thank you, he is close to capturing a capital and trying to capture a second one.
AA Gun Question
-
I see the logic now (well maybe 80%), the earlier version always boiled down to huge stacks of infantry in Central Europe. The team that designed AAR did an excellent job of addressing that (lower cost fighters, more powerful tanks, and a revised map). I still think some tweaking of the AA gun could be accomplished. Maybe letting them fire whenever a plane flies over but increase the cost (7-8 ipc), any thoughts?
-
@ncscswitch:
If you let AA guns fire every time they are overflown, then central europe becomes an AF dead zone, reliant purely on ground troops to push and push back. It takes AF out of the equation for offensive purposes, and still more expensive than INF for defensive purposes, thus FIGs would nto get bought.
So, by limitting AA to combat overflights only, it makes aircraft slightly more attractive for purchase, making the game more diverse.
I think you GREATLY overstate the effects of “always on” AA guns. How often do you really think planes are going to overfly multiple AA guns, even in Europe? Most air strikes are launched from behind your front lines, and the planes are flying over friendly territory until they get to combat, and then friendly territory to get back. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant that planes should suffer AA fire on the way in and out of the territory being attacked by an AA gun in that territory? No, that is not what I meant, I could see that making AA guns a bit too powerful.
I play in the TripleA WarClub which uses always on AA guns and believe me, in my limited experience, PLENTY of Fighters are bought.
It also makes it more histroically accurate since it allows for waves of aircraft, allied and axis, to fly again and again, with only minimal losses to AA fire.
As you may recall from previous discussions, I’m less concerned with “historical accuracy” than with game play and balance. IMHO, AA guns are a fairly weak unit and could use the oomph that “always on” gives them. Even then, nobody buys them for the most part.
-
@Craig:
The idea being that there was no need to change something that wasn’t broken.
I agree, but from the other side. To me, nothing was broken about the Revised OOB rules on AA Guns and placing existing fighters on new carriers. So I would have prefered LHTR leave them as they were, since as you say, no reason to fix/change what isn’t broken.
Apologies if my tone seems hostile, I appreicate all that the LHTR team has done for the game. Given a choice between OOB or LHTR I’ll play LHTR every time.
PS to Switch - Given your penchant for historical realism, you must hate the LHTR rules on landing existing fighters on new carriers even more than I do. Did a group of fighters EVER return from combat and land directly on a newly built carrier in real life?
-
The squadron lands for a refit and flies to the new AC.
Since “turns” are about 6 months of time, I always thought it was rather silly to not be able to “load” carriers, either with new or existing FIGs. In point of fact, all of my early AA gaming allowed for this in Classic.
So no, I have no historical accuracy issues there. The South Pacific and FIGs being moved from islands to carriers and back again with combat in the cycle is enough to show that not only could it happen, but that it DID actually happen.
Lastly, if you want to talk about histroical accuracy and carriers, let me load Bombers on AC’s in friendly SZ’s and allow them to take off from Carriers (but not land on them). April 18, 1942.
-
That would break the no suicide flights rules unless the US still held China.
-
Read up on Doolittle’s raid…
They can land in Shangri La! LOL
-
@ncscswitch:
The squadron lands for a refit and flies to the new AC.
Since “turns” are about 6 months of time, I always thought it was rather silly to not be able to “load” carriers, either with new or existing FIGs. In point of fact, all of my early AA gaming allowed for this in Classic.
So no, I have no historical accuracy issues there. The South Pacific and FIGs being moved from islands to carriers and back again with combat in the cycle is enough to show that not only could it happen, but that it DID actually happen.
I think you misunderstand my point. The OOB Revised rules allow for newly built carriers to be loaded with either newly built fighters or existing fighters that are in the same territory as the IC that produced the AC. I think that accurately represents what you are describing.
But the LHTR changed this. No longer can you load newly built carriers with existing fighters based in the territory with the IC that produced the AC. Now existing fighters must end their movement “hovering” over the SZ that the new AC will be placed in during the mobilize phase. This is what I question. Somehow I don’t see fighters going into combat and intending to land directly on a brand new carrier on their return.
Lastly, if you want to talk about histroical accuracy and carriers, let me load Bombers on AC’s in friendly SZ’s and allow them to take off from Carriers (but not land on them). April 18, 1942.
I’ve always thought that there should be some provision in the game for carrier launched bombers ala Doolittle.
-
Well, I simply view the LHTR change to be a simplification of the rules, that the FIGs finish their movement and the AC then is there to land on.
Just one of those “tweeks” that makes it easier for folks to play the game but has no real impact on the actual game.
-
actually, this rule of making Fighters have to “hover” over a sea zone before being placed on a newly built AC keeps people from manipulating the rules and getting fighters to move 5 zones in one turn.
for example, lets say you have a german fighter in EGY, and you fly him to Germany, to be placed on a newly built AC. He flies through LIB, Southern Europe Sea zone, then Southern Europe to Germ, landing there. If he was then able to land on a new AC, he gets an extra move, into the sea zone, and then next turn he could attack a zone farther away than if he had to land in Ger (for example, sea zone 2. While the rule seems unneccesary, you know it came about because someone was manipulating it. -
It also works the other way…
A FIG takes off from Ukraine to attack Archangel (2 moves in).
Under LHTR, the FIG can make it to SZ5 to land on a newly built AC (2 moves out)
Under Box rules, the FIG cannot land on the AC since it has to reach Germany (3 moves out).It simply is clearer and easier if the FIG simply ends in the territory/sea zone that it is indeed going to END in.
-
You have some good points mateoo and ncscswitch.
Its still possible to have fighters move 6 spaces per round through allied carriers (7 in a freak situation where you retreat from combat and land on allied ac).
IMHO LHTR is much better than OOB rules, also regarding fighters and ACs, to me it seems like pure logic to have the fighter end where it ends.-Daniel
-
The only way the FIGs can move 7 is for a nation that moved earlier in the round lands their FIGs on an allied carrier of a nation that moves later in the round. That carrier can then move its 2 spaces (possibly 3 with a retreat as you mentioned) in that later nation’s turn.
However, jsut to clarify, the FIGs on that carrier will not be “landing” on the AC after the retreat. They are CARGO during the later moving allies turn and do not engage in combat at all if the carrier moves into combat (they are treated like INF on a TRN… they cannot fight, and die if the AC dies.
-
OK, let’s look at the notion that the new rules about loading existing fighters on new ACs are simpler than the old rules.
Here is the old rule in its entirety from the A&A Operations Manual, PHASE 6:MOBILIZE NEW UNITS section:
Newly built carriers can enter play with fighters aboard, whether those fighters were built this turn or were already in the territory containing the industrial complex.
Here is what we have in LHTR Rules v 1.3
@â€Step:
Your fighter may also end its noncombat move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the sea zone where your fighter ends its turn.
and
@â€Step:Completing Air Units Move subsection:
Exception: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.and
@â€PHASE:Exception to normal fighter landing spaces rules: Your fighter may also end its move in a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex you own if you have purchased an aircraft carrier that turn and will subsequently place that carrier in the seazone where your fighter ends its turn.
So the old manual has a single rule located in one place, while LHTR has an exception to a normal rule scattered in three places. Also note the LHTR includes this line in the Fighters unit description, WITHOUT any mention of the exception.
If any fighter has no place to land by the end of the noncombat move phase, it is destroyed.
So not only is the exception scattered about the LHTR, it’s not even included everywhere it should be. Lastly, if I was a new player and wanted to know how Fighters are placed on newly mobilized ACs, the first place I’d look is the Mobilize New Units section. In the old rules, I’d find all the relevant rules regarding that right there.
But in LHTR, there is nothing about placing existing Fighters on board newly mobilized ACs in that section. Only rules for placing newly purchased Fighters on board ACs are found there. This could lead some players into making the false assumption that existing Fighters can’t be placed on new ACs.
(Side note – I do like the way LHTR now allows newly built fighters to be placed directly on existing ACs. The OOB rules only allow new fighters to be placed on new ACs).
Anyway, I don’t see how anyone can credibly argue that an exception to normal rules scattered about the ruleset is simpler or less confusing than a rule clearly stated in one place, with that one place being the place one would be most likely to look for such a rule.
On the second point:
@ncscswitch:
Just one of those “tweeks” that makes it easier for folks to play the game but has no real impact on the actual game.
actually, this rule of making Fighters have to “hover” over a sea zone before being placed on a newly built AC keeps people from manipulating the rules and getting fighters to move 5 zones in one turn.
I can not argue that there are circumstances in the OOB rules that can lead to a Fighter “moving†5 spaces in a single turn. But the LHTR rules introduce a new manipulation that players can do that, in my opinion, has a much greater impact on the game. Namely, it allows Fighters to make attacks they otherwise could not in the same turn that the AC is purchased.
For instance, consider a situation where there is no Axis navy within two spaces of the Philippine’s (SZ49) and the closest Axis air units are Jap fighters in China and India. The US player might send unprotected Transports to take the Philippines since he knows it is three spaces from China and India to SZ49 and so out of range of the fighters. But if the Japanese player builds an AC in SZ60, those fighters can attack since SZ60 and SZ49 are adjacent and they can use their fourth and last movement point to land on the new AC.
I admit a situation like this is not likely to arise often, but neither is the “move of 5†situation. And of the two, I’d say a gimmick move of buying an AC just to allow fighters to make what otherwise would be an illegal suicide attack is worse for the game than allowing fighters an occasional “extra†space of noncombat movement.
-
But it IS a simplification in terms of game mechanics. And I recently LOST an argument where “game mechanics” won out over logic (see the topic Multinational Units on Attack).
Movement of each type occurs all at one time; all combat movement occurs at once, all non-combat movement occurs after that, THEN the place units phase, then collecct income. There is no non-combat movement of FIGs after unit placement, which the old rule REQUIRES. That is the “simplification.”
Suggested Topics
