Liberate them for Free France, correct The way I play it is Vichy France collects there income and hands it straight to Germany. The Allies can cut into Vichy’s income by attacking Convoy zones. Vichy Frances turn is basically only handing money straight to Germany. If an Axis power moves into Vichy France then it’s just like if Germany moves units into Italian territories. The just occupy it together. With the added risk of Vichy France switching sides when it comes to defending it. No they can’t move there units around. Vichy France tired to pretend to be neutral so they tired to stay out of it without angering Germany. The French navy also becomes Vichy. Remember UK attacked the French fleet in the med. because it refused to surrender to the allies. It’s kind of the effect I’m shooting for. Remember Vichy units only fight for one round and only one round all surviving Vichy units then switch sides and become Free French. Now that I think about it Vichy shouldn’t be able to switch by being attacked by only aircraft. A popular UK move is taking the Mech Inf. from Egypt and attacking Syria with no help. Odds are the mech doesn’t hit and the French inf. has only a 33% chance of a hit thus turning it Free French.Hey Yavid,
I like your idea for Vichy/Free France. I have been wanting to incorporate that into the game, but most of the house rules for that seem too complicated. Your rules seem fairly simple. I have a few questions:
1 > If the Allies move into a French territory with no units in it (French Madagascar, French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa, French Indo-China), those territories are simply liberated for Free France, right?
2 > Vichy France is considered an Axis country and their remaining income goes to Germany during the Vichy France collect income phase. So, after Germany finishes their turn and collects their own income, you add whatever Vichy France has left to the German total for spending next round, right? So it is possible that Allied forces could cut that down a bit.
3 > What happens if Axis forces enter Vichy French territories (e.g. Italy moving from Libya to Tunisia)? Since Vichy is considered Axis, I am assuming that Italy doesn’t actually take control of Tunisia, rather it is simply a shared occupation with the existing French infantry there.
4 > Can French units, once they turn Vichy, move from one French territory to another (e.g. French infantry from French West Africa to French Central Africa)?
5 > I am unclear what happens to the naval units. Are they also Vichy?
A = Do they have to just sit in their sea zones?
B = Or can they move and attack Allied ships?
C = If Allied ships attack Vichy French ships, do they have to sink them or can they turn them Allied?I think that is it. If you could answer these questions, I think I can incorporate this idea into my next game.
[1942.2 & G40] Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment?
-
@SS:
:?
Sorry, I have a lot of cats to whip out… :-)
-
I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings.
Yes, one thing is to shell a position, another thing is exactly what did that shelling accomplish ? If it was common during WWII that small gun fire from destroyers whipped out army corps from the surface of earth, then yes let destroyers shore bombard on4 or less. But if they at best killed like 2 or 3 men, of a 50 000 men strong corps, then no. We cant loose touch with the ground. I read about a Romanian destroyer that was in a duel with a Russian tank during the first week of Barbarossa, and the destroyer won. But since this only happened one time during the war, I don’t want to make a house rule that allows destroyers to hit tanks, or tanks to hit destroyers in an adjacent seazone. I also know about a sub that shoot down an airplane, a heavy bomber, with the small gun on deck. This too only happened one time in history, so I don’t want to make a rule where subs can target aircrafts, that would be too much, even for me. end of line, let the destroyer bombardment go
-
I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings.
Yes, one thing is to shell a position, another thing is exactly what did that shelling accomplish ? If it was common during WWII that small gun fire from destroyers whipped out army corps from the surface of earth, then yes let destroyers shore bombard on4 or less. But if they at best killed like 2 or 3 men, of a 50 000 men strong corps, then no. We cant loose touch with the ground. I read about a Romanian destroyer that was in a duel with a Russian tank during the first week of Barbarossa, and the destroyer won. But since this only happened one time during the war, I don’t want to make a house rule that allows destroyers to hit tanks, or tanks to hit destroyers in an adjacent seazone. I also know about a sub that shoot down an airplane, a heavy bomber, with the small gun on deck. This too only happened one time in history, so I don’t want to make a rule where subs can target aircrafts, that would be too much, even for me. end of line, let the destroyer bombardment go.
You have a point.
Was the DD shore bombardment so ineffective?
Were they seldom use for this kind of Infantry/Marines support on shore bombardment?
If that so, clearly it is absurd to give 1 reg Shore B. @1.
A kind of 75% less dangerous than BB.(However, don’t forget we are talking about around 50 destroyers ships bombarding for days beaches and stronghold.)
Actually, you give me an argument to keep a great difference of scale between CA and BB ShoreBomb vs DD SB.
Giving DD this kind of Shore Bombardment:
The idea is to keep it far less effective than Cruiser and Battleship Shore Bombardment without neglecting this historically accurate point.
For now, it seems to me that it is the simplest and more balance way to do it.
DD is acting as a 1 round +1A support for Infantry like an Artillery unit but without having the capacity to roll for itself as the Artillery unit does (or even SB of Cruiser or BB).
This HR for DD increase the odds of having a same number of casualty without having more of them.Seems to have that kind of proportion vs 1@4 BB SB attack.
On historical accuracy, I just found this:
Meanwhile, the Navy continued looking ahead. In September 1941, it requested studies for a destroyer with greater anti-aircraft capability. In May 1942, before the first Fletcher was even commissioned, it approved a six-gun ship in which the Fletchers five 5-inch single mounts were replaced with three 5-inch twins the 2,200-ton Allen M. Sumner class, with 20 per cent more firepower on a Fletcher hull widened by 14 inches. By VJ Day, 67 Sumners 55 destroyers and 12 destroyer-minelayer conversions plus 45 ships of a lengthened production variant, initially referred to as the 2,200-ton long hull class and later as the Gearing class. Together, these classes dominated the US Navys destroyer force over the next 25 years.
As the first big ships to appear and because there were so many of them, however, the Fletchers are remembered as the signature US Navy destroyer class of the Pacific war. There, the earliest ones saw action in the nighttime surface battles in the Solomon Islands, many fought at Leyte and all completed in time for fleet screening and shore bombardment assignments and the notorious anti-kamikaze radar picket duty at Okinawa. While 19 were lost and six damaged beyond repair, 44 earned ten or more service stars, 19 were awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and 16 received the Presidential Unit Citation.
-
Destroyer bombard has been used as a tech before, and if we’re talking HRs as well as custom pieces I see no reason to exclude them from shore bombardment. Just IMO if you have the resources at you disposal this could be perfectly and historically reasonable in conjunction with other HR and custom piece rules.
-
Destroyer bombard has been used as a tech before, and if we’re talking HRs as well as custom pieces I see no reason to exclude them from shore bombardment. Just IMO if you have the resources at you disposal this could be perfectly and historically reasonable in conjunction with other HR and custom piece rules.
Was it simply Destroyer bombard @2?
I don’t know this tech. -
I believe so Baron
-
Destroyer Bombard was a tech from when DDs were 3/3 cost 12 and Cruisers didn’t exist (gave them bombard @3). IMO, even if destroyers did have bombardment tasks and were effective in that role, they already are the most efficient warship in the game (at least in 1940), so either this will make them needlessly more powerful or get overshadowed by the limit on how many ships can bombard.
-
I think there’s ways to accommodate DD bombard in conjunction with other HRs and custom units to counter-balance negative aspects of the ability.
-
I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”. -
I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.And 2 Destroyers will be more potent than 1 BB for 4 IPCs less.
A real game changer.
As I’m looking just a little more historical accuracy, I think that even a Bombard @1 is too much.
Maybe just give a +1A to any Inf or Art in the first round is the Max to keep a balance vs other warships.
So Inf or Art can get a single roll to up to 3.
Paired Inf A2+1 or Art A2+1= A3. -
@Baron:
Maybe just give a +1A to any Inf or Art in the first round is the Max to keep a balance vs other warships.
If you look at the firepower a Destroyer can project on an enemy position at a set time, and compare it to a real Artillery unit, or a fighter, then you will see that the true Artillery unit, which is actually designed to barrage an enemy position with indirect fire, with high accuracy and quantity, is far more effective in this job, than a destroyer with small gun direct fire, designed to sink ships, or a fighter with a tiny bomb. Funny enough, in this game it is the opposite.
Yes, I think a Destroyer should be able to boost a matching land unit +1 during the first round of Amphibious Assault, but the Destroyer should not Shore bombard.
I think this doctrine fit all A&A editions, so no need to start another thread about 1914, since it probably fit there, and here too, man
-
@Baron:
Maybe just give a +1A to any Inf or Art in the first round is the Max to keep a balance vs other warships.
If you look at the firepower a Destroyer can project on an enemy position at a set time, and compare it to a real Artillery unit, or a fighter, then you will see that the true Artillery unit, which is actually designed to barrage an enemy position with indirect fire, with high accuracy and quantity, is far more effective in this job, than a destroyer with small gun direct fire, designed to sink ships, or a fighter with a tiny bomb. Funny enough, in this game it is the opposite.
Yes, I think a Destroyer should be able to boost a matching land unit +1 during the first round of Amphibious Assault, but the Destroyer should not Shore bombard.
I think this doctrine fit all A&A editions, so no need to start another thread about 1914, since it probably fit there, and here too, man
Interesting point on DD’s guns.
-
@Baron:
Maybe just give a +1A to any Inf or Art in the first round is the Max to keep a balance vs other warships.
Yes, I think a Destroyer should be able to boost a matching land unit +1 during the first round of Amphibious Assault, but the Destroyer should not Shore bombard.
I think this doctrine fit all A&A editions, so no need to start another thread about 1914, since it probably fit there, and here too, man
This distinction between giving a support fire “boosting a matching land unit” and “Shore bombardment” can be useful to clearly marks the difference between what cruiser and battleship do during an amphibious assault and what I would like the DD does as support beachlanding in my HR.
Sorry about the splitting thread on dogfight G40 vs 1914. It wasn’t meant to offend you.
I will gladly pursue the discussion to help you develop a functionnal HR with 1914 backgrounds. -
No offense taken, man. I love to discuss game mechanism with you
-
I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.
A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.
-
I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.
A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.Â
Interesting extrapolation.
It could be used by cruiser and BB in addition to their basic bombardment.
We can even consider more boosting power toward BB.
Cool. :-)
Suggested Topics
