OK they are just ideas. Jennifers idea for search is too ‘topical’ meaning its just loses the flavor of the idea w/o involving the numbers of ships as the key modifier.
You’re right…the number of units (naval+air) should be factored in.
The idea of break-off wasn’t for large opposing fleets to occupy the same sea zone. :-(
So we’ll pretty use your formula.
So when A chooses “break-off” and B chooses to fight on…
B rolls a search die, hitting on X or less.
X = (B’s units + A’s surface units) divided by 2, rounded down
The original intent was to perhaps introduce the idea that sub search and naval search have a relationship, where its not allways easy to find enemy carriers and the fleet for naval combat. I dont think the concept of inability to break-off the naval attack is as nearly important as the idea of FINDING where the enemy is.
Again i would offer it under optional rules and not a basic rule system. It would simulate the naval situation better.
if a fleet is evading
it could be hard to seek
at the moment only submarine needs to be seached before shooting at
the only difference is here is the first cycle of combat there is no need to search
can’t we just consider fleet is idling not evading?
To focus on searching for enemy ships and the ability to have combat and run and hide and the enemy not be able to follow your fleet with more combat is the indroduction of many new ideas that seem to go beyond the scope of playability.
It would be enough to just have rules for sub search and POSSIBLY surface naval search… but adding further rules for evading makes for too many tactical ideas and tedious rolling. It would take the fun out of it.
lets just leave the current rules on search alone and work on the NA’s
Counterair
The act of engaging enemy air forces alone in combat is a major factor in the Battle of Britain and many other battles during the war. Your fighters can move over any enemy territories in flight range and engage in one round of aerial combat per turn against enemy fighters. Your fighters must survive any ID rolls prior to the commencement of combat. The number of fighters should exceed the enemy because if they dont he can allocate his excess fighters for DAS missions
This rule is an effective way to reduce enemy fighter strength and soften up the enemy as a prelude for invasion or attack.In land combat you can attack planes in nearby territories that you feel he may call to reinforce battles. Thus you deny him this ability and in some cases can achieve local air superiority.
In the same vein, perhaps defender should have the option to retreat a portion of their naval assets?
Taffy 3 in the Philippines basically did this. They had their defending destroyers, massively out classed and out gunned by the Japanese, put up smoke to cover the retreat of 6 American escort carriers.
You could say that each warship (destroyer/Battleship only) could distract 1-3 enemy ships. Roll 1 die, divide by 3, round down. If all enemy ships are “distracted” that round, then carriers and transports can retreat 1 sea zone. If not every enemy is distracted, then no defenders can retreat.
This is allowed under AARHE defender can declare retreats w/o penalty. The only time a penaly is served is under invasions, where defender converts any unit landing to infantry and re-embarks on tranny.
How does a defender convert to infantry and go BACK onto a transport???
OK…
you invade with 3 tanks, 2 art, and 5 infantry. In the battle you lost 4 infantry and you now know its all lost. You decide to retreat.
the one infantry re-embarks transports and the 5 other armor units are converted (exchanged with infantry) representing the army throwing down all its weapons and running away . This was the case at Dunkirk and Dieppe
@Imperious:
Counterair
One cycle pure air attack is already in AARHE. Modelling both Battle of Britain and London Blitz.
The only thing is “can only relocate or reinforce with excess units” applies to land unit but not air units. Air units are highly mobile. (I mean we let air units relocate 1 space and fight immediately.)
In the same vein, perhaps defender should have the option to retreat a portion of their naval assets?
Yep we are making a reinforcement rule. (its not in the latest uploaded draft yet)
land units can move 1 space, fight from 2nd cycle
air units can move 2 spaces, fight from 1st or 2nd cycle (1 or 2 spaces away)
Haven’t included naval units yet. There are some implications for Pacific war and Altantic war.
[[quote author=Imperious Leader link=topic=8925.msg168224#msg168224 date=1171930019]
This is allowed under AARHE defender can declare retreats w/o penalty. The only time a penaly is served is under invasions, where defender converts any unit landing to infantry and re-embarks on tranny.
Well. Each excess attacking ARM capture a retreating INF on a roll of 1" for defender retreats.
This should apply to amphibious retreat too if we have amphibious retreat.
*should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF”
*defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?
Theres some things to think about. We can’t switch on amphibious retreat too quickly.
Well. Each excess attacking ARM capture a retreating INF on a roll of 1" for defender retreats.
This should apply to amphibious retreat too if we have amphibious retreat.
*should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF”
*defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?Theres some things to think about. We can’t switch on amphibious retreat too quickly.
Yes right. I didnt explain all the exceptions.
“defender amphibious retreat? convert ARM/ART to INF too?” yes that should be in the rules. full conversion to represent you are leaving all equipment on the beach and jumping on the ships just to save lifes.
"should converted infantry subject to “excess ARM capturing INF?” I think this would still be possible but BEFORE they are converted.
Ah, thought you were saying the DEFENDER could reatreat infantry onto transports and I was going like “huh???”
no! :-D
OK i noticed that the optional unit mix is missing the armored infantry ( mech infantry) unit
i propose its at 2/2 and moves 2 spaces and can blitz like tanks
it would cost 4
I would allow its causaulty allocation to be considered an armor hit. Thus if a enemy tanks hit the loss can now be taken against artillery, mech infantry, or armor.
I would also propose it can help boost the movement of one infantry or artillery to two spaces at 1/1 basis. (It would have to be one or the other not both)
otherwise if this is not good then possibly it attacks at 3 on the first round only and 2 all other rounds
ideas?
actually it is in already
remember I said its already on your battleboard
it was
cost 4, move 2, attack 2, defense 2
may blitz when matched with tanks 1-to-1
I’ll add the armor hit thing
I don’t know about the boost movement of infantry/artillery/etc
its a national advantage somewhere I think
Well, you’re both right about the MECH piece…
Tekkyy, you forgot to put in in the list of abbreviations on page 3, while all other optional units are there… But you did add it to the optional unit table on page 24…
Add it also to the list on page 3, for clearness.
yep
