Expanding on Units - New and OOB Types

@CWO:

I’ve been away for a few days, so I’m doing a quick catch-up on discussion threads.  Most of the categories in your table use terms that sound clear and accurate to me, but there are some terms which are problematic:

I try to be very clear and consistent in my choice of words. Especially since they are often interpreted in a legal manner during gameplay. People need specifics and turn into lawyers if things are the least bit up to interpretation. That said, I have explanation for the below items.

@CWO:

Strategic Bomber and Heavy Bomber  
I don’t know what this distinction is supposed to refer to.  “Strategic bombing”, strictly speaking, doesn’t refer to an aircraft type, it refers to a mission type (the bombing of strategic targets – which generally means cities – rather than tactical ones).  The Blitz against London was a strategic bombing campaign, but as far as I know it was carried out by medium bombers because Germany had few heavy bombers.  “Heavy bomber” in WWII terms generally equates with big 4-engine types like the B-17, the B-29 and the Lancaster.  Such bombers were well suited to strategic bombing missions (the B-29 particularly so, given its very long range and huge bomb load), but they weren’t limited to strategic bombing missions; for instance, B17s and Lancasters were involved in tactical bombing missions against shore fortifications on D-Day.

What I should call these units is Strategic Bomber and Heavy Strategic Bomber. The Heavy Bomber is just a larger and more capable version of the Strategic Bomber. Ideally, this would fill the “Heavy Bombers” tech slot. Although I haven’t reconciled the Tech aspect yet.

My current conception is that sculpts like the B-17, B-24, He-111, Stirling, Lancaster, etc… would all be in the Strategic Bomber category. B-29, Ju-488, etc… would then be considered Heavy Strategic Bombers.

Since I am well versed in aircraft types, ship classes and tanks, it is easy for me to visually distinguish all of the different kinds individually. I doubt some others are so familiar, so I am sure others will simplify by reducing to a single unit for each class. To each his own.

@CWO:

• Early War Battleship/Battlecruiser
  I would argue that this actually reverses the evolutionary line of dreadnoughts.  In the later stages of that evolution, battleships and battlecruisers merged more and more into a ship type which supplanted them both: the fast battleship.  An “early war” battleship would in fact be more differentiated from a battlecruiser than a “late war” one, rather than less differentiated.  In essence, battlecruisers traded firepower (fewer main guns) and protection (less armour) for higher speed.

I am aware of the differences between the two, including the relatively limited run of usefulness for the battlecruiser platform. My intent was to combine the limited capabilities of each into a single A&A unit type which would represent both. This unit would need to be inferior to the WWII era Battleship unit. It would be represented by a good attack combined with a slightly lesser defense. Hence the A4  D3 with the ability to only take only 1 hit. I have considered using this unit type to also represent Heavy Cruisers, but I think that may end up differentiating sculpts to a TOO detailed degree, as if I haven’t done so already.

The Early War BB/Battlecruiser type may not be purchased much in the game… just as they were not produced during WWII. Where I see this being used is to include this unit on the map for the starting set up, replacing some of the existing “Battleship” pieces. This also presupposes an HBG Global War level game, where a little more detail is possible. I think this unit in particular is completely superfluous in G40.

@CWO:

• Light Aircraft Carrier, Fleet Aircraft Carrier, Heavy Aircraft Carrier
  The terms “light carrier” and “fleet carrier” were indeed used in WWII, and the terms definitely refered to two distinct types of carriers.  The difference between a light carrier and a fleet carrier is basically that light carriers were smaller and could carry fewer planes; both had equivalent speed and both carried the same types of planes.  (This distinguishes them both from escort carriers, which were not only small but also relatively slow and which carried less capable aircraft). “Heavy carrier”, as far as I know, isn’t a term that was used in WWII.  I also don’t know what it might refer to.  Just because some carriers were called light carriers doesn’t mean that this implies the existence of heavy carriers.  Fleet carriers were “heavy” if by “heavy” you mean “really, really big,” but they were called fleet carriers, not heavy carriers.  Shinano doesn’t count: she was a Yamato-hull conversion, so she was inherently oversized, but she was a one-off (Japan built only one, and no other nation built a similar carrier), and I think she was also rather slow by carrier standards.  Her combat history amounted to being torpedoed and sunk by a single US sub.

Correct. The Heavy Carrier designation presupposes further carrier development had the war continued beyond August 1945. Namely, this would be represented by the Midway class and Shinano class using HBG units. Shinano is a poor historical example, because it was, as you said, a conversion rather than a purpose-built carrier. It was hastily re-designed during construction and was under-capable. However in my rationale, the use of the Shinano in-game would assume a better development period with increased capability. Midway was a step forward in carrier design and was the immediate precursor to the US supercarrier. Shinano was the largest aircraft carrier ever built and remained that way until the first US supercarrier (Forrestal) was launched in 1954.

Basically, the Heavy Carrier unit is meant to fill that category in the Light-Med-Heavy capital ship system which HBG has been using. Last I heard, HBG had come up with designs for a Midway-class sculpt. It should be noted that a Heavy Carrier is needed to operate Jet Fighters at sea. My hope is that all (Major) Powers have the ability to buy all units, so I hope HBG comes out with Heavy carrier designs for Germany and the UK at the very least.

Besides… who doesn’t want to see this being built on one of your US turns?

@John:

LHoffman, don’t forget light and heavy cruisers, with the coming American and German sets. We already have the Japanese ones.

Also don’t forget about armored cars, light armor, heavy artillery, as well as, light and heavy infantry.

These are just a few, I knew you didn’t have down. :-)

Holy crap!

That is a lot of stuff. And this brings up the other problem that I think has to be talked about: at what point do you have too many unit types?

As I said, I do believe there is some sort of critical mass. Based on the poll, some people believe we have already reached or exceeded it. And honestly I am not even sure that all the units I have proposed thus far will be regularly used. After so many units it becomes impossible to distinguish them in a D6 system, which I intend to use. You could add more units and expand to D12, but then you still have the cost problem, which is possibly even more inflexible.

As for heavy and light cruisers in particular, I am planning to just use said sculpts as normal cruisers. If nobody buys cruisers as they stand, I can see no reason why they would buy a heavy or light one.

@John:

Well this is why the 1936 game and the 1939 game uses a 12 sided die, for this very reason. It is impossible to incorporate a 6 sided die, unless you combine all artillery, tanks, mechs, fighters, and etc.

That is what you would probably have to do, is keep it simplified, if your using a 6 sided die, but everything HBG is planning, mostly uses 12 sided, but they still use 6 sided die on some things, but mostly 12 sided. :-)

I am not opposed to trying D12. I suppose I am just a traditionalist and I like the simplicity of D6.

To be honest, my idea so far has been to develop my own unit system to play on GW 36-45 or GW39. Only time will tell if that is viable or not.

@CWO:

In my opinion, there’s a simple way to greatly increase unit diversity without making things hopelessly unmanageable:

• Make a list of all the standard OOB units, giving for each one its price, combat values, special abilities and so forth.

• Make a similar list for all the special extra units you wish to create.

• Make a house rule stating that each power is allowed to buy any of standard unit types it wants, but is only allowed to buy two types of special unit in a given game.

The choices of special unit types can change from game to game, which would add diversity, but within a game each power is limited to just two types.  The choices made within a game by the different powers don’t have to be the same, nor are any of the powers obliged to purchase any of these special units.  In principle, therefore, the eight powers in Global that can buy multiple unit types (everyone except China) might choose to buy no special units, might all buy the same types of special units, might all buy different types of special units, or anything in between…so you might have anywhere from a minimum of 0 special unit types being used to a maximum of 8 x 2 = 16 special unit types being used.  More likely it would be somewhere in between those extremities.  Allowing just one special unit type per power would reduce the maximum from 16 to 8, if that’s more practical.  And the list of special units might even restrict certain types to certain powers, rather than letting anyone build any unit type they want (which even for the standard unit types isn’t very realistic).

The challenge that would remain is still quantifying these units in terms of values and cost.

I would be interested to hear opinions on what specifically people think is enough or too much when it comes to types of units.

The list on page 1 is my own personal maximum… plus or minus 1 or 2. In D6, I don’t know how to expand much more and as I said, I don’t see how many added unit types (on top of those I have outlined) will be purchased on a regular basis.

While I tend believe more options is better, limited options contains its own elegance and moves the game forward with less deliberation. Ultimately, even my system will have to bow to simplicity and ease of use. So maybe some of my added units will be nerfed before this is all done.

@Narvik:

Don’t mess with the OOB units, they are balanced, and new rules will only confuse the average player that we lure into our basement for a rare game.

For me at least, bringing a newbie to the game in person is very much a rarity. So I have not been considering rules which cater to lesser knowledge and experience, but rather the reverse. Not to say that should mean the rules are any more complicated or confusing, just that their implementation is informed by lots of playing time. Ideally they should just be improvements on the game in general. If modded rules are simple enough, there should be no fear of confusing anyone; even a rookie.

@Narvik:

I miss a Fortress unit. The game start with a German attack that just by-passed the Maginot Line. With no Fortress units the Germans should have gone straight into France and not bothered with Belgium. Likewise the Sigfried Line with bunkers, blockhouses and pillboxes successfully stopped the French from attacking when Germany was dealing with Poland, and it kept the Allies out of Germany for a year after the Normandy landing and Paris liberation. And the Atlantic Wall made the Allies attack in 1944 instead of 1942 that was their wish. On the Eastern Front, the Mannerheim Line kept Finland free of Red Army units for most of the war, and Manstein used a year to crush the Fortress at Sevastopol.

This is a good point. Though other people have brought up the fortification unit, I never gave it much thought because A&A is a large scale, mobility-based game. However, your examples are compelling. Some of these considerations and delays are, perhaps inadvertently, already crafted into the game.

Some fortifications (Sigfried, Maginot, etc…) would be present to begin the game. Others (e.g. Atlantic Wall) would have to be deliberately constructed by Germany as the war goes on. The challenge would be making the fortification unit attractive enough in cost and utility to compete against normal units for your purchase. Would I rather have 2 infantry or 1 blockhouse unit? Infantry are cheaper, mobile, defend on twos. Blockhouses (theoretically) would be more expensive, immobile and have better initial strike but worse overall defense. I could easily see the German player NOT building blockhouses in favor of other units if the cost is 5 or greater.

It may not be necessary, but it seems logical that you would also institute a rule that any pre-battle bombardment shots would hit blockhouses first (before taking other units as casualties). This could be good or bad… blockhouses could act as hit absorbers but they would have to be cheap if so. It also would be odd to let blockhouses fire after they have been hit by a battleship or artillery pre-fire. Just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

@Narvik:

Self Propelled artillery is another unit that HBG have provided to all nations.
SP Art, cost 5 or 6, move 2, A2 D2 and boost a matching infantry. Blitz with a Tank.

I came to the conclusion that SPA really needs to be at $5. If you put it at $6, there is pretty much no reason why you shouldn’t instead buy a tank.
From earlier: Self-Propelled Artillery  A2+  D2  M2  $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units.

@Narvik:

I also like Tech upgrades with own sculpts, like Jet planes, or ASW planes that sink Subs without a Destroyer, and Super Subs.

Yes, I agree. I am kinda on the fence now with Tech, just because I feel it is tremendously under-utilized (because it is expensive and not guaranteed). If you do continue to use the Tech system, then yeah it is just as simple as using the new sculpts in place of the old. The way I envision things is that what used to be tech upgrades are  simply new unit types that are available for purchase at some point… either due to modified tech rules or a turn-based introduction cycle. This way, if you get Jet Fighters, not all you fighters on the board are immediately converted. You have to buy Jet Fighters to use them. Having this extra cost for buying the units is pulling me away from having to spend money to research a development.

@GODLEADER:

In my version forteress cost 6 ipc, and give 4 infantry to defend at 3 for the first turn of combat. max of one forteress par territory.

This, IMO, is a good and necessary addition. Increasing infantry defense for Rd.1 is critical and a big deal.

@Narvik:

@LHoffman:

It may not be necessary, but it seems logical that you would also institute a rule that any pre-battle bombardment shots would hit blockhouses first (before taking other units as casualties). This could be good or bad… blockhouses could act as hit absorbers but they would have to be cheap if so. It also would be odd to let blockhouses fire after they have been hit by a battleship or artillery pre-fire. Just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The big idea with a bunker is to protect the men and weapons. If a blockhouse don’t absorb a hit, then there is no point in purchasing it. Its like a Battleship, they are designed to take a lot of beating. The Blockhouses at Omaha beach took a lot of beating from both Battleships and Bombers, but still survived to deal with the infantry in landing crafts

By saying that blockhouses “absorb” a hit, do you mean that they actually take 2 hits to destroy, similar to a battleship? To me, every unit is able to “absorb a hit”; battleships and carriers can just absorb one more than everything else.

@Narvik:

@GODLEADER:

In my version forteress cost 6 ipc, and give 4 infantry to defend at 3 for the first turn of combat. max of one forteress par territory.

Even if its look playable for this game, I don’t like it because in the real world a fortress unit have different weapons, training and supply needs than a mobile infantry unit. The French fortress divisions in the Maginot Line could not be used in an attack against Germany because they only had defensive weapons. Barbed wire, mines, concrete and heavy mortars are not of much use in attacks.

And the other way, if an infantry unit is placed in a bunker line or trench, they keep their infantry weapons so their firepower stay the same. Your 6 IPC investment pays for the concrete, not big guns. If anything, the dug in infantry unit should defend at 1, since they have now lost their mobility. But they should take two hits to kill since they are now protected by concrete bunkers.

Me, I prefer a dedicated Blockhouse unit. It should not boost other units, because combined arms bonuses at the WWII time was only in attacks.

Unfortunately, the level of abstraction in A&A prohibits true-to-life modeling of tactical interactions; we need to simplify and generalize. I see nothing wrong with giving infantry a +1 on defense with a fortification. Hearkens back to some of the Strategic Advantages in Revised (Dug in Defenders, Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe). If anything, infantry’s limited weapons would be concentrated in specific areas where the enemy had to attack, giving their defense capabilities even greater impact.

If infantry firepower stays the same, their defense should not change. Reducing infantry defense in such a manner seems like a sure way to get people to NOT buy fortification pieces. If a blockhouse can already “absorb a hit” (or two hits?) it would be entirely redundant to allow infantry units to take yet another hit.

Another issue with Fortification pieces in A&A is that you can’t really represent how they are physically oriented. For example, the Maginot line was only effective if attacked from Germany directly. If Germany attacked from the North or behind (how they circumvented it), the fortifications were essentially useless. I believe that in HBG’s Global War 39 they addressed this by stating in the rules each starting fortification’s orientation and how they benefit the defender.

Some system would have to be developed for newly built fortifications to account for the orientation factor. Particularly if Germany is to build them along the coast of France. Maybe you need two unit types: a blockhouse for coastal defense and a fortification for non-coastal defense? If the Allies break through in Normandy and they attack Holland (where Germany built a blockhouse), does the blockhouse add to defense or get to defend and absorb hits or is it simply discarded since it is not oriented for a land assault?

Another thing to consider is whether or not either or both of these units have integral (field sized) guns, or if they are simply concrete bunkers giving defensive bonuses.

@Narvik:

I figure that during a frontal attack against a defending Blockhouse, the Blockhouse will roll a preemptive high value dice, like 3 or less, maybe 4 or less. This is because the attackers don’t have much firepower when stuck in a Landing Craft, they need to hit the beach and drive the Tanks onshore before they can shoot back, and at this time most of the attackers are killed. Its pretty much the same when attacking the Maginot or Siegfried Lines, the attackers have to cross rivers, minefields and barbed wire, while being barraged and shelled, before they reach the Blockhouse and can start the actual attack.

I don’t have issue with that. I think it is a good way to make a blockhouse a more valuable unit. However, it also needs to be paired with the battleship bombardment topic below…

@Narvik:

Now this is the reason that frontal attacks against Blockhouses were so rare. The attackers always tried to by-pass it, or circumvent it as you say. And in that case, when circumvented, or after a breakthrough, then the Blockhouse is pretty much defenseless. So that justify a preemptive defense roll of 3 or less for the first round of combat when attacked in front, and a general defense roll of 1 for the rest of that turn, and no combat value at all when the attack come from another direction.

This is pretty accurate I would say, but there are a lot of moving parts. As in, there are a number of changing roll attributes based on defender orientation, attacker orientation and combat cycle. I have no problem following it, but I could see how in the game this could become frustrating.

@Narvik:

The primary job of a Blockhouse is to survive, so it must takes two hits to kill, just like a Battleship. When I say absorb one hit, I really say the Blockhouse absorb the first hit, and need an extra hit to be killed. This is the special ability of concrete bunkers, they die hard.

I also wouldn’t have a problem with this if it makes a blockhouse more valuable. I agree that as a fortification unit, some level of toughness or resiliency to attack should be accentuated. Taking (2) hits to destroy is a very apt representation of that. I also think that will make the attacker think twice about his move. Attacking any unit that can take (2) hits deserves careful consideration. Whatever Fortification Unit devised should instill that fear.

@Narvik:

Good question. The Tank unit is not just some vehicles that you need an infantry unit to fill, so why should the Blockhouse unit be a concrete shell with no guns or men, so you need an infantry unit to fill it ?
I like the Blockhouse unit to represent a fortificated line with bunkers, barbed wire, minefields, big guns, machine guns and crew.

I agree here also and I didn’t mean to imply that I suggested otherwise. Even as a typical blockhouse, the fortification unit should have some defense values of its own, independent of infantry or other units. Due to collection of machine guns, mortars, mines, etc… and basic infantry that staff the emplacements.

I was more getting at the distinction between blockhouses or other infantry based fortifications and fortified field-gun emplacements/anti-siege weapons. A blockhouse (aka pillbox type structures) are not the same as coastal gun emplacements with 12-inch cannons.

versus

Not the same. Would require different rules.

Unless of course you just wanted to totally simplify and have one fortification unit and be done with it.

@Narvik:

Another question, that I have no rational answers to, is the sequenced fire. AA-guns fire preemptive, Subs can in some cases fire preemptive, and a Blockhouse too should fire preemptive. Then we can ask, why cant Battleship shore bombardment be preemptive like it used to be in the early editions ? If you don’t want your infantry in Normandy to be killed by ships, then just build a Blockhouse.

The reason for having battleship bombardment is to simulate what battleships would be used for in an amphibious assault. This is not killing enemy infantry and tanks before landing troops. It is to destroy beach and coastal fortifications in order to clear a path for assault troops. Unfortunately, OOB rules do not include fortifications, so hits have to be applied to other units.

Arguably, battleship bombardment is too tactical of an ability for A&A and could be removed from the game. It doesn’t scale well and that is why the rule was revised: so defending units that get hit could still return fire. In real life, that would not happen. Likewise, as you pointed out, battleships or other heavy guns would be completely incapable of wiping out even a single division of soldiers, let alone about 20 in a given territory. Blockhouses/fortifications could alleviate this. Battleships should fire first and any hits should be removed before the next phase. As a defender, you would probably choose to apply these hits to your blockhouses first since they should be able to take (2) hits a piece and, IMO, they should either be cheap to build and have low hitting power or they should be moderately expensive with good hitting power. May have to look at limiting the number of blockhouses per territory somehow though.