i prefer normal combat to take place, then breakthrough with units that move 2, but at an additional cost. These turns are 4-6 months and one roll of dice is not enough because the results of battle are not decisive enough to remove enough pieces at a time to overcome piece density issues from developing.
this seems really complicated for a full game, it adds a whole demension to the game but also adds alot of unessessary rules and complications
@Imperious:
i prefer normal combat to take place, then breakthrough with units that move 2, but at an additional cost. These turns are 4-6 months and one roll of dice is not enough because the results of battle are not decisive enough to remove enough pieces at a time to overcome piece density issues from developing.
Yah this system would probably slow the time scale down to 3-4 months. But it it would play a hell of alot more realistic. There could be alot more stratagy and there would be no stupid attacks that were never possible in the real war.
Allowing units to move 2 does not represent breakthroughs, it represents nothing, becasue tanks did not move faster that infantry on a staratigic scale, and name to me a breakthrough that was hundreds of miles in length.
With the normal combat rules there is no representation of breakthrough at all becasue in combat all units move at the same speed and attack at the same rate.
And what about blitzkrieg, mechanized units attacking unsported by infantry and artillery, that has no mention in the current rules.
Why not allow the defender to retreat? In my FTF games the defender has the option to retreat after the first combat round. Attacks are always more concentrated because you want to destroy the defender before he retreats.
We’ve tried a breakthrough rule: If the defender is destroyed or retreats after the first combat round then tanks, aircraft, & mech inf can attack again after all other combats have been resolved.
I not quite sure a breakthrough rule would work well in AA50 or AAR for that matter. It fits better when you play AAP & AAE combined.
Its just been my experience that the defender being able to retreat fits with what I think you’re after just in another way.
its isn’t accualy adding any rules to the game.
In my opinion that’s all this is doing. Sure it could add more depth to the game, but it does add unessessary rules, and you named them yourself
You could also create more specail abilities, like in any land battle after the first round of combat tanks/bombers/fighters can attack again in a second round of combat called the breakthrough round. However in this breakthrough round your infantry and artllery cannot attack and cannot be taken as causalties, so your more powerful units are vulnerable.
And before the main round of combat I would also add a blitzkrieg round where your tanks/fighter/bombers can attack, but with out inf and atlilery support (like in the breakthrough round) so it would be very risky and would only occur if the attacker chose to do so. Blitzkrieg attacks would also not be possible in amphibious assaults
I would also add a new unit in the this case, the mobile infantry peice (combination of Mechanized, Motorized and even cavalry) would attack and defend at 1, move 2, cost 3 and can attack and be taken as a casualty in the blitzkreig and breakthrough phases.
so the the battle rounds in a land battle would look like , and remember only the units that fire can be taken as casaulties
1.Blitzkreig round
Attacker( mobile infantry, tanks, fighter, bombers fire)
Defender (all of defender units fire)
2. Main Round
Attacker( all of attackers unit fire)
Defender (all of defender units fire)
3. Breakthrough round
Attacker ( mobile infantry, tanks, fighter, bombers fire)
Defender(all defender units fire)a battle system like this (along with dogfighting and air superiority rules) really has the potetial to take A&A battles to the next level; making them more realistic and adding a tactical element.
you want to create special abilities where there was none befor, add several more steps to combat, changed stats for units, and even created new ones. All i’m saying is that majority of people will not use these rules after weighing their advantages vs their disadvantages. sure it makes things more historical and realistic, but for the price of piling on unessessary rules.
It will simulate slowing the turns down to 3-4 months, but the game will now last 3 times longer which is not the direction most want to go. If anything make is play quicker is the task.
Id would say all units that move only one space during combat, can spend their last movement point on either another one space movement or another combat ( like risk)…so this will/can only consist of armor/mech. And BTW that idea was a dropped idea from AARHE that didn’t make it to final.
add several more steps to combat,
you must have not understood, there are now less steps in combat, they are just different and require thinking instead on mineless dice rolling.
defender retreat is similar to these rules, but i dont like the concept since the defender has his own turn to move his units and if you allow his forces to retreat it adds an additional concept and gives the retreatent double movement. The beuty behind my rules is that they dont add anything, they just limit what is already in place
I remember reading a version of AAHRE that had a co-exiting rule and limited combat to three rounds, and I agree IL, that rule wasn’t very good.
Almost all combats are over within three rounds anyways and the territories are designed to hold one army not two, plus all the rounds were the same, so it was the same boring battle system it was before.
And wont this system get rid of the rediculously unrealistic amphibious invasions, make the british allies and colonies easier to defend and get rid of the unreaistically desive eastern front battles. Not to mention how much more realistic naval battle would be if they were limited to one round. Becasue thats my goal and I would say that a sizeble amount of A&A players would like to play a game with a little more realism
And wont this system get rid of the rediculously unrealistic amphibious invasions, make the british allies and colonies easier to defend and get rid of the unreaistically desive eastern front battles. Not to mention how much more realistic naval battle would be if they were limited to one round. Becasue thats my goal and I would say that a sizeble amount of A&A players would like to play a game with a little more realism
I’ve noticed how much you’re fixated on realism throught forum discussions, and I want to say that you’re talking about a board game. Sure, this game does have realism, but you can’t get too stuck on that idea. WW2 had so many aspects that to make a game that was completly realistic would take forever to play. not only that, no one would want to play because if it was realistic, the axis would loose everytime! In my opinion, realism isn’t as important as a fun game that you can play with friends and teach newcomers quickly. adding such in depth rules, in my experience, just pushes away new players unless they are looking for a game that is realistic.
realism isn’t as important as a fun game
I can agree to that, but all i am doing is adding one rule that is easy to remember and removes almost everything that is unrealistic about A&A battles, plus it adds stratagy which for me = fun.
I havn’t tested the exact version of these rules out yet, but i will in my next face to face game and see how much longer they accually make the game and whether it does get rid of unrealistic outcomes.
These rules should also add more stratigic depth to the game which most A&A player I think would enjoy.
I woulnd’t play with a house rule if it didn’t increase realism and also would not play with a house rule if it did not add any stratagy, most of the fun in playing is that it is a simple stratagy game that appreciates WW2 history in certain ways and I like rules that enchance that.
There are many games that are much better than A&A, but I play A&A becasue it attempts to simulate world war 2 stratagy.
And since that is how the game is advirtised I would find it strange if there were not a lot players they feel similar to me.
yea i can agree with that, theese rules would add to the strategy of the game, i didn’t understand exectaly why you were changin the rules, now I do
It is definitely an interesting idea which would have to be tried before final assessment can be made.
One thing I thought of though is that in AA50 version I believe an infantry can catch a ride with a tank and move two or Blitz with it. Therefore that infantry would be eligible for Blitz and maybe breakthrough as well.
Also defending subs get to retreat which to me is moving when it is not your turn. Subs can retreat whenever it is their attack and they can chose to retreat instead. Any piece could almost do that, especially planes. So you could chose not to roll your defense roll and retreat instead. Thoughts?
8-)
Also defending subs get to retreat which to me is moving when it is not your turn. Subs can retreat whenever it is their attack and they can chose to retreat instead. Any piece could almost do that, especially planes. So you could chose not to roll your defense roll and retreat instead. Thoughts?
8-)
I dont like retreating in another players turn, its double movement for units in combat which does not make sense
and i havn’t thought about how technology plays into these rules. If your playing with the mobile infatry peice I would suggest getting rid of the Mechanized infantry and rerolling if you roll for it.
I agree I don’t like retreating either. In the subs case it should only be allowed to submerge when its defending. The attacker has the retreat option only, so that is what it should be for all pieces. That way you are only moving on your turn.
Your are correct about the mechanized infantry being a tech advance. I have played too many versions and sometimes get confused on which rule goes with which version.
