No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)
-
This would make a territory like say Iwo or Iceland or Sicily more attractive, without messing up the situation in other parts of the map, like the skies over continental Europe.
Any thoughts?Here’s a thought about a general concept that might be useful, both for this bomber thing and for (potentially) other aspects of the game. The idea would be that different movement rules might apply to the Pacific and Europe sides of the map (at least as far as movement over water is concerned) because the two maps distort the geography of the real world to very different degrees. The Pacific map massively compresses the size of the Pacific Ocean, and on top of that leaves out a large section of the southeast Pacific. So in principle, a ship or a plane moving a distance of x SZs on the Pacific map is actually covering a much greater distance than a ship or plane moving an equal number of SZs on the Europe side, even though the number of SZs is identical. The Movement figures given for units in the rulebook don’t account for that difference; they’re identical for the whole map. I’m not sure what can be done with this concept in terms of specific numbers, but it might (for example) justify different movement bonuses on the two sides of the map.
-
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely. -
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.I’m not sure I understand the question. There were airfields and airbases (of various sizes) in many, many places in the Central Pacific and in the Southwest Pacific and in Southeast Asia during WWII, controlled by either Japan or Allied powers, and all sorts of missions against all sorts of targets from flown from them. That’s the whole point of having airpower.
-
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.You mean BA BA Blacksheep show ?
-
It’s seems sound in principle, but in practice I would have no idea how to implement different movement rates for the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the map. I can imagine problems arising at the intersections, when a unit moves from one side of the border to the other. What to do with aircraft when such happens… round the movement rate round up or down mid flight? I suppose its possible, but likely out of the question for tripleA, so there’s that too. Also, such a scheme would seem to recommend either a movement penalty for the Pacific, or a movement bonus for the Atlantic, whereas the game-play seems to recommend the opposite approach, so it’s kind of a bind. Part of me likes the idea of a rule that can give some purpose to the Atlantic islands too.
In G40, for true islands…
On the Atlantic side we have: West Indies, Greenland, Iceland, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Crete, Cypress and Madagascar. At least some of these might prove more interesting with an island movement bonus.
One the Pacific side, there are 20+ islands that fit the bill. Some of these are so far away from the action its hard to imagine them ever coming into play, but others would clearly benefit from the island movement bonus.
In 1942.2 there a fewer true islands, but still enough to have an impact.
It tripleA for 1942.2 the Island Movement Bonus could be accomplished by giving all such islands an invisible Air Base (with no scramble, unless you wanted to make that a standard feature of islands too). In TripleA global, you might be able to do the same, and have the invisible AB stack with the regular AB for a cumulative movement bonus.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.I’m not sure I understand the question.� There were airfields and airbases (of various sizes) in many, many places in the Central Pacific and in the Southwest Pacific and in Southeast Asia during WWII, controlled by either Japan or Allied powers, and all sorts of missions against all sorts of targets from flown from them.� That’s the whole point of having airpower.
Sorry,
I was trying to inquire about non-carrier aircrafts attack on enemy’s Airbase/airfield or islands bases.
Obviously neither Pear Harbor nor Midway work this case.
Said otherwise, was it possible for Fighters and TcBs from AirForce or Marines corp land base to attack other ground targets from different islands? -
@SS:
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.You mean BA BA Blacksheep show ?
Yes. That one. Baa Baa Black Sheep or Black Sheep squadron staring Robert Conrad.
Thanks.
It said they were stationed in Solomon Islands.I wonder if they were able to make air raid on other islands enemy’s airfields or port.
-
@Baron:
Said otherwise, was it possible for Fighters and TcBs from AirForce or Marines corp land base to attack other ground targets from different islands?
If they’re close enough, yes. If they’re too far away, no. It depends on the range of a specific aircraft, and on the distance between the takeoff point and the target. There’s no general answer, other than “it depends”. It’s the same answer as for the question “Can a car drive from one city to another on a single tank of gas?” It depends on the car, it depends on how far apart the two cities are, it depends on the route you take and it depends on how fast you drive.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
Said otherwise, was it possible for Fighters and TcBs from AirForce or Marines corp land base to attack other ground targets from different islands?
If they’re close enough, yes. If they’re too far away, no. It depends on the range of a specific aircraft, and on the distance between the takeoff point and the target. There’s no general answer, other than “it depends”. It’s the same answer as for the question “Can a car drive from one city to another on a single tank of gas?” It depends on the car, it depends on how far apart the two cities are, it depends on the route you take and it depends on how fast you drive.
There is no famous air to air combat or air to ground combat in which both side were islands based?
-
I can’t see a fig only getting M4 from a non airbase but a M6 from a base.
Just make it Fig M5
Tac M5
Stg bomber M7. +1 for all three from airbase and island baseI also agree with CWO that there shouldn’t be bases in game at all. But Black Elk is probably right about messing up the game mechanics.
Be something like this. Fig A3 D3 M4 If it wanted to move 5 then -1 on the attack like YG mentioned to that affect and Baron. And the other one is the Japan A3 D3 tank D12 A6 D6. But that’s another topic . -
It’s seems sound in principle, but in practice I would have no idea how to implement different movement rates for the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the map. I can imagine problems arising at the intersections, when a unit moves from one side of the border to the other. What to do with aircraft when such happens… round the movement rate round up or down mid flight? I suppose its possible, but likely out of the question for tripleA, so there’s that too. Also, such a scheme would seem to recommend either a movement penalty for the Pacific, or a movement bonus for the Atlantic, whereas the game-play seems to recommend the opposite approach, so it’s kind of a bind. Part of me likes the idea of a rule that can give some purpose to the Atlantic islands too.
In G40, for true islands…
On the Atlantic side we have: West Indies, Greenland, Iceland, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Crete, Cypress and Madagascar. At least some of these might prove more interesting with an island movement bonus.
One the Pacific side, there are 20+ islands that fit the bill. Some of these are so far away from the action its hard to imagine them ever coming into play, but others would clearly benefit from the island movement bonus.
In 1942.2 there a fewer true islands, but still enough to have an impact.
It tripleA for 1942.2 the Island Movement Bonus could be accomplished by giving all such islands an invisible Air Base (with no scramble, unless you wanted to make that a standard feature of islands too). In TripleA global, you might be able to do the same, and have the invisible AB stack with the regular AB for a cumulative movement bonus.
It seems there is a geographical accuracy issue: such Fg or TcB were not able to move from UK to Germany and turn back home. Or moving from Scotland to Karelia, or cross Atlantic from Nova Scotia to UK in a single flight. Covering all SZs in Atlantic from UK and Canada to harass Subs, etc.
AB+2 is making difficult suspension of disbelief.The other is tactical depiction of escort, air combat and ground support.
AB+2 helps depicts what kind of mission was possible from UK, for instance: unescorted deep in Germany or escorted closer from West European North Coast, or plainly unescorted even when it is possible to allocate units and within range.
It allows more room on players option increasing an otherwise feeble aspect. -
But from a gameplay standpoint, does the map even work if you eliminate the movement bonus for the AB?
I think it would; but we’d have to accept and understand that the game mechanics would be significantly changed. What if OOB AB’s never increased the movement range, but had other OOB advantages already in place; like for instance, ABs automatically gave you the paratroop tech…ect, as well as the already important ability to scramble.
On a historical note, a range of 4 spaces is probably longer than the historical distance as represented in the game for most fighters. It wasn’t until the later war periods that newer technology was invented by the US and Canada/UK which increased a fighter’s range significantly. But were playing Global 1940, not 1943!
So, for a historical example, BF 109 fighter squadrons had to be stationed in Norman airfields in order to have the range to escort medium bombers to UK airfields located within a 50 mile vicinity of London. For game mechanics, that translates to a range of 3 spaces for fighters / tac. bombers. If we “grew” up playing axis and allies where fighters had a range of 3 spaces (meaning accepted norm), then if the new cool “airbase” extended the movement range by +2, adding Air bases would become even more valuable!
-
So hard to keep up… Where are we with the range vs. damage?
-
When you come down to it, there is really only one reason to accept a somewhat unrealistic HR over an equally (if not more) unrealistic Official rule, and that’s the promise of more compelling gameplay.
That’s really the only defense I can offer for any of these house rules over the OOB game.
I think the resulting gameplay would be entertaining, and the play patterns it encourages would look a bit more like the second world War.I don’t mean in the minutia, but rather in the broad strokes. Like as the game progresses, does it feel as if the right sort of stuff is happening?
Are the Allies bombing Germany? Fighting in North Africa and the Med? Landing in Normandy etc? Or is the play pattern more bizarre, you know like “let’s land in Spain!” Is India making any contribution to the war effort in Africa, or is it just getting slammed by Japan no contest? Do Russia and China stand up, or just fold? Does Japan fight America in the central Pacific? Is there any battle of the Atlantic? Etc.
I’m thinking that the ends justify the means here, to a pretty large extent. I’d give up some accuracy under the microscope for more accuracy from the birds eye view, if that makes sense.
Can’t help but feel that if we focus too much on any single mechanic, trying to make it feel perfect in isolation, then we end up with some really interesting jigsaw pieces, but which don’t fit together very well to complete the larger picture on the cover of the box.
I think air movement might be one of these intractable problems, that will never quite satisfy (because the units are just too abstract.) They’re not real fighters and real bombers, they’re game pieces, plane and simple hehe. But at least if we get the bomber and fighter escort system working, so that the Allies have a way to actually bring the German economy to heel, well that’s a start. And if we can make the zero ipc islands worth contesting, (because of the air movement advantage) then that’s another start. Get enough starts like that together, and maybe the game overall takes on a more satisfying WWII-like pattern in the midgame.
I don’t know, but that’s always where I’m trying to go with this stuff. What does the game look like after 5 rounds have gone by? 8 rounds or 10? And does that resemble anything familiar from the history books or made for TV “what if” possibilities? Haha After 10 rounds, the game probably detaches too much from the set up to have any real control over what happens, but at least we can paint a bright target on the midgame.
:-D@YG, I think we got predictably sidetracked, by the question of whether airbases should exist at all
or offer any kind of movement bonus whatsoever even where they do exist. -
@YG, I think we got predictably sidetracked, by the question of whether airbases should exist at all
or offer any kind of movement bonus whatsoever even where they do exist.Air bases and Naval bases are the best thing to happen to A&A since the addition of an Italy power… why would anyone get rid of it?
IMO… people need to ask themselves if they want to improve a strategy game with better rule mechanics, or if they want a simulator game with complexed situational variables?
-
Just to clarify something in case it was misunderstood: I haven’t been arguing that we should get rid of ABs in the game, and I haven’t been arguing that ABs in the game should work realistically. My various posts this afternoon started with a couple of posts in which I was answering Black Elk’s question “Is it realistic for fighters or tacBs to move 6 from an Airbase?” and in those posts I was simply providing background information about how ABs worked in the real world, in case this information was useful for the matter being discussed. To quote one of those posts: “I’m not saying we should be trying to model reality; I’m just illustrating how the components worked together historically in WWII.” Sorry if I created any confusion about this, or if I led this discussion off-track.
-
I think the side track was pretty fruitful actually. If anything the conversation has indicated to me that the proposed solution for Global of AB+2 will probably be rejected. So now I have to explore possible alternatives.
What’s stalling me up is this question of whether the game can function properly with no mobile combat air unit at M6?
The tacB+fighter combo, can only produce a viable air umbrella at A4 if they work together. Which in practical terms means only 2 tiles from the Coast. Considered from the German “dark skies” perspective M5 doesn’t really make a difference over M4 here, because they probably don’t have carriers to exploit the AB+1 bonus, and fighters are likely already positioned at a coastal territory anyway, like W. Germany or possibly Holland (with an AB purchase.)
This is a pretty significant change from the OOB situation, where the stratB has a standard range of M6, 3 out and 3 back, and M7 from an airbase.
Talking here not about SBR or Escort, but regular combat.
Do you think the game still works under these conditions? Will anyone give up the OOB combat bomber for a defenseless SBR only bomber, with no units to fill the M6 combat gap under any conditions?
Clearly this is an advantage to the Allies for the Atlantic crossing, but if it pushes over the edge, will Axis players just refuse to even try it? There is a bit of a trade off here for Italy, but hard to say if that’s enough of a lure to make the HR attractive for both sides. Absent the AB+2, Germany gets hit hardest by the loss of the combat stratB.
-
yea I was/am a little leery of boosting planes +2M. The odd number thing is just kinda screwed up though. I like the ideas of trading fuel for bombloads. They seem as if you could work something out for advanced players. Otherwise I think it would be too complex.
Giving +2M seems to better represent the range differences between land based and naval air units then the +1 Imo. The distance they can cover on the map is pretty much my only reservation. I haven’t made it through a complete game yet using those rules, although I have done a half dozen 1-3 rounders.
Doesn’t seem too whacked out so far. I guess you could go -2 on all oob movement. Range of 2 and 4 +2 w/AB. Idk. Probably take off too many options, even if a little more historically accurate.
Anyway, range aside, the SBR only thing has proved pretty cool so far. :)
-
@SS:
I can’t see a fig only getting M4 from a non airbase but a M6 from a base.
Just make it Fig M5
Tac M5
Stg bomber M7. +1 for all three from airbase and island baseI also agree with CWO that there shouldn’t be bases in game at all. But Black Elk is probably right about messing up the game mechanics.
Be something like this. Fig A3 D3 M4 If it wanted to move 5 then -1 on the attack like YG mentioned to that affect and Baron. And the other one is the Japan A3 D3 tank D12 A6 D6. But that’s another topic .Does poeple here are mostly against really increasing Sea range from 2SZs to three SZs away from Coastal TTy with AB?
Against giving Fg escort when StB is bombing West Germany?
Against giving possibility to Fgs and TcBs island based to attack the other island in the next SZ?
Is this the issue?
Or a too long NCM move which reinforce to fast another Allied?
I’m just curious, because if AB allows +2M in Combat Move, but only +1M in NCM does it open some space?
It seems absurd but in game, combat move usually means going from point A to B, then returning to A.
Or, AB allows +2M, only if returning to same Base? Otherwise +1M.
This one can be explained by more familiarity with terrains and navigators using known transmission towers and radars.
Also, with a dedicated StB for SBR only, Tactical bomber can be seen as a medium bomber if taking off from AB.
Such bombers, like Condor, or PBY Catalina were used in Ocean survey.
Attacking Subs or merchant ships seems a tactical target IMO, and fit into TcB unit functional use.Increasing TcB and Fg range to basic M5, so a AB allow them to reach M6 is still problematic because when on a Carrier this additional +1 is probably too much projection of power.
That’s why +2M in specific condition improve the game, even if it seems an high rise from 0 to 2, the idea is to get only 1 SZ or TTy further away. -
CWO, I was not implying that you wanted no airbases in game. I was agreeing to your information which is always valuable.
I got sidetracked some what with the AB +2 move. I still back up my IMO. Remove all bases and make it air M5 M5 M7 naval M3.My last reply. I’ll just stay in the Global War Thread.
Suggested Topics
