement. The Kamikazi is like Banzai a suicide attack and it shows no respect on our end if we “hype” up what was allready a poor OOB rule. Our job is to correct the mistakes not sustain them because we come from the framework of remolding the game into History and reality. It would be the easy way out to just stamp “Japan is a kamikaze nation of suicide fighters” Our job is in a sense to educate people when they play the game … to make them understand that Kamikaze was a stupid idea that amounted to nothing but wasted plane, life and effort.
-
Lance
Oh I didn’t know. I only read Wikipedia and they didnt mention it as a naval fighter weapon.
The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo. The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. Most also carried reloads, something that other navies did not like to do.
So probably Japanese fighters in sea combats get +1 attack (but not defense right?) in first cycle of combat.Kamikaze
As for the kamikaze don’t trash it down too much IL. When done well it wasn’t a waste of resource and was actually powerful?Don’t worry duke, its not left out. We can have it in National Advantage as before. Kamikaze fans won’t feel bad I think.
-
OK ill post some facts for both so you guys can figure it out.
-
Long Lance:
At the outbreak of the war, the Japanese Navy possessed some of the world’s finest torpedoes, including the fabled Long Lance. The quality of these weapons was no accident, but rather the result of Japan’s intensive efforts during the 1920’s and 30’s to make good the shortcomings of her battle fleet. Laboring as she did under the unfavorable 5:5:3 ratio of capital ships imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan would most likely be at a disadvantage in any Pacific conflict with the United States. She also knew well enough that the U.S. modeled its fighting doctrine on the famous ‘Plan Orange’, which called for an advance of the American battle fleet across the Pacific to relieve the Phillipines. It was anticipated that at some location in the Western Pacific a decisive battle would be fought. In Japan’s view, some means must be found to offset its disadvantage in capital ships before this battle occurred, or its inferior batle line would be destroyed by the American force. Torpedo tactics and night combat were seized upon as one way to whittle down the American battle line as it made its way across the Pacific. Accordingly, Japan worked diligently to develop the tactics needed to implement this new doctrine, and also to create the weapons with which to carry it out. The result was that Japanese torpedoes showed a steady progression of improvements throughout the 1930’s, culminating in the devlopment of the famous ‘Long Lance’ in 1935.
Designing and perfecting the Long Lance required solving some extremely difficult technical problems, most of which centered around the usage of pure oxygen as a fuel (rather than compressed air). Compressed air is nearly 77% nitrogen, which is useless for combustion, and also contributes to the visibility of the torpedo by leaving a bubble track on the surface. The usage of pure oxygen promised far greater power and propulsive efficiency, but it came with certain costs. The most glaring of these was how to use pure oxygen safely aboard a ship or submarine, given its inherently inflammable nature. Premature detonation of the torpedo upon firing was also a problem. However, the Japanese overcame these hurdles. Further, through meticulous live-testing of their weapons against ship targets, they perfected a warhead detonator that was rugged and reliable (The U.S. Navy’s BuOrd could certainly have taken a lesson or two here). The resulting weapon, the Type 93 torpedo, was fantastically advanced in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power. This weapon, coupled with the flexible battle tactics practiced by Japan’s cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Lance
and this:
At that time, US Naval Intelligence was unaware of the advances the Japanese had made in torpedo technology. One of these advances was the Japanese 24 inch diameter “Long Lance” torpedo, which carried a charge equivalent to 891 pounds of TNT. A Long Lance torpedo essentially defeated the USS North Carolina’s side protective system. The ship was hit by chance at its narrowest, and therefore most vulnerable part of the side protection system. An Iowa Class battleship would have taken lighter damage from the torpedo due to an improved torpedo protection system over the North Carolina Class.
A torpedo is a self-propelled projectile carrying a warhead which detonates against a ship’s side below the waterline. It was the most destructive naval weapon of the Second World War and the best of these was the Japanese Long-Lance.
In 1941 the Japanese Navy was the third largest navy in the world, after the US Navy and the Royal Navy. It had 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers. Most destroyers and cruisers were fitted with the 24-inch Long Lance torpedo. This oxygen-powered weapon could deliver a 1,000lb warhead at 49 knots over almost 11 miles.
finally:
The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall. Too large to fit in the standard 21-inch torpedo tubes, it was usually launched from the decks of surface ships, but some submarines also had deck-mounted launchers.
The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo. The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. Most also carried reloads, something that other navies did not like to do. The US Navy in particular completely did away with torpedoes for its cruiser force, preferring instead to mount massed batteries of radar-aimed quick-firing 6 inch or 8 inch (152 or 203 mm) guns.
In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. The losses sustained in such engagements led to a belief among the Allies that the torpedoes were being fired from submarines operating in concert with the surface ships but at much closer ranges. On rare occasions, the very long range of the torpedo caused it to strike a ship that was far behind the intended target. The Type 93’s capabilities were not recognized by the Allies until one was captured intact in 1943.
conclusion: 1)Jap destroyers may get preemtive attacks because of the long range of this weapon or 2) or planes will get that +1 combat modifier for naval strikes ( fighters only).
-
“Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception and attrition, and massive anti-aircraft barrages, a distressing 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank.”
The reality is those 34 ships were really like 2 escort carriers, and the balance a light cruiser and some 30 destroyers… in game terms the sum of its “accountable damage” or contribution would be 1.5 destroyer pieces and thats it. Net gain of 15 IPC for the entire proposed japanese “MAIN” tactic of combat in ww2? … please let them just be some Andersson NA for phase two.
-
how does the lance effect japanese fighters? i read that long passage and didn’t catch where they talked about fighters. please just cut and paste the part that justifies the lance modification to japanese fighters.
-
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/ijnaf.htm
look to the point where it lists all torpedo bombers outfitted with mark 91 torpedo. The type 91-97 torpedos are all different versions of the same weapon, some were outfitted for subs, destroyers, and torpedo planes. The “long lance” name is coined by americans, but the feature that was distinct was its ability to be launched by plane in shallow waters because of an adaption to not allow the torpedo to hit the bottom of the sea when launched , but float and drive towards its target. The main thing was its extended range… so perhaps its feature is “preemtive” in nature.
-
what if we had the following 3 divisions of optional rules:
national units:
Russian t-34s
German type viis
British spitfires (possible conflict with fighter advantages?…see below)
Japanese infantry (rename)
us CVsnational tactics:
katyusha rockets (maybe)
German blitzkrieg
British intelligence (enigma decoder)
Japanese long lance torpedoes
us marinesnational fighter advantages:
Russia: cheap planes through lend-lease (maybe cost 7 instead of 10?)
germany: fighters can perform strategic bombing
UK: spitfires defend +1 in capital. (if we do this then change the spitfire for another UK national unit)
Japan: kamikaze attack (special restrictions to portray it as a last resort)
US: +2 movement for P-51s (effectively starting with long rang aircraft… if we use this we should probably remove LRA from tech list. This would mean no other nations can improve their fighter range… did other nations even significantly improve range of aircraft after 1942?). -
national units:
Russian t-34s (armor)
German U-Boats (subs)
British Royal Air Force (fighters)
Japanese Fanatical Infantry ( infantry)
United States Essex class Super-Carriers ( carriers)national tactics:
katyusha rockets (maybe)
German stuka dive bombers ( fighters)
British Home defense (radar) ( fighters)
Japanese long lance torpedoes ( fighters and/ or destroyers)
U.S. Marines (infantry)national fighter advantages:
Russia: cheap planes through lend-lease (maybe cost 7 instead of 10?)
germany: fighters can perform strategic bombing
UK: spitfires defend +1 in capital. (if we do this then change the spitfire for another UK national unit)
Japan: kamikaze attack (special restrictions to portray it as a last resort)
US: +2 movement for P-51s (effectively starting with long rang aircraft…. if we use this we should probably remove LRA from tech list. This would mean no other nations can improve their fighter range… did other nations even significantly improve range of aircraft after 1942?).OK we can either make things easy with 2 simple ideas or reflect exactly what each nation did in ww2:
Soviets:
Cheaper tanks, T-34 was a surprise for the enemy when it first appeared, Siberian army was another shock to the german myth of Ubermench… so Soviet “shock” armies could play a part. Katyuskas played another part in the war but prob. not like the value of Soviet self propelled artillery which in massed tank armies would decimate german armor. The only real Soviet tactic was numbers and overwhelming odds… no specific “tactic”Germany:
Concept of Blitzkreig, use of Dive bombers and tanks working in unison with infantry to mop up stragglers, jet planes, heavy tanks, self propelled artillery was a big help in Russian campaign, but also the 88 caliber artillery used for versatle combat. The SS units were elite units outfitted with the best troops in the world. U-boats exacted huge shipping loses on merchant marineItaly: (will work on this latter)
had good cruisers, frogmen were fearless at attacking UKs surface ships, the few mechanized “folgore” divisions were pretty good.UK:
Radar, skilled fighter pilots saved UK, had good battleships, ability to decode german planes, also had good concept of warfare when they had good numbers and set piece battles planned to the last detail.Japan:
Excellent torpedo plane bombers and pilots skilled at this type of attack, Fanatical soldiers dont give up an inch of land w/o a fight. excellent jungle tactics, good super battleships and other naval ships. kamakazi and bushido tactics used as last resort to win a war of attrition.USA:
Built nearly everything in huge quantity, proved the value of the carrier as the primary naval weapon in ww2, had the a-bomb, and latter in the war exacted a huge SBR campaign against germany and Japan firebombing the cities, also produced excellent battleships latter in war, had used the Marines for many missions in the pacific. exercised many sucessful sea invasions of enemy positions. -
I think these 3 lists of optional rules are good. there are some things we still need to work on:
UK unit: Spitfire can’t be national unit for UK if we have fighter advantages. what should the new UK national unit be?
Russian attack: Russia needs a good national attack. katyusha rockets might not be the best option. one other option to think about is that Stalin encouraged a compitition among his generals to get to Berlin as quick as possible. I don’t know how to use this military tactic in the game or what to call it.
-
OK how bout we do this:
phase one: just 2 units or goodies for each nation ( both land)
Phase two: same thing ( air)
Phase three: same thing (sea)Possible advantages:
Soviets:
- cheaper tanks 2 tanks for 8 IPC
- Soviet shock armies ( infantry at 2-2 costing 4) get a preemtive attack first round
- Self-propelled Artillery ( SU series tank destroyers)… hits go against enemy armor ( in one battle)
- Tactic bonus: on defense in victory cities Soviet infantry gain a +1 modifier
- Cheaper planes costing -2 ( can buy one per round with discount)
- katyuska rockets: artillery gets premptive attack in the first round
- rifle division new unit 1-1 costs 2 IPC can build # = roll of D6
Germany:
- Stuka Dive Bomber if no enemy planes are defending these fighters can get a +1 attack each round ( preemtive)
- Tactic bonus: blitzkreig each plane boosts a matching tank +1 at a 1/1 basis.
- Heavy tanks: allocate your tanks hits to go against enemy tanks ( in one battle)
- Volkstrum infantry: new unit 1-1 costs 2 IPC can build # = roll of D6
- U-boat campaign: your subs cost -2 ( limit one pre turn)
- SS Panzers: new unit: 5-5 moves 2 costs 9 all attacks are preemtive for first round.
- 88’s german artillery can move 2 spaces and can target other armor as casaulty
- tank destroyer:all hits can go against enemy armor in one battle where you have tanks.
UK:
- RAF: home defense +1 defense for fighters over british territories
- ASW destroyers: increased ability to detect subs
- Paratroopers: ability to make a # of airdrops
- commandos: ability to make a selected attack on enemy “piece” and run home?
- Intelligence: decoded german code ability to reinforce an area under attack with adjacent pieces.
Japan:
- torpedo bombers
- super battleships
- destroyers can carry one infantry ( as transport)
- bansai/ dug in defenders in orange territories only
- fanatical infantry fighters ( bushido code)
- Tactic: night surface action
- Kamakazi/ banzai attack
- light carriers ( if japan loses a carrier she can starting building them)
USA:
- Marines
- Tactic: Strategic Bombing campaign
- “blood and guts” tanks can attack and attack again if they have MP left over?
- Logistics: all american land units can move in non combat even if they had performed combat as long as they are connected territories.
- liberty ships: Transports cost -2
- a- bomb
- essex carriers ( moves 3 carrier) costs -2
-
wow, that seems overwhelming!
-
Well it can be added in stages over three phases to cover:
- the new units ideas
- cover national specific tactic
- cover all the flavor or each nation in a simplistic way.
I dont think that “fighter” thing for each nation will work as the third option because having just two is simple, while adding just one to cover specific air units seems kinda strange compared to other national unit ideas. I suppose the balance can be covered under Anderssons section of NA’s in phase two.
Suggested Topics
