AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat

Retreat and Pursuit Clarifications…

Clarifications…

Not all attacking ships must pursue.  The sea zone is used for 2 separate battles if the defender has scrambled planes to the sea zone. Scrambling planes cannot retreat, and would fight any ships that did not pursue. Any opponent ships that are in the target retreat zone are not included in the combat. After combat, if the target retreat sea zone has no surviving defenders, the attacker has option to occupy with
pursuing ships, even IF the defender retreated twice. If attacking planes have enough MP after their move into the battle sea zone, then the defender might not have enough MP to retreat.
Example: 1 attacking fighter, 1 defending DD.
a) Attacker uses 1 MP to SZ (has 3 MP remaining).
b) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 1 MP remaining).
*) Attacker can choose not to pursue and gets 1 free shot - all combat finished.
c) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 2 MP remaining).
d) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 0 MP remaining).
e) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 1 MP remaining).
f) Defender cannot retreat and x rounds of combat occur (assume defender sunk).
g) Attacker uses 1 MP remaining to return to base or carrier.

Answers to questions…

How many complete combat round is allowed before defender retreat?  The retreat can be immediate, and attacker then chooses to take free shot or pursue.
One as per planes retreat in amphibous assault? Not sure understand question.
Does the second combat round then becomes an all one free shots for the attacker? Yes it would if defender burned another MP to retreat. Unless attacking planes are involved.

If some warships can pursuit, do they get their free shot too, before continuing naval battle with retreating defender?  No, they either pursue OR take free shot on the retreating ships.
Is it possible to flee this second naval combat with another move point? Yes, though if survive, they would only actually be just 1 sea zone away with 0 MP available in their next move.
In this case, there is nothing the attacker can do then, right? Correct (unless planes involved). The defender is burning up his MP from his next turn to just get 1 SZ away.

An example or two can useful to understand multiples cases.  Yes, see example above.
Thanks.

Yes - that would make sense.

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

UPDATE: Screenshot & TripleA save game file!

Note that both the map and the saved game are missing the neutral units (including French & Dutch), because the WW2v5 map in TripleA doesn’t allow for neutral units, but this should still save you a lot of setup time if you’re interested in playtesting the 1939 scenario.

AAA screenshot 1939.png
Argo 1939.tsvg

I made an important revision in red which affect the first two posts.

If playing 1942.2 without Airbase but with Tactical Bombers,
here is the condition to get escorted Strategical bombers:

_When StBs attack fighters on SBR air combat, **each get 1 A@1 if there is a Fg unit escorting.

The fighter unit have to be part of the SBR to give the bonus to all StBs attacking the IC.
This single fighter unit get 1A@1 preemptive strike.
The Fg unit can land anywhere else at the end of the turn. No need to return in the same territory.

**Non-escorted StBs group roll: 1A@1 for each StB or interceptor, whichever is less.

The @1 for escorted StB is like the actual OOB.
As it is for each intercepting Fg getting to fire 1D@1.
Is it enough balance and fair for both sides?****_

I like it. Simple and effective.

@oldsalty:

The way our group plays this is fighters (without attacking land units) are allowed to attack defending land units at an attack value of 1.  Fighters are then allowed only one round of attacks.

your group’s interpretion of the rule is correct

the idea is that defending land units have nothing to fight so they stay in bunkers and what not
attacking air units in excess of attacking land units can still do damage, but at a reduced rate

I think its ok, unless there is a problem I am not seeing

@Imperious:

The rules already cover the idea of planes flying over to just engage other planes. Lets look at them:

think you misunderstood oldsalty
he is not talking about counter-air

IT USED TO BE IN THE FILE UNDER COUNTER-AIR. Now the section has been changed yet again and CA is not explained.
Tekkyy??? why?

yeah I got your PM
repeating my reply for others:

the paragraph “Counter-Air” merely explains the effect unique to Counter-Air
hence it looks a bit short
rules common to all air missions are written under the paragraph “Air Missions”

Counter air is one round of air combat using air values. It allows just air to air units to hit to model the control of the sky thing.

you can already perform an attack with only air units like in OOB/LHTR
air units then engage enemy air units

what Counter-Air is, is that it stops the defender from running (via air unit relocation rule “Defensive Air Support”) from the Counter-Air attack

all destroyers and cruiser may fire an ASW attack roll or normal combat roll, regardless of submarine detection

in your example effectively all 4 ships can fire ASW attack roll at the 1 detected submarine