No retreats/strafing attacks?
I think the player should have the same options as a real commander in a real war.
The player/Commanders decision must depend on what he benefits most from, and not be decided by a silly rule that basically is designed for game balance.
The single round of attacks may make it too difficult for the Axis.� Â
I think the game turn’s should be appointet to specific seasons of the year, like summer and winter turns.
During a winter turn, you can only roll dice for one round of combat, since cold and snow makes it difficult to bring supply to the frontline.
During a summer turn you can roll dice for an unlimited rounds of combat, either until the enemey is gone, you want to retreat, or you want to end the combat but stay in the territory to make it contestet.
Obviously we will need to draw a line cross over Europe to differ the Arctic zone from the Mediterreanean zone. Of course there are no winter effect when fighting in Egypt.
Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:
The OOB rules already covers this, since during an SBR you may commit escorting and intercepting fighters for one round of air-to-air combat.
For the ground battle I think the current OOB system is fair enogh.
For naval combat the OOB system let you park your fleet in the adjacent seazone and attack the enemy fleet with your aircrafts only, and later you can, if the enemy sunk, move your fleet in during NCM.
So why should you be allowed to target the juicy units ? In the real war this units was camoflaged during day, and only moved by night. When they was killed by air, it was because the owner choose to sacrifice them by stupid moves. The same should go for this game.
WWII - air units were about attacking ground units, transport networks and industrial production.
Agree, a fighter should not promote all artillery to hit on 4 or less in a WWII game.
I think the OOB rule that let one artillery boost one matching infantry is a good one. I also think inf should att/def on 2/3 and art on 3/3, after all artillery barrage did inflict 70 % of the casualties in the real war. Artillery always was the King of the Battlefield.
Tanks should att/def on 2/2, but a matching fighter or Tac should boost it to att on 3 or less. Aircrafts were the flying artillery to Tanks. Each Tank should also absorb, or negate, one matching enemy hit for every round of combat, since they in fact did create a shock wave and overrun/scatteled the enemy front, making break throughs, but not being the meat grinder as the inf/art combo. During WWII all attacks with armor got lesser casualties than the classic inf/art assault
Build loads of destroyers to soak up mine hits.
If you read the 1914 OOB rules, one die is rolled to each specific ship, just as the fighters cant be fodder for the Bombers during AA-gun rolls.
Yes, I should have said hits in battle. But I also had in mind that destroyers have a special mine sweeping role.
Yes, and I should have guessed so.
But then we would need a plastic piece seamine, like the one Table Tactics used to sell, and remove the mine after the Destroyer sweeped it.
HBG sell acrylic sea mine tokens:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Naval-Mines-Marker-Acrylic_p_774.html
But we needs them in both blue and red
Given the more potent roll played by tanks in WWII and the more sweeping offensives, perhaps 2-4 rounds of combat?
To reflect this, I would give tanks the power to break out into hostile territories on subsequent turns (instead of being limited to movements to friendly territories).
That would help us get our blitzkrieg on, while keeping the unique ‘one-round’ combat structure intact (not many battles go beyond two or three rounds in regular A&A, actually).
Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).
With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber. And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London. Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3). No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1). Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.
I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.
If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.
The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.
Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.
It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.
