N00b question… Always on AA guns (2nd Edition to be specific)

@SS-GEN Yes sir, thank you

@Young:

@Buran:

I was thinking of somethings similar but would either use an AA gun style attack with 1 die @1 for every ship, up to 3 ships. But I’m not a big fan of this, I was thinking of a more decided unit. Either using the bunkers from Battle of the Bulge, or the new coastal guns the HBG is working on. With these new options then I think that your idea would of a 1 die @3 would work better.

1. I like the idea of a separate unit from HBG (same mold and colour for all).

2. I would put them at $6 each with zero movement and are destroyed upon capture

3. How about making them just like AA guns, multiple guns allowed on one territory, 3@1 per gun, up to the total number of enemy surface warships in the sea zone from which the amphibious assault is coming from, for one round only.

4. In this system, do you think they can be used as casualties?… for $6, I would think so. Should the setup include any?

That’s a better idea. I wasn’t sure how much you would be into HBG units though. Some guys don’t like them. I will probably make some with my craft supplies I just haven’t got around to it.

I’m a big fan of minor axis allies and felt the same rules could be applied to allies also.

I see UK w/ Canada and Union of S Africa as minor allies
I see FEC w/ Anzac and DEI as minor allies
I see USA w/ Brazil as a minor ally

I am going to give this a try next time we play.

Ya I agree. You still need the T-34’s.

I recently went back to my older games and incorporated the newer pieces into them.  I only went as far back as Revised.  At first I thought it would simply be a matter of altering the setup some but found a few more problems:
1 - In the older games, Destroyers were 3-3-2-12, same as Cruisers are now.  Also, Aircraft Carriers had an attack of 1, now they have no attack value.  So basically, you have to bring the costs back to the older games and you have to use the 1940 battle boards.
2 - You can’t use air or naval bases in the older games.  Especially in Revised because there are a lot less sea zones.  For example, with a naval base, Japan and W USA are one move away from each other.
3 - ICs and build limits also present a problem.  In the older games, you simply have ICs and their build limit is based on the IPC value of the territory they are on.  I don’t know how to incorporate Major and Minor ICs into the older games.  I simply used the new unit values with the old IC rules.

Well, I hope this helps you.  If you would like my setup changes, let me know and I can post them for you.

I used to prefer this idea but this new idea not only does that, it has other advantages as well.

@Imperious:

you AARHE reader you. :-D

I am now - I took those from the LHTR 2.0 - but I’ve just seen you’ve done loads of National Advantages for all the countries, so I feel like I’m at a rules buffet now!

Excellent - there are some really good ones in there. I like the Amerika bomber!

Your Italian ones are good - I like how the obvious ones people first think of are the Gustav Line and mountain terrain - it was always a problem for me that it was easy to do in Axis and Allies what it was not easy to do historically - get to Germany through italy.

For Japan I’ve got one new one which is ‘elite naval air’ - I like how in some Pacific wargames the Japanese start with amazing units, which are non replaceable - representing their elite air arm. I use the red A&A Pacific Japanese fighters for these and give them a 4/4 rating. My rule is that fighters that start on carriers are ‘elite’ they are non replaceable.

This rule is linked to the Kamikaze rule in that, once all elite air units have been destoryed - the Japanese may then convert one normal fighter to 2 kamikaze planes - these have no attack value and can only move 2 - but their ability is they work like an AA gun for ships, so it’s basically the AAR national advantage.

But it makes use of the red Japanese planes I have… I use the red infantry to denote those that are ‘dug’ in on islands.

Your Iwoa ships are good - the US did put lots of AA defence on their ships.

Ok - great stuff, and plenty of food for thought!

@Yoshi:

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

no, jet ftrs can intercept Rockets AND bombers…. unless the bombers are shielded via more escorts than jet ftrs.

@Yoshi:

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

More protected with less defending jet power?  I don’t think so. 
Jets can intercept both rockets AND SBRs.

Your example negated the bomber interception since you had escorts (LRA).
By allowing the attacker to choose the casualties, the attacker is rewarded for having rockets AND LRA.

@Yoshi:

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

You are welcome.  And it’s not a problem, I will support Enhanced when ever I can.