National Advantages for A&A Europe Version 1.2

@djensen:

Did you want me to update what’s online currently?

Yes, I would be greatful if you replaced the ones that are A&A.org House Rules for Europe with these ones. So far there are only three votes, so I gues it is more or less now it has to be done. Thanks in advance of your respons!

/B. Andersson

This new NA would be so nice, dont you think? Anyone?  :?

Jagdpanzers
The Germans put their early war experience into the development of tank destroyers. These armor roamed the battlefields to ambush enemy tanks - armed with more powerful guns than similar tanks.
Your tanks have a first-strike ability (defense only) at an defense factor of 2 when attacked by enemy tanks. The enemy must pick tanks as casualties prior to any other units. Any cassualties destroyed are removed from play, with no chance to attack. This first-strike ability is for the first cycle of combat only.

@Imperious:

Yes thats great! finally a NA about tank destroyers! need something for the Soviets. They both invested heavily in this type of unit.

I would like to have your complete NA list in our project BTW.

Well Impy, here you got my NAs for A&A:E. Some of these are not playable and balanced for A&A:R. So it´s not just about have all NAs into one big list. It’s about cherry picking. Many of my ideas have not been good enough by both historical reasons and playabillity. I think that the list for A&A:E is the most comprehensive and balanced so far, for A&A:E. You can read about the first one in house rules for A&A:E on the homepage for A&A.org!

@Imperious:

OK i assume that is the most current version? also do you have any for Italy?

Haste slowly my friend and be patious! I will think about it since I like your ideas more and more. Finaly it seams as you and I will come up with the same frequency! Lets have a revised edition for A&A:E and start with NA:s and as we both know the board is pretty messy as is, hence no more new units. Lets have different values for each nations units instead, that would do much better. More over one need to think about how to get better rules for air. To start with the cost for fighters, that should be reduced from 12 to 10 IPCs! I dont really know about the tanks combat capabillity yet (3/3 or 3/2)?!

@Imperious:

I know you may not like this but the only way to truely get a accurate index of nation specific values is to install an optional D12 system… which by chance is what Larry harris will be doing when he ever releases his own Advanced Axis and Allies game. I can easily provide a good index of values that in fact is the very list that Larry has tentitively approved.

The idea with the extra units (which i know you dont like) is under only the optional rules section of phase 2 of the project. So not to worry. BTW i send you some rulesets. Did you get them?

Will take a look on them next week! And why a D12?

@Imperious:

Ok take your time… If you have a D12 system you can have nation specific unit values… how else can you accomplish this idea?
If you had a Armor unit for germany it would be 4/3, for japan its 2/3, usa 3/3 USSR what? UK what then? remember you cant choose 2/2 because your into artillery values… and 4/4 you run into heavy tank territory or the SS Panzer values… you see only 6 numbers gives you crap for room to maneuver the unit values. Only a d12 solves this problem.

I disagree! A 4/3 would simply cost more than a 3/3 and not an option, just nation specific! I would say 3/4 for Germany and cost of 6 IPCs were as Russian (US and UK) tanks would be 3/3 and cost 5 IPCs!

By the way this kind of nation specific units is just a more less flexible system of NAs!

@Imperious:

…

naval fighters ( planes that only are carrier based/ not mixed with land fighters)
SS panzers
Mech infantry
Cruiser

The other NA’s you want will be added AS NA’s… where you get to choose what you want from a list. Each item on the list will have a point value ( like AA miniatures) so in the game you start off with a certain amount of points and you choose what NA’s you need  paying these points for the “cost” of having this benifit. This system will then remove the imbalances of one NA Vs. another… what do you think?

Why naval fighters?

Your point system rule is briliant! I will dig in to this as soon as possible, but first one need to know what NAs to be on the list!

@Imperious:

… I like your ideas as NA’s but just want to add like 3-4 new units:

naval fighters ( planes that only are carrier based/ not mixed with land fighters)
SS panzers
Mech infantry
Cruiser

… what do you think?

I think that naval fighters are not needed, not even SS panzers or cruisers! Mech infantry could be a tech or a NA for US!

The biggest reason for this is playability! The best would be to make the CA and naval fighters one unit. I know I have wrote an idea about it before. But since gamers are too familiar with CA and fighters as it is today I don’t think they will accept a rule change like this one. However I wrote another idea that will make many things more realistic and more balanced and at the same time make air units more desirable!

This issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.

Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

@Imperious:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

can you elaborate this rule in a combat example?

how they work?

In any combat fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat! AA-guns and fighters fire at the same time, but attacker rolls first. Any casualties do not counter attack! This opening fire ability is for the whole battle and only if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat. If enemy fighters are not present in the beginning of a cycle of combat this rule apply! Anything you find unclear? Think logic and act logic!