@Pitt79 please elaborate the usa russia scenario thanx
Naval Retreat & Pursuit
-
@Squadron:
. In my games, we have usually limited all combat to three rounds to add more urgency to attacks so that you cannot hammer away at a defender forever simply because you have enormous numerical superiority.
I think an A&A game that want to be close to the real war, should have specific turns, like a winter turn, a spring turn, a summer turn and an autumn turn, and in the winter turn you could only roll dice for one combat round, leaving a lot of contestet territories, when in the summer turn you could roll dice forever in unlimited rounds until the enemy was gone. And you would have some territories with mountians too, with one combat round only.
Now that would make for some nice ruleA great point, especially since the Russian winter contributed so greatly to Operation Barbarossa stalling out just short of taking Moscow. This seems like it would be easy enough to adapt (especially with Flashman’s map that breaks rounds down into a season of each year). A Winter round would only allow one round of combat as you said, Spring/Fall would maybe have some limits (maybe more like four or five rounds instead of three?) and summer would be unlimited or nearly unlimited attacks.
Exceptions to this could be made depending on territories too - Winter in Leningrad would obviously be a lot harsher than winter in Rome, Greece, or Egypt (North African territories and some Middle East territories could possibly be totally exempt from winter combat limits - this would add a further dimension to the game in that combat focus during the winter would shift to territories around the Mediterranean that would be less affected by the seasons and could continue normal combat).
-
My point is that with the OOB rules naval attacks are simply too risky - far more than even in the real war - because if the attacker rolls poor die his entire fleet is dead in the water.
Therefore allow him to retreat his fleet back into the SZ it attacked from, which may mean withdrawing from an enemy mined area to one with “friendly” mines.
Then, by way of balance, the defender should be allowed to counter attack while the attacking fleet is crippled; that is before it can be reinforced by another player.No fleet ever attacked on the assumption that was initiating a fight to the death. A fleet cannot “entrench” in enemy waters to defend itself; if it stays there it will be annihilated. Moreover it would be out of supply.
I’m less convinced that the rule would work for land battles, simply because an attacker can entrench; contested areas makes sense in land combat. They make no sense in sea battles.
I’m not suggesting that contested SZs are not allowed - if both sides end up in the same waters and neither wishes to continue firing then by all mean allow it. Think of this as one fleet “shadowing” its opponent; keeping it within movement range. But an attacking fleet should always have the option of running for safe harbour.
I like that the mines give a fleet some protection, but the lack of a retreat option gives them no incentive to leave home waters at all.
I tend to agree that die rolls to decide what units do feels wrong for the game; I introduced the possibility as a further element of risk in naval combat. Just finding the enemy was a major skill in naval warfare. Also, pursuit gives cruisers a special role they otherwise don’t seem to have.
@WILD:
BTW Flash with the OOB rules for this game if the attacker pulls out of the battle (basically retreats in the same sz) the def really gets the option of retreat or a pursuit later on his turn (if he wasn’t killed by a second enemy attack). Your going to have to use the turn order to influence the sea battles to decide if/when to attack. I do give you credit for trying to blend this from the turn based game that it is, to allow freedoms that you would get if multiple powers where able to take their turns together though. Your retreat/purse options would build a bit of a bridge between the two, but would also add a lot of time to what I expect to be a rather fast paced game (which will be like a breath of fresh air to me). With that said I am open to house rules adding more complexity and length to the game once we’ve played it OOB for a while, and you guys are a great source for them.
-
contested areas makes sense in land combat. They make no sense in sea battles.
. Just finding the enemy was a major skill in naval warfare
It depends on the size of the seazone. If one seazone covers most of the Atlantic then its pretty obvious that more than one nation must share seazone. In some games that is resolved with a search roll. Since the ocean is vast, many fleets can sail in the same water, and never find each other. So they roll a search die, and if its a hit, they find each other and start a naval battle. I think they can retreat at any time, and still stay in the same seazone, since its a vast area. Just look at the Jutland battle, the Germans put out a smoke screen and disappered out of sight, but both fleets still was in the North Sea. Its not like one fleet run away to the Mediterrean to hide. They both remained in seazone 7, but since they had broken the battle contact, the seazone was not contestet.
-
The naval combat is risky to make amphibious invasions into hostile waters suicidal.
There was no D-Day in WWI.
Land at a friendly port, march to the front. No tomfoolery behind enemy lines.
I dont want to see some grand American army sail into SZ 11 and dump 6 loaded transports on Berlin. -
To a KISS idea would be to keep the OOB naval rules, except defending ships can retreat if you roll above their combat value. This makes cruisers the easiest to retreat. Of course transports ( AKA Ocean liners) don’t retreat.
-
That gives me an idea for a new icon - icebergs.
Any ocean liner moving into a SZ with an Iceberg icon must roll a dice; a 1 means they get sunk.
-
The naval combat is risky to make amphibious invasions into hostile waters suicidal.
There was no D-Day in WWI.
Land at a friendly port, march to the front. No tomfoolery behind enemy lines.
I dont want to see some grand American army sail into SZ 11 and dump 6 loaded transports on Berlin.I feel like, between the mine rules and the new preemptive strike artillery get during amphibious assaults, Larry has pretty well discouraged that type of move.
-
Not sure how grand the american navy will be at 20 IPCs/turn.
-
10 loaded transports making an amphibious invasion in the Baltic would be pretty grand.
-
10 loaded transports are a significant investment for a country making 20 IPCs.
Does the US start with 20 units? Looks like 6 Inf, 2 Art to me.
Also, one Battleship and one cruiser. I suppose that could be enough escort, combined with the British ships, but I’d like another cruiser at least.
therefore-
10 transports = 60 IPCs
starting 6 Inf, 2 Art
Buy:
5 Inf = 15 IPCs
1 Art = 4 IPCs
2 Tank = 12 IPCs
1 Cruiser = 9 IPCsThis gives you 100 IPCs. I guess if you are waiting until turn 6 to start moving the US fleet then more power to ya (You’d get there turn 8). I would rather get to France with 5 loaded transports on turn 6 and follow that with 1 or 2 loaded transports every turn.
This all assumes the US can’t move forces to Europe before at war (the way I’m going to play, rules or no).
-
If the allies are stable it might be worth waiting as the US so you can set sail with an annoyingly large transport fleet that can D-day somewhere in germanys backyard.
-
I think we may not be quite grasping the feel of this game. I keep seeing posts about grand maneuvers like ‘Land a large invasion force in Germany’s backyard.’
I think when it comes down to it, players will be forced to throw any and all available troops at whatever front is most critical, in order to avoid being overrun…you may not have extra men to make sneak attacks on Germany when Fritz is knocking on Paris’ front door.
Also remember that a ‘front’ is not going to be just one or two territories, but possibly all tt’s on one’s border. Feeding the meat grinder is going to be more expensive than I think we realize.
-
If the allies are stable it might be worth waiting as the US so you can set sail with an annoyingly large transport fleet that can D-day somewhere in germanys backyard.
True, but I hope the allies aren’t stable otherwise the writing is on the wall by the time the US can make landings on turn 6. Would you risk DDay if naval mines can hit transports? (Can they? Not sure). May be better to land in friendly territory in France or Italy.
-
Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)
So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.
Suggested Topics
