• Yes i am very sorry tekkyy I do forget alot because simply put… alot of information is getting sorted out by only two people and its very tedious. Just keep reminding me. AS you know i work on other games and i have many rewrites to do with them because after playtesting i constantly need to update the rules for my other games and its got similar types of ideas.

    I will answer the post you left in the morning.


  • Quote
    the fuel consumption goes up astronomically ( about 3 times more consumption of fuel), when the fleet is sailing at full speed or making many maneuvers. The ‘zigzag’ thing is happening at full speed to maximize its deterrent.
    The zig-zag argument is fine for convoy raids.
    But for fleet vs. fleet action you pretty much know about enemy submarines. You don’t have to wait for the destroyers to tell you to sail zig-zag or whatever appropriate.

    Thats why I felt “ASW search” shouldn’t represent simply a warning but tracked by sonar.

    ====== its more than that and sonar was primitive back then. Detection is some known whereabouts and a idea of where to drop charges. A warning is more like " we have reports of U-boats in this area… please be advised…"

    Quote
    =============== ok… possibly this: non-detected=targeted, and detected= screening allowed?  This looks good.
    how will it look?
    So we both agree that fleet submarines screen the friendly fleet and does not fight at the same time as gunship battle.

    What happens to those victims? Do they stay afloat long enough to fight the gunship battle?
    What happens if its a destroyer that was hit? Can it still chase and hunt the evading submarine with efficiency?

    1. correct they do not fight with friendly ships… they are a screening force, but pick off damaged ships from battle. ( scavengers of the sea)
    2. All submarine interactions should be performed either before or after surface combat ( the attackers choice) . This way these interactions are separate and deal with the “scavenger mentality” In this way we keep it separate and easy to play. So to answer the question. All results either way are resolved so their is no carryover of hits or loses.
    3. again under #2 all interactions are separate. results of hits and loses do not carryover to other combat actions or results. ( A sunk ship is sunk, it cannot perform anything latter)

    Quote
    ======you can only retreat to territories where no combat takes place. thats the rules and it seems to work fine.
    Do realise that means you can prevent defender retreat most of the time?
    You can send one infantry on a suicide attack to possible retreat territory. Or you can attack the territory for one cycle with an air unit.

    You find the old rule was too complex or have you forgotten we had a rule?

    +++++++++= yes but these cases are few exceptions. Many of the territories are not surrounded but linked to the interior and cannot be attacked simultaneously. Also, you cannot attack land units with only air units. that was changed long ago. You need equal amounts 1 to 1 basis. If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:

    If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.

    Example: you block a retreat by sending 2 infantry to attack X, while your main attack is against forces at y. Defending forces in excess of your 2 infantry are not blocked and arrive to defend against your attacking 2 infantry.


  • ASW search
    Doesn’t matter if its my “tracked by sonar” or your “some known whereabouts”. Similar idea. This part I think you should roll.

    Your “we have reports of U-boats in this area” I am saying is not needed. Because you ought to know enemy fleet has submarines. This part I think you shouldn’t have to roll. And you shouldn’t have to wait til 2nd combat cycle to know we have U-boats.

    Hence I think “ASW search” roll should be the “some known whereabouts” and not “we have reports of U-boats in this area”. As such we would have each successful roll detect 1 enemy submarine.

    Then the undetected submarines would fire selectively. Detected submarine fire unselectively. Both ASW search and attack rolls are unselective.

    Submarine opening-fire

    1. All submarine interactions should be performed either before or after surface combat ( the attackers choice) . This way these interactions are separate and deal with the “scavenger mentality” In this way we keep it separate and easy to play. So to answer the question. All results either way are resolved so their is no carryover of hits or loses.
    2. again under #2 all interactions are separate. results of hits and loses do not carryover to other combat actions or results. ( A sunk ship is sunk, it cannot perform anything latter)

    I would have it as before, rather than a choice, since submarines screen the fleet.

    Also, you cannot attack land units with only air units. that was changed long ago.

    Oh no. Didn’t realise thats what you meant.

    This was our discussion about counter-air mission.

    T: Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
    I: actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
    T: Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
    Air units might dogfight first.
    So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
    I: Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.

    I didn’t realise you want to remove air-only attack in normal combat.
    Hence I said “So you can already do everything in combat” against having specific counter-air mission rule.

    I don’t like disallowing air-only attack. I thought one cycle combat before having to retreat due to no land units is a good model.
    In the same sense we allow air-only defense to fight one cycle before having to retreat due to no land units.

    If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
    If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.

    This isn’t consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory.

    Which was the idea behind the rule that attacking land units must retreat the way they came from. (ie. You can’t do the OOB example of attacking China from Sinkiang + Manchuria and all retreat to Manchuria.)

    Oh course I understand its not entirely realistic in letting them retreat to combat zone and then if land control is lost at the end of conduct combat then they are destroyed. But it was the best thing us two and others like theduke came up with at that point.

    Other options examined include playing out all combats cycle by cycle. That was rejected as too complicated.

    Map
    Don’t worry about look back at the post. I’ll save you time and just repost here.

    France 2 IPC where
    All territories in the region are 1 IPC except Kirin. Don’t have FIC at 2 IPC unless its realistic. How about 1 IPC to Dakar and 1 IPC to France.

    Australia

    Try to find the loophole and post.

    IPC spent at IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory income value. Australia is broken up into 3 x 1 IPC territories. It can’t produce anything besides artillery. Possible fix give all IPC to New South Wales.

    Germany
    I know Germany is not split. But all 18 IPC is in Eastern Germany at the moment. Should Western Germany get some?

    East Indices, Borneo
    Now that we have oil fields I sugguested East Indices and Borneo can be set to a realistic value like 2 IPC.

    these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.

    Then what did happen historically?
    Maybe we need a war mobilisation or efficiency rule and formalise it on the map. Which US territory is getting the +10 IPC per turn? We had a war industrial NA for Germany. And maybe we have one for Japan too and Japan would get the 1942 production levels.

    British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland

    I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
    ++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?

    What I mean is are those two territories significant? We don’t represent Hong Kong separately. These two territories are bigger of course but are they significant? It makes Italian East Africa harder to hold then neccessary.

    Sahara
    Its not an actually territory so I don’t know what you mean by existing desert upkeep rules.
    Do you mean 1 IPC per unit to cross Sahara?
    If you didn’t pay upkeep the balance carries forward. But what happens to those units?


  • ASW search
    Doesn’t matter if its my “tracked by sonar” or your “some known whereabouts”. Similar idea. This part I think you should roll.

    Your “we have reports of U-boats in this area” I am saying is not needed. Because you ought to know enemy fleet has submarines. This part I think you shouldn’t have to roll. And you shouldn’t have to wait til 2nd combat cycle to know we have U-boats.

    ++++++++= but thats just it Subs didn’t travel with the fleet. They only go 6-12 knots and fleets move at 20-24 knots or faster. When in battle they move at faster speeds (perhaps 28-35 knots depending on ship) subs are not any part of “fleets” these are sent in ADVANCE of the main fleet when time permits and as part of some overall plan ( say at midway). In nearly every case you dont see any subs being used with naval combat because its like taking cripples into a track event.

    Subs only really interact against slow moving convoys that happen to move into or thru an area under sub patrol. The detection roll is ONLY the definite engagement of ASW against subs and NOT some “keep your eyes open mr. brimley for enemy subs” type of event

    Hence I think “ASW search” roll should be the “some known whereabouts” and not “we have reports of U-boats in this area”. As such we would have each successful roll detect 1 enemy submarine.

    +++++++++++++ OK if we allow one successful detection roll= only one sub located… then it becomes too many seperate battles.

    1. you have subs not detected
    2. subs detected
    3. enemy ships
    4. enemy planes and CAP
    5. preemptive BB rolls

    thats too many categories do deal with a few ships. Its a burden to the system to introduce yet another seperation.

    Please make an example of play using all these new ideas… then we can have a clearer picture of how it actually effects play ( more fun or less fun)

    Then the undetected submarines would fire selectively. Detected submarine fire unselectively. Both ASW search and attack rolls are unselective.

    This makes sence but it will make thing too complex. lets see examples of play.

    This was our discussion about counter-air mission.

    T: Page 16. Counter-Air Mission. No need to explicitly say one cycle air-only attack.
    I: actually i need to this allows air units to fly over and fight only air units. This cannot take the form of multiple round attacks. It needs to be clarified.
    T: Air only attack can’t do multi cycle anyway. You must retreat cos only defender has land units.
    Air units might dogfight first.
    So you can already do everything in combat. Setting it aside as mission might be confusing.
    I: Not really. A counter air mission is fighting air units specifically. It needs to be its own mission to let people understand that you can do this. To assume that they know “planes always fight planes and land units don’t harm them” works great in the normal combat sequence…. BUT it may not be at all clear that they can by inference NOW just send over air units and fight EVEN without land units… this is important for newbies to grasp.

    I didn’t realize you want to remove air-only attack in normal combat.
    Hence I said “So you can already do everything in combat” against having specific counter-air mission rule.

    I don’t like disallowing air-only attack. I thought one cycle combat before having to retreat due to no land units is a good model.
    In the same sense we allow air-only defense to fight one cycle before having to retreat due to no land units.

    ======== their is a difference between counter air and ground support missions. IN counter air planes attack only planes w/o any land units being used in an effort to sap the enemy air strength ( battle of Britain stuff)

    Ground support missions is the classic air units bringing to bear against enemy tanks… at time the enemy will put up air defense and aerial combat will occur for control of the sky , while a land battle rages below. These eventually are more than linked, they are mixed once one side has control of the sky and no opposition.

    Quote
    If you feel the rule is more widespread then you repair it by this:
    If you conduct attacks on the periphery of enemy territories with the intent to block retreats, this will only be possible to the extent that your only blocking enemy retreats equal to the number of your blocking forces.
    This isn’t consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory.

    Which was the idea behind the rule that attacking land units must retreat the way they came from. (ie. You can’t do the OOB example of attacking China from Sinkiang + Manchuria and all retreat to Manchuria.)

    Oh course I understand its not entirely realistic in letting them retreat to combat zone and then if land control is lost at the end of conduct combat then they are destroyed. But it was the best thing us two and others like theduke came up with at that point.

    Other options examined include playing out all combats cycle by cycle. That was rejected as too complicated.

    OK then so which idea do you want? Im lost here.

    Map
    Don’t worry about look back at the post. I’ll save you time and just repost here.

    France 2 IPC where
    All territories in the region are 1 IPC except Kirin. Don’t have FIC at 2 IPC unless its realistic. How about 1 IPC to Dakar and 1 IPC to France.

    ok got it.

    Australia
    Quote
    Try to find the loophole and post.
    IPC spent at IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory income value. Australia is broken up into 3 x 1 IPC territories. It can’t produce anything besides artillery. Possible fix give all IPC to New South Wales.

    yes good point!!! good job. You know the way that reads really needs an example. i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

    im not sure what the solution should be…

    Germany
    I know Germany is not split. But all 18 IPC is in Eastern Germany at the moment. Should Western Germany get some?

    ====== that line and the one in poland is for special reasons. This allows forces of different sides to occupy ( enemy and friendly) but the side in the main territory holds the IPC. This is to allow the co- habitation of Poland of German and soviets and the POLITICAL control of Germany by allied forces for historical victory conditions ( need to fix this)

    East Indices, Borneo
    Now that we have oil fields I sugguested East Indices and Borneo can be set to a realistic value like 2 IPC.
    Quote
    these need to remain consistent with to ability to get japan at its historical IPC level by early 1942, reducing this will not make japan balanced with USA if we change this.
    Then what did happen historically?
    Maybe we need a war mobilisation or efficiency rule and formalise it on the map. Which US territory is getting the +10 IPC per turn? We had a war industrial NA for Germany. And maybe we have one for Japan too and Japan would get the 1942 production levels.

    ======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.

    British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland
    Quote
    I wonder if representing British Somaliland and Italians Somaliland is like representing Hong Kong in Kwangtung. Of course, the land sizes are different.
    ++++++ what you mean by representing? BY IPC value?
    What I mean is are those two territories significant? We don’t represent Hong Kong separately. These two territories are bigger of course but are they significant? It makes Italian East Africa harder to hold then neccessary.

    ========== the British territory is a location to land planes. If i leave it out the map looks weird.

    Sahara
    Its not an actually territory so I don’t know what you mean by existing desert upkeep rules.
    Do you mean 1 IPC per unit to cross Sahara?
    If you didn’t pay upkeep the balance carries forward. But what happens to those units?

    ========== they remain. sometimes they are moving out of this zone. the money must still be paid.

    You can throw out this rule if you like. heres some other ideas:

    each unit rolls a die a 6 results in loss

    or

    unit enters sahara to move again it rolls a die only once per turn ( it must roll its hit point or less to move)

    example: infantry must roll 2 or less to move, tanks 3 or less to move only one space.


  • Ok after more reflection after lunch….

    Heres some new ideas:

    Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo

    I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.

    I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

    Heres a naval combat example of all our rules at work:

    Japan and USA each have the following fleet:

    1 Battleship
    1 Carrier w/ 2 planes
    1 cruiser
    2 destroyers
    3 submarines

    Its Japans turn and she attacks defending Americans in the Hawaii sea zone. The Americans also have a fighter in Hawaii land territory. Neither side has ASW
    technologies of any type.

    Round 1:
    3 USA ASW rolls for detection ( 2 DD, 1 CA) – results is 2,4,3 ( one detection succeeds)

    The American player lays his surface ships on the naval battle board…

    The 2 undetected Japanese subs are allocated against the Carrier and Cruiser, These ships cannot be protected by screening duty by ASW units because they are undetected. The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).

    Both undetected subs hit at three because we have 3 subs ( wolf pack rules) ( Results: carrier gets a hit, cruiser is gone and cant fire back due to preemptive nature of  undetected sub)

    The detected sub rolls out and misses. the remaining ASW units ( 2 Destroyers roll 2 or less to hit) they score one hit and that sub is gone.

    That concludes sub interactions this round…

    Main naval combat:

    Japan has remaining:

    1 Battleship
    1 Carrier w/ 2 planes
    1 cruiser
    2 destroyers
    2 submarines

    Americans have remaining:
    1 Battleship
    1 Carrier ( has one hit)  w/ 2 planes
    2 destroyers
    3 submarines

    plus fighter in Hawaii ( Note: the fighter has been dispatched under DAS mission and will arrive in second round)

    Japans preemptive Battleship fires and scores a hit ( American BB is taken as hit)
    American preemptive battleship fires and hits ( japan BB takes hit)

    Japan allocates both fighters to attack enemy ships ( going against US BB and CV)
    American player keeps one fighter as CAP and other to attack enemy ships

    USA rolls out AA defense:
    for carrier it gets one roll
    Battleship gets 2 rolls
    two destroyers get 1 roll each… for a total of 4 rolls ( 2,4,3,6) all misses–it needs a one to score a hit

    The Japanese fighters are matched against the American plane used as CAP The Japanese player scores 2 hits and the American fighter also scores a hit… each side loses a fighter and the extra Japanese fighters hit does not carryover to naval hits because the sky was not clear at the start of naval combat.

    The American fighter that was sent over meets no opposition from enemy CAP and targets Japanese Cruiser 
    Japanese ships roll out AA defense: two BB, one CV, three CA, and two DD rolls all hitting at one… the plane is missed out of 8 rolls…
    The American plane kills the  jap cruiser

    Japans remaining carrier, and 2 destroyers score roll out and score 2 more hits ( America loses 2 subs)
    American remaining fire with 1 Carrier ( w/ one hit)  and  2 destroyers getting 1 hit… Japan loses a destroyer…

    Round two:

    Japan has:

    1 BB w/ hit, 1 CV w/hit, 1 DD, and 2 subs, plus 1 fighter

    American player now has the new fighter from DAS ( Hawaii) plus the fleet consisting of:

    1 Carrier w / one hit , 1 BB w/ one hit, 1 fighter from the carrier, 2 destroyers, and 1 sub

    The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically… as per current rules… they roll out and score one hit ( note they have 2 rather than 3 and now attack at 2 or less)  the sub hit is targeted against the Battleship… but since screening is allowed the destroyer takes the hit and is removed from play ( note: subs are preemptive every round)

    The Japanese decide to stay and play some CAP and the American player has 2 fighters and they also stay as CAP ( note: in every case CAP or attacking enemy ships are decided in secret by each player… place planes up or down to designate duty)

    thus no planes are rolling out this turn…

    Main fleet attacks: Japan rolls out for BB and hits…The American BB rolls out and also hits… each player takes off a sub? ( this doesn’t sound right but its the current rules)

    Japans carrier rolls, its destroyer also rolls out… gets one hit …America takes off DD
    USA rolls out with DD as its last shot, plus Carrier… gets… no hits

    third round:

    Japan has:
    BB, CV, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 SS ( BB CV damaged)

    America has: 1 BB 1 CV 2 fighters ( BB CV damaged)

    Japans sub rolls out and goes against BB and hits… the BB cannot fire back because it cant do ASW
    In fact America has no remaining ASW ships…no defense…

    Air allocations: Japan keeps its plane as CAP, America send both to attack ships…

    Air battle: results in Japan fighter gone and no hits on USA fighters

    Main naval battle: Japanese battleship fires and hits… US carrier gone…and cant fire back ( preemptive)

    American player has no ships left to fire back… combat is over… the remaining fighters land in Hawaii… note this included one plane from carrier. If this was in an empty sea zone the planes would be destroyed w/o any further combat…

    Japan wins with 1bb,1cv,1dd,1ss and 1 fighter


  • air-only attack (normal combat)
    Air-only attack was not removed “long ago”. Its a post-colour change. We allowed it in pre-colour.
    Air-only attack is similar to air-only defense.
    Usually one-cycle only, you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.
    Better than completely remove air-only attack right?

    land combat defender retreat

    OK then so which idea do you want? Im lost here.

    Number 2.

    1. Your 1-to-1 retreat blocking rule. (Not consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory. Which is why we don’t allow OOB example attack of China from Manchuria+Sinkiang to all retreat back to Manchuria.)

    2. Allow retreat to combat zone, units destroyed if combat is lost at the combat zone. (Only unrealistic in that units can be destroyed outside of combat action.)

    3. Play out combats cycle by cycle to see where defender you can retreat. (Complicated.)

    4X IPC

    i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

    Rule is important. OOB build limit is by no. of units.
    Not realistic. 1 IPC territories can deploy battleship. 2 IPC territories can deploy 2 battleships!
    This is why we had the 4X rule in the first place. Its for IC only because VC already has its only build limit.

    Its only weird now because in 1939 map Australia is more divided. I think its fair to just give most of the IPC to New South Wales. I think thats where the war industries were right?

    Since you gave +1 IPC to Australia. Its now 4 IPC. It could be New South Wales 3, Queensland 1.

    Proper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo

    ======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.

    The US mobilisation +10 IPC per turn hasn’t been formalised. Now we do it all together. This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.

    Each game round is 6 months. 1-2 1939. 3-4 1940. 5-6 1941. 7-8 1942. 9-10 1943. 11-12 1944. 13-14 1945. 15-16 1946.

    1939 map rules, War industry
    The following territories income increases per turn for the following values.

    start          end                 value
    Eastern US        activation    activation+4     8 IPC   
    Germany           turn 9         turn 13             4 IPC
    Japan               turn 1         turn 4              1 IPC

    Map

    Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo
    I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.

    Just need you to confirm FIC is industrialised enough to be the 2 IPC territory in the region full of 1 IPC territories.

    Submarine fire

    I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

    My idea was detected is targeted. Undetected is not targetted.
    Your idea is no screening for undetected.

    We could really simplify it (for more gameplay fun).
    No more screening.

    Undetected submarine hits are targeted. Detected submarines hits allocated by victim.
    Air hits are allocated by vicitim. (not too bad since you can’t allocate on submarines and transports are last)

    Screening

    The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).

    Well I don’t think subject to attacks herself would stop sthe cruiser from hanging around the carrier.
    But as above, we could get rid of screening completely.

    ASW search

    The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically

    We now both agree its not simply a warning but some known whereabouts.
    So why auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat?

    Example
    Better if examples were concise and consistent in style.
    Attacker: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 2 SS, ASW tech
    Defender: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 1 SS, 1 FTR (DAS), ASW tech
    Headings in hold…
    1st cycle: pre-combat
    Screening
    etc…

    Land combat anti-air
    So we’ve simplified ASW search and ASW attack to non-targetted.
    We could also simplify land combat Anti-air search rolls to non-targetted.
    Anti-air attack rolls remains targetted otherwise bombers don’t get hit.


  • air-only attack (normal combat)
    Air-only attack was not removed “long ago”. Its a post-colour change. We allowed it in pre-colour.
    Air-only attack is similar to air-only defense.
    Usually one-cycle only, you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.
    Better than completely remove air-only attack right?

    Air only attack?… if you mean Counter Air thats what its called. This is a must. Its one round of air combat of only planes. no, land. Obviously no DAS ( which is round 2 or latter)

    Note that during SBR this would also occur with defending planes in targeted territory. Of course ID rolls are made in both cases…

    1. Your 1-to-1 retreat blocking rule. (Not consistent with the idea that you don’t have freedom of movement in enemy territory. Which is why we don’t allow OOB example attack of China from Manchuria+Sinkiang to all retreat back to Manchuria.)

    2. Allow retreat to combat zone, units destroyed if combat is lost at the combat zone. (Only unrealistic in that units can be destroyed outside of combat action.)

    3. Play out combats cycle by cycle to see where defender you can retreat. (Complicated.)

    option 3 is out of the question. Option 2 is no good because a defender could be retreating alot of units intending to temporally vacate a territory and counter attack on his own turn. A territory retreated too may be of a battle involving 1 against 1 unit and now all retreating units are lost if that smaller battle is lost? i don’t think so.

    Lets try option 4:

    Units retreating to territory’s under attack themselves participate as reinforcements under the reinforcement rule. They are considering arriving on the second round.

    4X IPC
    Quote
    i forgot about that rule. it needs to be written differently  … the total cost of each unit constructed in territories cannot exceed 4 times the original value of this territory… i dont even think that rule should hold. Aus cant build any ships.

    Rule is important. OOB build limit is by no. of units.
    Not realistic. 1 IPC territories can deploy battleship. 2 IPC territories can deploy 2 battleships!
    This is why we had the 4X rule in the first place. Its for IC only because VC already has its only build limit.

    ++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built. The Total number of units is a factory territory are still limited by the IPC value. The 4 times rule limits the types of units being built. A 2 IPC territory can only build * IPC or less costing units ( no carriers, no bombers, etc)  A  1 IPC territory with a factory can build INf, Art, and Mechanized only.

    So to be able to build tanks at your new factory your territory must have a 2 IPC value or more.

    To build a battleship your territory must have a value of 5 or more and a factory.

    Example: UK can build any unit in the game ( value is 6x4=24) and it can place up to 6 non-infantry AND 6 infantry, but the cost of the 6 infantry is limited to its variable infantry cost index. ( some of these 6 will be 2, 3 and 4 IPC)

    Its only weird now because in 1939 map Australia is more divided. I think its fair to just give most of the IPC to New South Wales. I think thats where the war industries were right?

    Since you gave +1 IPC to Australia. Its now 4 IPC. It could be New South Wales 3, Queensland 1.

    ====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…

    Proper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo
    Quote

    ++= sorry what you mean here?

    ======= ok write out how you would like it to read and well have a look.
    The US mobilisation +10 IPC per turn hasn’t been formalised. Now we do it all together. This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.

    Each game round is 6 months. 1-2 1939. 3-4 1940. 5-6 1941. 7-8 1942. 9-10 1943. 11-12 1944. 13-14 1945. 15-16 1946.

    +++++++ US Mobilization? you talking about wartime economy growth index? Remember USA starts at limited income and can only lend lease till specific turn. When she is activated then you start increasing gradually her income ( which is realistic) … So start that turn by turn beginning on her turn of activation…

    1939 map rules, War industry
    The following territories income increases per turn for the following values.

    start          end                value
    Eastern US        activation    activation+4    8 IPC 
    Germany          turn 9        turn 13            4 IPC
    Japan              turn 1        turn 4              1 IPC

    where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based. Also, the only reason why USA goes up is because Germany has been calculated to go up relative to soviets. If Germany goes up then its out of balance again. Only that NA should address the possibility of German wartime economy. The only time the Germans got their economy into war mobilization was by the fall of 1944, so perhaps they get the turn 13 increase but thats it unless they draw the lucky NA ( Speer economy option)

    Map
    Quote
    Map: I will add a point to Australia and reduce a point to Borneo
    I will add the french point at FIC and west africa.
    Just need you to confirm FIC is industrialised enough to be the 2 IPC territory in the region full of 1 IPC territories.

    ======= yes ill look at harrison… a few numbers wont change much however, unlike the war time mobilization idea…

    Submarine fire
    Quote
    I now really favor your idea about detected subs= screening undetected=targeted attacks (no screening)

    My idea was detected is targeted. Undetected is not targetted.
    Your idea is no screening for undetected.

    We could really simplify it (for more gameplay fun).
    No more screening.

    ++++++++++ why is it "we found your sub and know where it is… so you have the leeway of attacking who you want at your leasure?

    The idea makes no sence to me. it should be the opposite. If your sub is not found then  no ship can be able to protect it because they don’t know where you are and cannot make arrangements to stop you from picking off who you want.

    Undetected submarine hits are targeted. Detected submarines hits allocated by victim.
    Air hits are allocated by victim. (not too bad since you can’t allocate on submarines and transports are last)

    OK now your saying it correctly… I agree with this.

    Screening
    Quote
    The third sub is matched against the carrier. That is detected and the destroyer is used to screen it out ( note: the cruiser cannot be a screening candidate because its subject to attacks herself).
    Well I don’t think subject to attacks herself would stop sthe cruiser from hanging around the carrier.
    But as above, we could get rid of screening completely.

    Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"

    screening is just another layer of complexity where ways of explaining the same idea are possible.

    ASW search
    Quote
    The Japanese subs are now both detected automatically
    We now both agree its not simply a warning but some known whereabouts.
    So why auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat?

    OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

    Example
    Better if examples were concise and consistent in style.
    Attacker: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 2 SS, ASW tech
    Defender: 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 NAV, 2 DD, 1 SS, 1 FTR (DAS), ASW tech
    Headings in hold…
    1st cycle: pre-combat
    Screening
    etc…

    The point of my example was to see weakness in the structure of play. I immediately see problems with defending submarines… they don’t have any relevant interactions. It seems they are just combat fodder and thats not good. But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?

    Land combat anti-air
    So we’ve simplified ASW search and ASW attack to non-targetted.
    We could also simplify land combat Anti-air search rolls to non-targetted.
    Anti-air attack rolls remains targetted otherwise bombers don’t get hit.

    i am not clear on this . provide an example…


  • Air-only attack
    I am talking about “normal combat” not “air mission”.
    Both air-only attack and air-only defense are usually one-cycle only.
    Because you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.

    So I thought we shouldn’t have to get rid of air-only attack in normal combat.

    Defender retreat (land combat)
    Defender retreat into combat zone as reinforcement breaks the basic rule of fighting in one space per turn.
    All normal combats are meant to be at the same time in axis and allies.

    We don’t allow all land units to reinforce. (To model not all units are ready to move and fight in passive.)
    How can we allow all land units to fight and move and fight again in passive?

    4X IPC

    ++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built.

    The current wording limits the amount of IPC.
    This in practice limits both what you can build and how many you can build. In a simple rule.

    Its important because OOB’s territory value limit does not care what is being built. Building 6 planes should be a different proposition to building 6 tanks.

    Australia

    ====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…

    To double check the effect of current wording of 4X IPC…

    New South Wales at 3 IPC can process 4x3=12 IPC.
    That is…
    3 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 submarine, 1 submarine + 1 artillery, 1 transport, 1 destroyer, or 1 fighter…etc

    [quoteProper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo[quote]++= sorry what you mean here?
    It started with me sugguesting East Indices and Borneo can be reduced to 2 IPC now that we have oil centres to separately oil from IPC values.
    You said Japan needs them to stay at 4 IPC so Japan get to its historic production level.

    So I thought that means Japan must have been mobilising.
    Hence a rule for Japan and Germany and US.
    I dont think it hurts the balance cos Germany’s rule comes in 1944. Japan’s rule is small IPC improvement to territory “Japan”.

    where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based.

    No I said “This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.”.
    You could just keep Borneo and East Indices high in IPC. But I felt the 1939 territory IPC has changed muich from OOB that you shouldn’t leave it half done.

    Naval combat

    Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"

    Yeah nice and simple now.

    Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
    Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
    ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
    ASW attack: main-round, unselective
    Air: main-round, unselective

    2nd cycle of combat auto detect

    OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

    Yeah once a submarine fires it gives away its position.
    Hence we should make it ASW attack roll is towards both “ASW roll detected” and “ASW roll undetected” submarines.

    But if you fail to kill submarine, then it escaped. I don’t see how you can keep track of it for future rounds of engagement.

    But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?

    Yes. No problems there.
    Only ASW hits can be allocated on submarine.
    hits are always allocated last on transports.

    Land Anti-air search roll
    Land combat anti-air “search” and “attack” rolls are currently selective.
    Just wonder if it can be simplified to unselective too like ASW.
    But doesn’t matter I guess. If its unselective the victim won’t be allocating hits on bombers.


  • Air-only attack
    I am talking about “normal combat” not “air mission”.
    Both air-only attack and air-only defense are usually one-cycle only.
    Because you have to retreat air units when enemy has land units and you don’t.

    So I thought we shouldn’t have to get rid of air-only attack in normal combat.

    ==== OK ID rolls are one round, then if both sides have planes they fight round by round and side by side as land combat. Its easy to use, understand, and its fair. It can last as many rounds as necessary until 1) land combat is over, 2) one side gains air superiority, 3) one side retreats its air force. nothing wrong with this rule.

    Defender retreat (land combat)
    Defender retreat into combat zone as reinforcement breaks the basic rule of fighting in one space per turn.
    All normal combats are meant to be at the same time in axis and allies.

    We don’t allow all land units to reinforce. (To model not all units are ready to move and fight in passive.)
    How can we allow all land units to fight and move and fight again in passive?

    These are only cases where he is blocked from retreats. Its silly to not allow these to be blocked or dependent upon the results of yet another battle when the whole idea from the start was a deliberate attempt to block off retreats by bogus attacks on possible retreating territories. We cant reward such behavior. I maintain in these exceptions the rule allows them to be brought in as reinforcements allowing them to fight in new battles as the defender reinforces his position.

    4X IPC
    Quote
    ++++ AS far as i can see the 4X rule is a limitation of the types of units that can be built.
    The current wording limits the amount of IPC.
    This in practice limits both what you can build and how many you can build. In a simple rule.

    Its important because OOB’s territory value limit does not care what is being built. Building 6 planes should be a different proposition to building 6 tanks.

    ======== well to clarify: 4X is a limitation of the highest  IPC value of individual unit cost… the number of units is still maintain as per AARHE ( # of non- infantry quantity placed in factories limited to IPC value of territory)  Additionally, the territory allows infantry to also be built AGAIN at these limits… Example: India at 3 with a factory can build 3 non- infantry units not exceeding an individual value of 12 ipc PLUS up to 3 infantry. Is that correct?

    Australia
    Quote
    ====right… Aus should be able to build destroyers and subs but not carriers and such…
    To double check the effect of current wording of 4X IPC…

    New South Wales at 3 IPC can process 4x3=12 IPC.
    That is…
    3 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 submarine, 1 submarine + 1 artillery, 1 transport, 1 destroyer, or 1 fighter…etc

    ============OOOOOHHHHHHH! i see what this is… My god THAT really does need a good explanation. Its a total value of non-infantry units that can be purchased expressed in IPC.  then forget the other reply above.

    [quoteProper representation of Japan production instead of inflated East Indices, Borneo
    Quote
    ++= sorry what you mean here?
    [/quote]
    It started with me sugguesting East Indices and Borneo can be reduced to 2 IPC now that we have oil centres to separately oil from IPC values.
    You said Japan needs them to stay at 4 IPC so Japan get to its historic production level.

    So I thought that means Japan must have been mobilising.
    Hence a rule for Japan and Germany and US.
    I dont think it hurts the balance cos Germany’s rule comes in 1944. Japan’s rule is small IPC improvement to territory “Japan”.

    ++++ yes correct but thats an extrapolation thats reaches a bit. Borneo and east Indies are really just important to Japan and the oil rules require Japan to garrison them. AS you may know the allies didn’t retake them because once isolated Japan could not benefit from its income. We have rules in place regarding isolated island chains. I know they used to be in the draft. So the bottom line is these represent a significant income for Japan relative to her other island possessions which are less important. It has no relevence on Germany either. I can figure out a solution but in the end Japan needs to be in a similar IPC position as she would be at spring of 1942 if she took the SAME historical territories. I can get this done with some tricks…

    Quote
    where are you getting these numbers? Is this Mark Harrison numbers? My numbers are all Harrison based.
    No I said “This is just an example, you adjust the values to reality.”.
    You could just keep Borneo and East Indices high in IPC. But I felt the 1939 territory IPC has changed muich from OOB that you shouldn’t leave it half done.

    in 1939 or 1942 that oil and hence income is still as important. nothing has changed in that respect.

    Naval combat
    Quote
    Lets get rid of screening and rather say… " if the sub has not been detected it can select the target of its attack and roll out and possibly sink a ship before it can fire in return"
    Yeah nice and simple now.

    Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
    Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
    ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
    ASW attack: main-round, unselective
    Air: main-round, unselective

    ===right make it so!

    2nd cycle of combat auto detect
    Quote
    OK on the subject of 2nd round auto detect…a sub that launched its torpedo is basically gave away its position. This is found in other forms of combat as a tactic to location of enemy forces. Thats why it should be much easier… if not auto detect then the search number goes up to 4-5 range on a D6 roll.

    Yeah once a submarine fires it gives away its position.
    Hence we should make it ASW attack roll is towards both “ASW roll detected” and “ASW roll undetected” submarines.

    But if you fail to kill submarine, then it escaped. I don’t see how you can keep track of it for future rounds of engagement.

    ===yes exactly… the problem fixes itself because players with subs will retreat/submerge rather than risk detection so basically it would be one round.  This also brings up the issue of submerged subs wile the active player is moving over them. we need to look into this.

    Quote
    But isn’t it written that subs and transports are restricted naval combat loses?
    Yes. No problems there.
    Only ASW hits can be allocated on submarine.
    hits are always allocated last on transports.

    ===ok good then. then my previous post for naval combat example is incorrect.

    Land Anti-air search roll
    Land combat anti-air “search” and “attack” rolls are currently selective.
    Just wonder if it can be simplified to unselective too like ASW.
    But doesn’t matter I guess. If its unselective the victim won’t be allocating hits on bombers.

    ====write this in an example form.


  • These are only cases where he is blocked from retreats. Its silly to not allow these to be blocked or dependent upon the results of yet another battle when the whole idea from the start was a deliberate attempt to block off retreats by bogus attacks on possible retreating territories. We cant reward such behavior. I maintain in these exceptions the rule allows them to be brought in as reinforcements allowing them to fight in new battles as the defender reinforces his position.

    Yes we can’t reward bogus/suicide attack to block retreat. But letting them fight in two spaces might be drastic.

    Imagine what if the other attack wasn’t bogus?
    Defender: 2 INF at Persia. 2 INF at India
    Attacker: 4 INF from Trans-Jordon to Persia, 4 INF from FIC to India

    If we allow them to participate in further combat, they have arrive in the corresponding next cycle of combat because all normal combats are considered simultaneous. Those units (land+air) cannot retreat anymore.

    ===yes exactly… the problem fixes itself because players with subs will retreat/submerge rather than risk detection so basically it would be one round.

    But you haven’t shown me why it should auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat.

    You mentioned the submarine gives away its position on firing.
    To that I said hence “ASW attack” rolls are towards both detected and undetected submarines. With detected and undetected description refering to before the submarine fires.

    After it fires it runs away. If you don’t kill it now its escaped. I don’t see how you it remains detected for the next time it comes in to attack your fleet (next cycle of combat).

    You have to tell me a little more.

    This also brings up the issue of submerged subs wile the active player is moving over them. we need to look into this.

    I don’t see anything there.
    Submerged submarines do not block movement as per OOB.
    They also surfaced next turn as per OOB.

    ====write this in an example form.

    Don’t about it. ID rolls can remain targeted cos if vicitm allocated bombers won’t be hit (the reason for the change from classic to revised.)


  • Quote
    These are only cases where he is blocked from retreats. Its silly to not allow these to be blocked or dependent upon the results of yet another battle when the whole idea from the start was a deliberate attempt to block off retreats by bogus attacks on possible retreating territories. We cant reward such behavior. I maintain in these exceptions the rule allows them to be brought in as reinforcements allowing them to fight in new battles as the defender reinforces his position.

    Yes we can’t reward bogus/suicide attack to block retreat. But letting them fight in two spaces might be drastic.

    Imagine what if the other attack wasn’t bogus?
    Defender: 2 INF at Persia. 2 INF at India
    Attacker: 4 INF from Trans-Jordon to Persia, 4 INF from FIC to India

    If we allow them to participate in further combat, they have arrive in the corresponding next cycle of combat because all normal combats are considered simultaneous. Those units (land+air) cannot retreat anymore.

    ======== ok then in all cases of this type: the defender cannot retreat. combat is too the death… that solves this cleanly. no mess no fuss.

    Quote
    ===yes exactly… the problem fixes itself because players with subs will retreat/submerge rather than risk detection so basically it would be one round.

    But you haven’t shown me why it should auto detect on 2nd cycle of combat.

    You mentioned the submarine gives away its position on firing.
    To that I said hence “ASW attack” rolls are towards both detected and undetected submarines. With detected and undetected description refering to before the submarine fires.

    After it fires it runs away. If you don’t kill it now its escaped. I don’t see how you it remains detected for the next time it comes in to attack your fleet (next cycle of combat).

    +++++++===Lets try again:  Attacking subs that are not detected get preemptive targeted(selected) shots, where if a hit is incurred the unit is sunk or takes a hit and does not return fire.

    Attacking subs that are detected still roll out and their hit is preemptive, but the defender can select any ship to hit ( other than transport, air, or another sub as hit allocation. Then the remaining units ( not the sunk ship) can return fire as long as they are ASW capable at 2 or less.

    This concludes first round.

    Second round all these subs are now spotted, so they have the option to retreat or submerge

    If they hang around they are all detected and follow rules for detected subs.

    Now if they are not auto detected by round two, it makes the subs basically way too strong… because what will happen is the wolfpacks will force the defending force to retreat. and in the war their was never any case where subs hunting together were able to “DEFEAT” a enemy surface fleet forcing it to retreat. This is not modeling history. Subs could never stand up to ASW in an equal battle.
    If you had 3 destroyers and 3 subs the DD must win every time… the subs cannot have an advantage or what will happen is Submarines become the infantry of the sea…

    What i mean by ‘Infantry of the sea’ is to keep the realistic abilities of each sub and destroyer independent, but when matched against each other the Destroyer must win, even if its costing 10 IPC vs 8 IPC.

    Subs are only good against transport rich convoys or surface ships lacking decent ASW abilities…

    destroyers will become the primary unit in the navy which is what it should be on a cost per basis.

    IN AAR people buy lots of subs and carriers and fight other groups of subs and carriers and this must stop. To have success you need carriers and true escorts… which are cruisers and destroyers… cruisers a bit better because they got 3 AA rolls.

    Non- detection by second round gives subs a staying power thats not historical. They didnt fight in naval battles… as i said they are “scavengers of the seas”.

    Quote
    This also brings up the issue of submerged subs wile the active player is moving over them. we need to look into this.
    I don’t see anything there.
    Submerged submarines do not block movement as per OOB.
    They also surfaced next turn as per OOB.

    ===== what i mean by this is as follows:

    Naval Stall:
    Neither Submarines nor Transports can stop the movement of enemy naval forces. Submarines can attempt to intercept enemy surface naval units as they pass thru their sea zone with a round of naval combat. Success occurs with a roll of 1-2, and a 3-6 = failed interception. Each successful interception in this manner’ absorbs’ one movement point for all naval units attempting to pass through. This is the only effect that subs can have in terms of slowing down the opposing enemy navy.

    we need something like this or subs can be used to stall fleets… we could make a rule to just prevent this… but this may be more of a halfway point to give subs some tools to ‘slow’ down the fleet costing 1 MP.

    Quote
    ====write this in an example form.
    Don’t about it. ID rolls can remain targeted cos if victim allocated bombers won’t be hit (the reason for the change from classic to revised.)

    I am still not clear what your saying…

    I think your saying in an example where both Bombers and fighters perform SBR the ID rolls are going against bombers potentially and not the fighters. This is not really ‘targeted’ but the point is the bombers are performing the mission and need to fly level and slow in order to accurately drop their ordinance. I guess you don’t want fighters being selected as hits and thats probably kinda realistic, except Bombers cost 15 IPC and their real duty in war was to perform SBR and that rule is rather harsh…

    Perhaps bombers drop in price to 12 IPC?

    consider.


  • ======== ok then in all cases of this type: the defender cannot retreat. combat is too the death… that solves this cleanly. no mess no fuss.

    Yes we’ll keep it simple.

    But I’ll word it so you can’t stop retreat via air-only attack. Because that bogus attack is too easy.

    You may retreat to territories with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

    You may retreat to sea zones with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

    There won’t be change of control anyway from an air-only attack anway so its fair.

    This is not modeling history. Subs could never stand up to ASW in an equal battle.
    If you had 3 destroyers and 3 subs the DD must win every time

    Ok I see.
    In that case detected submarines must fire in main-round. (Otherwise the destroyers are still deat meat.)

    So, it remains as the latest list I posted.

    Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
    Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
    ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
    ASW attack: main-round, unselective
    Air: main-round, unselective

    Naval Stall:
    Neither Submarines nor Transports can stop the movement of enemy naval forces. Submarines can attempt to intercept enemy surface naval units as they pass thru their sea zone with a round of naval combat. Success occurs with a roll of 1-2, and a 3-6 = failed interception. Each successful interception in this manner’ absorbs’ one movement point for all naval units attempting to pass through. This is the only effect that subs can have in terms of slowing down the opposing enemy navy.

    we need something like this or subs can be used to stall fleets… we could make a rule to just prevent this… but this may be more of a halfway point to give subs some tools to ‘slow’ down the fleet costing 1 MP.

    Well absorbing 1 MP makes most naval units enter combat (Only 2 MP to start with.)

    How about…

    Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. Each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll forces one naval unit to enter combat, allocated by the defender. Unforced units may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement.

    Oh how about all submarines gets to fire once, selectively. (Rolled during combat move.)

    I think your saying in an example where both Bombers and fighters perform SBR the ID rolls are going against bombers potentially and not the fighters. This is not really ‘targeted’ but the point is the bombers are performing the mission and need to fly level and slow in order to accurately drop their ordinance. I guess you don’t want fighters being selected as hits and thats probably kinda realistic, except Bombers cost 15 IPC and their real duty in war was to perform SBR and that rule is rather harsh…

    Yeah was trying to simplify land combat AA rolls to unselective, while being realistic.
    Auto detection is only during SBR but applies to all air units.

    Perhaps bombers drop in price to 12 IPC?

    Hehe I recall 12 IPC as a figure in recent discussion in revised forum.

    But then our bombers can perform air transport, ground interdiction and even air evacuation (defender retreat). It also has ASW search. I am hoping its worth the 3 extra IPC.

    At 12 IPC you wonder if fighters are too expensive. Problem is we can’t adjust fighters cos we have naval fighters and dive bombers at 6 IPC. Any less and it costs the same as a tank (5 IPC).


  • http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=326&start=16

    heres something of what we were discussing relative to sub interactions…


  • Done if no further comments
    *retreat to combat zone (disallowed in general)
    *ASW simplification
    *Bomber price remain

    Waiting comments
    *Sub stall rule

    Anti-Air
    Can’t think of a way to simplify Anti-Air to unselective yet.
    However my calculation seems to say “search roll” hit value need to go back to 1. (You increased it to 2.)

    SBR
    After calculation, I think my “auto search success” during SBR is too much.
    Definitely have to get rid of it.

    Technology
    I think too difficult at the moment.
    Consider UK…
    1 free + 1 purchaseable die.
    ~3 turns to get a tech box
    ~9 turns to get a minor tech

    I suggest
    *hit value of 2
    *simplify purchasble table

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                2
    Italy                    0                2
    Japan                  0                2
    Soviet Union        0                2
    United Kingdom    0                2
    United States      2                2

    US/Germany spending 10 IPC per turn

    4 die hitting at 2 = 1.33 boxes
    2.3 turns to get a minor tech
    3 turns to get a major tech

    US/Germany 0 IPC + others spending 10 IPC per turn

    2 die hitting at 2 = 0.66 boxes
    4.5 turns to get a minor tech
    6 turns to get a a major tech


  • Quote
    ======== ok then in all cases of this type: the defender cannot retreat. combat is too the death… that solves this cleanly. no mess no fuss.
    Yes we’ll keep it simple.

    ok add it

    But I’ll word it so you can’t stop retreat via air-only attack. Because that bogus attack is too easy.

    You may retreat to territories with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

    You may retreat to sea zones with unresolved combat if the attacker in that combat only has air units.

    There won’t be change of control anyway from an air-only attack anway so its fair.

    thats fine except when you say “when attacker has only air units” you do know that these are not allowed meaning air units cannot attack land units alone w/o matching 1 to 1 land units…

    Quote
    This is not modeling history. Subs could never stand up to ASW in an equal battle.
    If you had 3 destroyers and 3 subs the DD must win every time
    Ok I see.
    In that case detected submarines must fire in main-round. (Otherwise the destroyers are still deat meat.)

    ====dead meat for one round is ok, a hit and run is the only tactic subs have. If they stay around they are discovered and they lose. Thats what the rule is modeling. At least they get one round to prove themselves. At least give them that. Why main round? they are preemptive attacks ( for the most part) and must be resolved before because loses done fire back. thats why its done before the main attacks.

    So, it remains as the latest list I posted.
    Quote
    Detected submarine: fire in main-round, unselective
    Undetected submarine: fire in opening-fire, selective
    ASW search: pre-combat, unselective
    ASW attack: main-round, unselective
    Air: main-round, unselective

    yes correct….

    Quote
    Naval Stall:
    Neither Submarines nor Transports can stop the movement of enemy naval forces. Submarines can attempt to intercept enemy surface naval units as they pass thru their sea zone with a round of naval combat. Success occurs with a roll of 1-2, and a 3-6 = failed interception. Each successful interception in this manner’ absorbs’ one movement point for all naval units attempting to pass through. This is the only effect that subs can have in terms of slowing down the opposing enemy navy.

    we need something like this or subs can be used to stall fleets… we could make a rule to just prevent this… but this may be more of a halfway point to give subs some tools to ‘slow’ down the fleet costing 1 MP.

    Well absorbing 1 MP makes most naval units enter combat (Only 2 MP to start with.)

    Yes that was under another game of mine where ships move 3 spaces… it was just an idea to get other ideas.

    How about…

    Naval units may go through sea zones consisting of only hostile submarines or transports. Each defending submarine rolls its combat value. Each successful roll forces one naval unit to enter combat, allocated by the defender. Unforced units may choose to enter combat as well in that sea zone or continue their original movement.

    this is perfect! I knew if i posted the above you would find the solution

    Oh how about all submarines gets to fire once, selectively. (Rolled during combat move.)

    Quote
    I think your saying in an example where both Bombers and fighters perform SBR the ID rolls are going against bombers potentially and not the fighters. This is not really ‘targeted’ but the point is the bombers are performing the mission and need to fly level and slow in order to accurately drop their ordinance. I guess you don’t want fighters being selected as hits and thats probably kinda realistic, except Bombers cost 15 IPC and their real duty in war was to perform SBR and that rule is rather harsh…

    Yeah was trying to simplify land combat AA rolls to unselective, while being realistic.
    Auto detection is only during SBR but applies to all air units.

    Quote
    Perhaps bombers drop in price to 12 IPC?

    Hehe I recall 12 IPC as a figure in recent discussion in revised forum.

    ====yes and thats where i got it. That guy is right. 12 ipc bombers (or anything less than 15 will promote massive SBR raids) which is good.

    But then our bombers can perform air transport, ground interdiction and even air evacuation (defender retreat). It also has ASW search. I am hoping its worth the 3 extra IPC.

    ==== well not really… they don’t perform ‘air evacuation’ and transport planes take over the first duty. So they just SBR, GI, and attack land units (surviving ID rolls and possible air combat)

    OK what value do you think they should be? 12 sounds right… but perhaps 13

    At 12 IPC you wonder if fighters are too expensive. Problem is we can’t adjust fighters cos we have naval fighters and dive bombers at 6 IPC. Any less and it costs the same as a tank (5 IPC).

    fighters are 10 ipc and naval fighters and transport planes  are 8 Ipc, bombers at 12 seems ok>> :-)


  • Done if no further comments
    *retreat to combat zone (disallowed in general)
    *ASW simplification
    *Bomber price remain

    ====except the bomber thing, yes

    Waiting comments
    *Sub stall rule

    Anti-Air
    Can’t think of a way to simplify Anti-Air to unselective yet.
    However my calculation seems to say “search roll” hit value need to go back to 1. (You increased it to 2.)

    ==== its a typo… location on 1, hit on 1, damaged and does not perform mission on 2-3…thats what it should say.

    SBR
    After calculation, I think my “auto search success” during SBR is too much.
    Definitely have to get rid of it.

    ==== huh? whats this SBR is only one round… you mean ID rolls are automatic? no they must search first by getting a 1.

    Technology
    I think too difficult at the moment.
    Consider UK…
    1 free + 1 purchaseable die.
    ~3 turns to get a tech box
    ~9 turns to get a minor tech

    I suggest
    *hit value of 2
    *simplify purchasble table

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                2
    Italy                    0                2
    Japan                  0                2
    Soviet Union        0                2
    United Kingdom    0                2
    United States      2                2

    US/Germany spending 10 IPC per turn

    every nation must get one free roll minimum. Use the free dice roll info. from our rules. The math is just a function of adjusting hit point… i guess try this:

    4 die hitting at 2 = 1.33 boxes
    2.3 turns to get a minor tech
    3 turns to get a major tech

    US/Germany 0 IPC + others spending 10 IPC per turn

    2 die hitting at 2 = 0.66 boxes
    4.5 turns to get a minor tech
    6 turns to get a a major tech

    the second group is better…but please use our OOB numbers for calculations.


  • thats fine except when you say “when attacker has only air units” you do know that these are not allowed meaning air units cannot attack land units alone w/o matching 1 to 1 land units…

    The reason why defender can retreat to a combat zone where attack only has air units is that because there won’t be territory control change. Hence no issues.

    Now, regarding air-only attack I thought you agreed already just this same page.
    Lets go again…

    Air-only attack and air-only defence should be allowed as per OOB.
    AARHE has the rule that you must retreat air units when the enemy has land units and you don’t.

    Land units can’t kill air units but it won’t be too powerful. Because the air units only get to fire at the land units for one cycle.

    Otherwise you have to create yet another air mission to model an air attack. This is one cycle only and I think its simply enough.

    Why main round? they are preemptive attacks ( for the most part) and must be resolved before because loses done fire back. thats why its done before the main attacks.

    1st cycle
    Undetected submarines fire in opening-fire and selectively.
    Detected submarines fire in main-round.

    2nd+ cycle
    All submarines detected, fire in main-round

    If submarines still fire in opening-fire in 2nd cycle onwards then the destroyers are dead meat.
    Its ok for realism, submarines are slow and are sent in advance if time allows. After the first shots it tries hard to catch up with the fleet.

    ====yes and thats where i got it. That guy is right. 12 ipc bombers (or anything less than 15 will
    promote massive SBR raids) which is good.

    SBR is no where as bad as OOB.
    AARHE promote SBR.

    *rewards sending multiple air units to combat
    *lets you SBR all territories

    ==== well not really… they don’t perform ‘air evacuation’ and transport planes take over the first duty. So they just SBR, GI, and attack land units (surviving ID rolls and possible air combat)

    Its not called ‘air evacuation’ but AARHE allows

    attacker to retreat from amphibious assault  via transports, converting to INF
    defender to retreat via transport planes, converting to INF

    Transport plane
    Come to think of it. When we made setups for all the optional units, we left out Transport Plane.
    I say add one next to each BMR.
    Germany, UK, E.US, and Japan.

    OK what value do you think they should be? 12 sounds right… but perhaps 13

    With a better understanding of SBR (as above) you should find 14 IPC reasonable.

    Sending single BMRs to SBR big territories with VC+IC…yes you can still gambling like OOB.
    But sending multiple BMRs on SBR…is now a viable strategy.

    ==== its a typo… location on 1, hit on 1, damaged and does not perform mission on 2-3…thats what it should say

    Ok ID search rolls are 1. Thats fine.

    ==== huh? whats this SBR is only one round… you mean ID rolls are automatic? no they must search first by getting a 1.

    Yep no auto search. Thats fine.

    every nation must get one free roll minimum. Use the free dice roll info. from our rules. The math is just a function of adjusting hit point…

    Yeah at least one free die is more realistic.
    I wonder about Italy though. Maybe they shouldn’t get a free die?

    the second group is better…but please use our OOB numbers for calculations.

    AARHE values. I am sure you didn’t mean “OOB” lol.

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                3
    Italy                    1                1
    Japan                  1                2
    Soviet Union        1                1
    United Kingdom    1                1
    United States      2                4

    the maths…for die hitting on 2

    free die
    Germany/US 2@2, 0.66 box/turn, 4.5 turns for minor tech
    Others 1@2, 0.33 box/turn, 9 turns for minor tech

    Now, I think the purchasable could be relaxed…

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                4
    Italy                    1                2
    Japan                  1                2
    Soviet Union        1                2
    United Kingdom    1                2
    United States      2                4


  • Quote
    thats fine except when you say “when attacker has only air units” you do know that these are not allowed meaning air units cannot attack land units alone w/o matching 1 to 1 land units…

    The reason why defender can retreat to a combat zone where attack only has air units is that because there won’t be territory control change. Hence no issues.

    Now, regarding air-only attack I thought you agreed already just this same page.
    Lets go again…

    Air-only attack and air-only defence should be allowed as per OOB.
    AARHE has the rule that you must retreat air units when the enemy has land units and you don’t.

    Land units can’t kill air units but it won’t be too powerful. Because the air units only get to fire at the land units for one cycle.

    Otherwise you have to create yet another air mission to model an air attack. This is one cycle only and I think its simply enough.

    ==== I don’t understand this… we already have this and its called Counter Air mission. Thats the military term for air to air combat. WE don’t need any changes because what your talking about is already in the rules.

    Quote
    Why main round? they are preemptive attacks ( for the most part) and must be resolved before because loses done fire back. thats why its done before the main attacks.

    1st cycle
    Undetected submarines fire in opening-fire and selectively.
    Detected submarines fire in main-round.

    2nd+ cycle
    All submarines detected, fire in main-round

    ==== ok thats fine. THAT was not clear in your last post. I thought you meant ALL rounds they fight in main round. Right… detected means they fire in main round. good.agreed

    Quote
    ====yes and thats where i got it. That guy is right. 12 ipc bombers (or anything less than 15 will
    promote massive SBR raids) which is good.

    SBR is no where as bad as OOB.
    AARHE promote SBR.

    *rewards sending multiple air units to combat
    *lets you SBR all territories

    =====ok so your position is? No change in cost for bombers?

    Quote
    ==== well not really… they don’t perform ‘air evacuation’ and transport planes take over the first duty. So they just SBR, GI, and attack land units (surviving ID rolls and possible air combat)

    Its not called ‘air evacuation’ but AARHE allows

    attacker to retreat from amphibious assault  via transports, converting to INF
    defender to retreat via transport planes, converting to INF

    ===== no no this is not a Vietnam game. No retreating land units on transport planes. This was not a mode of retreat in WW2. Converted units only can either retreat to territories ( legal) or if invasion they reembark on transports and i think we have a NA allowing for Japanese to go into destroyers ( 1 inf per ship)

    Transport plane
    Come to think of it. When we made setups for all the optional units, we left out Transport Plane.
    I say add one next to each BMR.
    Germany, UK, E.US, and Japan.

    ==== yes its a mistake. I think that should be fine, none for Italy and Soviets? The Soviets dropped Airborne in early 1942 after German assault on Moscow failed. Perhaps Germany gets two and Soviets get one so its equal? 3 and 3…?

    Quote
    OK what value do you think they should be? 12 sounds right… but perhaps 13
    With a better understanding of SBR (as above) you should find 14 IPC reasonable.

    Sending single BMRs to SBR big territories with VC+IC…yes you can still gambling like OOB.
    But sending multiple BMRs on SBR…is now a viable strategy.

    =========== yes lets do 14 IPC for bombers… now we have 8,10,12,14 for plane costs… i like this symmetry

    Quote
    every nation must get one free roll minimum. Use the free dice roll info. from our rules. The math is just a function of adjusting hit point…

    Yeah at least one free die is more realistic.
    I wonder about Italy though. Maybe they shouldn’t get a free die?

    ============= yes every nation is viable for technology. We cant leave anybody out of this.

    Quote
    the second group is better…but please use our OOB numbers for calculations.

    AARHE values. I am sure you didn’t mean “OOB” lol.

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                3
    Italy                    1                1
    Japan                  1                2
    Soviet Union        1                1
    United Kingdom    1                1
    United States      2                4

    the maths…for die hitting on 2

    free die
    Germany/US 2@2, 0.66 box/turn, 4.5 turns for minor tech
    Others 1@2, 0.33 box/turn, 9 turns for minor tech

    Now, I think the purchasable could be relaxed…

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany              2                4
    Italy                    1                2
    Japan                  1                2
    Soviet Union        1                2
    United Kingdom    1                2
    United States      2                4

    hmm….well this is easy to remember, except lets make it this:
    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany                  2                  4
    Italy                      1                  2
    Japan                    1                  3
    Soviet Union            1                  3
    United Kingdom        1                  2
    United States          2                  4

    what you think? also what do the numbers look like on rounds per tech?


  • Federal election (Australia) yesterday. Now I am back.

    @Imperious:

    ==== I don’t understand this… we already have this and its called Counter Air mission. Thats the military term for air to air combat. WE don’t need any changes because what your talking about is already in the rules.

    I am talking about air units attacking/defending on their own. For one cycle.

    ===== no no this is not a Vietnam game. No retreating land units on transport planes. This was not a mode of retreat in WW2. Converted units only can either retreat to territories ( legal) or if invasion they reembark on transports and i think we have a NA allowing for Japanese to go into destroyers ( 1 inf per ship)

    Thats fine. We can get rid of it.
    It was introduced it at one stage and the italic text referenced Stralingrad.
    But in the end its not common.

    For Airborne Drop, should the transport planes be subject to Anti-Air or dogfighting? And should this it before or after unloading the airborne infantry?

    ==== yes its a mistake. I think that should be fine, none for Italy and Soviets? The Soviets dropped Airborne in early 1942 after German assault on Moscow failed. Perhaps Germany gets two and Soviets get one so its equal? 3 and 3…?

    Ok new placements and at these territories.

    Germany 2
    UK 1
    E.US 1
    Japan 1
    Russia 1

    =========== yes lets do 14 IPC for bombers… now we have 8,10,12,14 for plane costs… i like this symmetry

    OK.

    Nation                  Free Dice      Purchasable
    Germany                  2                   4
    Italy                       1                   2
    Japan                     1                   3
    Soviet Union            1                   3
    United Kingdom        1                   2
    United States          2                   4

    what you think? also what do the numbers look like on rounds per tech?

    Gameplay wise UK should be better now that she can buy 2 dice.
    Realism wise is UK that much different to Japan and USSR?

    free die
    Germany/US 2@2, 0.66 box/turn, 4.5 turns for minor tech
    Others 1@2, 0.33 box/turn, 9 turns for minor tech

    tech push
    Germany/US, 20IPC/turn, 6@2, 2 box/turn, 1.5 turns for minor tech
    Japan/USSR, 15 IPC/turn, 4@2, 1.33/turn, 2.25 turns for minor tech
    UK/Italy, 10 IPC/turn 3@2, 1 box/turn, 3 turns for minor tech


  • tech push
    Germany/US, 20IPC/turn, 6@2, 2 box/turn, 1.5 turns for minor tech
    Japan/USSR, 15 IPC/turn, 4@2, 1.33/turn, 2.25 turns for minor tech
    UK/Italy, 10 IPC/turn 3@2, 1 box/turn, 3 turns for minor tech

    this seems reasonable. you agree?

    Thats fine. We can get rid of it.
    It was introduced it at one stage and the italic text referenced Stralingrad.
    But in the end its not common.

    For Airborne Drop, should the transport planes be subject to Anti-Air or dogfighting? And should this it before or after unloading the airborne infantry?

    Stalingrad had air supply drops. only a few wounded got back and that was when it was possible to land which was before the envelopment was really strong.

    Herman’s air drop was a total unmitigated failure worse that Dunkirk or any of Goering’s other blunders.

    on the second issue, Yes the ID rolls as usual and any air combat (one round) is performed. And of course any DAS missions called from other territories do fight air units on the next round when they fly in.

    I think we are done, except we need to check the NA’s to make sure they don’t violate the rules or overlap the rules that already exist.

    I playtest and it seems the Soviets are too weak against Germany by 1942. As you know they are at 24, while the Germans are at 50-52.
    The Soviets compensation is lend lease, but i think they need a few more ipc so that it looks like the Harrison numbers.

    from Harrison:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

    Soviet Union 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343

    Germany: ( includes Austria and France)
    Austria   24   27   27     29     27      28      29      12
    France  186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
    Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310

    so in 1942 Soviets were 274
    Germany was at 417+116+27= 660

    I guess this is reflected in the ratio of 24 vs 51 so its historical, so perhaps it should stay…but i think some kind of “siberian army” option should exist for the Soviet player considering the NA that allows Japan to attack the Soviets. This would prove a major issue for the Soviets who plan on defending themselves only against Germany.

    I propose an optional rule as follows:

    Siberian Army:
    Historically, the Russian position in the fall of 1941 was critical. German forces were approaching Moscow, encircling Leningrad, and generally overrunning and destroying all remaining European Soviet military power. The Russians however had an ace up their sleeve in the form of their Asian armies. These tough Siberian units had been held in Asia to guard against any aggressive moves by the Japanese. However, Russian intelligence confirmed that the Japanese had made the decision to attack the US and avoid conflict with Russia. This allowed Russia to transfer these formidable forces west. These units arrived in the Moscow area just as the German forces were appearing on the outskirts of Moscow. These forces, along with the Russian winter, finally stopped the Nazi advance.
        At the beginning of the second Russian turn following a German invasion or immediately following a Japanese attack, the Russian player rolls a die. The result determines the size and composition of the Siberian reinforcements.

    Die Roll: Siberian Reinforcements:

    1 8 x inf, 4 x tank, 4 x arty, 1 x fighter
    2 8 x inf, 3 x tank, 4 x arty
    3 7 x inf, 3 x tank, 3 x arty
    4 7 x inf, 3 x arty
    5 6 x inf, 2 x arty
    6 6 x inf

    The resulting reinforcements are immediately placed in Moscow. If Moscow has been captured, the reinforcements are placed in any original Russian territory still under Russian control.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
  • 25
  • 50
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts