OK but what about the idea from Harris on the transport issue…
the latest is… transports have no value…if unprotected they are just eliminated if enemy subs, ships, planes attack. of course they can retreat after the first round…
ideas?
yeah the argument given by someone at Harris’s forum was good
Revised added Destroyers
“Deluxe” and AARHE and other house rules added Cruisers
so the little esorts implicitly represented by the AP and CV piece are totally outclassed by combat ships
but maybe not the funny situation of AP automatically die as proposed over there
they can just retreat if only them left…simulating them avoding combat and run as soon as things look bad, rather than suddenly die
so just
AP (transport) 0/0
CV (aircraft carrier) 1/1
and
naval combat ends at the end of cycle when both side only have AP left
hostile AP in sea zone do not prevent amphibious landing (like submerged submarines)
Yes over at Harris they seem not to believe in defender retreats…In a few cases they want purist useless small changes do they dont have to alter their strategy sheets for a ‘different game’ LH is gonna set the score. I really think he will make alot of changes and that is good for business. Revised needs alot of house cleaning and we are the cleaning crew.
this situation will soon change…closer to what we understand to be true.
Regarding the problem of your enemy building a ship to “kick you out” of the sea zone…
building naval units in hostile sea zones should stay as it in from LHTR (allowed)
lets do a small fix … staying in a hostile sea zone does not count as attacking, combat is not forced to not occur
This can be used to avoid combat completely. I think it may work for open sea zones with no land, but in cases were its your coastline and you got ships protecting it i don’t think its a good idea to allow either side the opportunity to avoid a battle.
you can’t avoid combat completely
naval units (besides submarines) are still not allowed to enter a hostile sea zone without attacking
in the case of building units in a hostile sea zone
it does not apply to open sea zones at all
in OOB there are no other situations where you can start in a hostile sea zone (1. enemy built naval unit in your sea zone 2. submarines submerged)
in AARHE there is one more situation to cater for, “retreat via break-off” in naval combat
what I dont like is how the enemy can build a naval unit in your sea zone and not start combat
and then when its your turn you must get out or start combat
(for the strategic advantages such as waiting for reinforcement or simply the defence values being better than attack values, of course this partially eroded under AARHE, its mainly the air units left that are better on defense)
OK make an example using the map. Im not sure how this is a bad thing.
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required. Why should it be different? I can see in a open SZ ( no land at all) that its plausible to have opposing fleets remain in the same sea zone and not have any combat… as a new idea that could possibly work… any other cases im not thinking they should be possible. An enemy fleet adjacent from your own controlled land territories/islands should be a required combat situation.
@Imperious:
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required.
Up to the point of “combat is required” is good.
But then why should it be the Japan fleet that is the attacker? Why not the US fleet that is the attacker?
Should the revelant higher combat values of defender over attacker be given to the Japan fleet which is doing “naval blockade” style camping?
The situation is a bit more strange with the English Channel, North Sea or the Sea of Japan…where there could be two opposing ICs building navy into the same SZ.
1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.
2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.
@Imperious:
1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.
2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.
What do you mean? Is that different to now? Place New Units phase is after Combat phase though.
In open sea zones (no connected territory), opposing units can remain (not enter) in the same space without combat.
ok give me an example of your own where the exceptions and their need arise.
For sea zones with no connected territory, I am fine is it in this discussion at 2).
I am wondering if it might actually be reasonable to extend that to all sea zones.
If amphibious assault if your worry, you still need to secure sea zone before landing anyway.
EXAMPLE 1
Round 3 Axis
Japan has CV (carrier) at SZ 55.
Round 3 Allies
US builds CV at Western.US.
Combat do not occur yet.
Round 4 Axis
Japan must move CV out of SZ 55 or combat occurs…which gives US defender advantage.
Should US get the advantage? Why not Japan (who’s camping at SZ 55)?
EXAMPLE 2
Round 1 Axis
Germany builds IC at Western Europe.
Round 2 Axis
Germany builds Carrier at SZ 7.
Round 2 Allies
UK builds Carrier at SZ 7.
Round 3 Axis
Germany must move Carrier out of SZ 7 or combat occurs…which gives UK defender advantage.
Even though UK Carrier is the late-comer and the German Carrier is well established already.
Ok now we have the issue…
Solution #1:
it will involve the act of “dislodgement”
Dislodgement: the ships that are camping are moved one SZ away from their current location. owning players choice.
Solution #2:
when combat does occur the camping unit is using its attack value, while the attacker is using its defence value.
Solution #3:
no combat occurs unless either side wants it… its optional on both parties. Eventually the strength of one side will create an imbalance and the other side will avoid a battle.
my eyes are on solution 3
I’ll PM Jennifer to see what Jennifer thinks
Jennifer was posting about this problem before I think
Solution 4:
Roll a die, 1-3 the current player is attacker, 4-6 the enemy units in the water is the attacker
Solution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.
Solution 6:
Use Classic rules. You cannot build naval units in blockaded sea zones. We have a lot more sea zones in revised editions then in classic.
What’s the right one? I think it’d depend on the players the most, I think number 2. You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas. That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.
i go for 3 or 5
Solution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.
If we won’t break the game basics of active/passive turn…then defender obviously can’t choose/attack.
That in turns makes no. 5 basically no. 3.
You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas. That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.
yeah but the siuation we are modelling is that the enemy blockaded a seazone rather than attacking your new ships in your harbours
Another look at anti-air.
Land anti-air
*unit is ID (infrastructure defense)
*D6 roll on 1, then D6 roll on 1 to destroy or 2 to force retreat
*multiple allowed per territory
IPC 1-hit 1-retreat 1-hit+1-retreat 2-hit 2-hit+1-retreat
1 ID 5 2.8% 2.8% - - -
2 ID 10 4.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% -
3 ID 15 5.8% 5.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%
4 ID 20 6.4% 6.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%
Comment: Percentages do double with radar tech. Need to consider hit+retreat %. IC (industrial complex) comes with 2 IDs. VC (victory city) comes with 1 ID. So Germany has 4 IDs. Knock back power of 13%, 26% with radar per cycle.
Naval anti-air
*a number of D6 rolls hitting on 1
*CA 4, BB 3, CV+DD 2
IPC 1-hit 2-hit 3-hit
CA 15 38.5% 11.6% 1.5%
BB 20 34.7% 13.9% 0.5%
CV 16 27.8% 2.8% -
DD 10 27.8% 2.8% -
scenario: 2 FTR (fighter) attack 1 BB (battleship)
attacker: 50% chance 1-hit, 25% 2-hit
defender: 34.7% chance 1-hit, 13.9% 2-hit
Comment: BB has 49% chance of hitting at least one FTR. Damaged BB still fire anti-air. 2 FTR has little chance against 1 BB.
scenario: 1 FTR (fighter) attack 1 DD (destroyer)
attacker: 25% chance 1-hit
defender: 27.8% chance 1-hit + 2.8% 2-hit
Comment: Even a destroyer is so “tough”. DD has 31% chance of hitting the FTR at least once. 1 FTR can’t even deal with 1 DD.
Suggestions:
Would it be realistic…
*Naval anti-air not preemptive to air units
*reduct anti-air dice to CA 3 BB 2 CV+DD 1
Those numbers would seem to back up your claim. I would make that change on the draft.
WE cant have DD too effective because they already have ASW duty.
a radical route would be to make naval fighters take two hits… but this adds too many new changes that it would weaken the structure.
so we’ll reduce the Anti-air values by 1
what about making naval anti-air not preemptive?
like “double KO” kind of engagement?
are there difference between WWII land and naval antiaircraft guns?
and its not a “draft” anymore, its a “release” or “release candidate” :-)
