Hi YG,
Yeah. To fully grasp it, it requires to at least print the rules and roll out a couple of simple test-battles and test-scenarios. However, it really doesn’t change too much from the overall game. And once the fundamental concepts are grasped, it is pretty logical and easy to implement.
@same color: That could work and might be a good way to have a 3-player game actually. But I would be worried about how economies would be divided and things like that. …. And it would make “individuality / national identity” be compromised on +3 player games. But like you said, that’s a whole different can of worms. I like the way one House Rule inspires people and goes on to create new house rules! Very cool.
If your idea of combining the USSR and China is based on game play considerations, and has nothing to do with Communism, then there’s no reason for you to refer to them as a “Comintern” power block (especially since the term is inaccurate in a WWII context). You’d be much better off using a different term which would not have any accuracy problems. It could be something as simple as “the Asian giants”, in reference to their enormous size and enormous populations. It’s an arbitrary term (I’ve just made it up), but because it’s a descriptive phrase rather than an actual political or jurisdictional name it poses fewer accuracy problems than “Comintern”, which has a specific historical meaning.
With this turn order, we can for sure kiss Can Opening good bye, not to mention all the other tricky and gamey tactics that are classic for A&A.
Hi Marc. <edit: short=“” answer. =“” china=“” is=“” not=“” in=“” the=“” comintern,=“” just=“” russia=“” …=“” but=“” plays=“” with=“” instead=“” of=“” allies=“” to=“” better=“” simulate=“” situation.=“”>/ / / Original long version / / /
Comintern might not be the best word to describe Russia. But I think it makes a lot more sense to distinguish Russia from the Allies rather than to lump them all together. In the end, USA and UK hated Russia … And vice-versa. But luckily, they seemed to hate fascists a little more … Allowing for their fragile truce to hold long enough to defeat Germany and Italy. … Heck, Russia didn’t even participate in the Pacific. … So showing the third idealogy that existed prior and during WWII, “Comintern,” is at least a slightly more descriptive fit than just “Allies”.
I can’t help the fact that China is a playable nation in G40. But with this revised rule set, it is more historically to model China by having them play in the Russian turn … NOT because China is Communist at that period, which we both know they weren’t. Rather because of the following reasons:
China and Russia ARE NOT modeled as Allies/Friends/collaborators. Look at the Russia/China restrictions. Russia cannot enter China controlled territories and vice/versa. There is no way the two countries can help eachother.
China was receiving support from the Allies … But was not really an " Allie" in the sense that India, ANZAC, Brazil, UK, USA, Canada, Mexico, South Africa and all of the other nations and Commonwealth forces united to create. … This is modeled by having China not go in the Allied turn … This way, the Allies and China cannot coordinate Attacks together … But Allied forces CAN enter China and help bolster defense.
In the end a more realistic and balanced playing system is created. … Certainly much more realistic than having Allied forces March through Leningrad to hit Germany together with Russia via Russian controlled Poland … A scenario that freqiently happens in OOB G40 games. … Stalin didn’t trust the Allies at all … Don’t think he would have liked US and Commonwealth boots on Russian soil.</edit:>
With this turn order, we can for sure kiss Can Opening good bye, not to mention all the other tricky and gamey tactics that are classic for A&A.
Hi Narvik,
Yes. It totally removes the “Can Opener”. It also opens a lot of new and interesting strategies. … I haven’t played a full game yet with this complete set of rules. (Only the original 3-turn system without the rule that Combat Modifiers can only apply to same nations) … But I’ve done a lot of test battles and test scenarios with some guys from my play-group. … It should open a lot of new strategies and hopefully make a more historically accurate game. … Looking forward to trying the first real game with this mod soon.
I can’t help the fact that China is a playable nation in G40.
You could if you wanted to…
USA takes direct control of unoccupied China (Szechuan, Yunnan, Hunan, Kweichow, Sikang, Tsinghai, Kansu, Shensi, Suiyuyan, Chahar, Anwhei, Hopeh.) Place USA roundels in all these territories. All Chinese units in territories with USA roundels are switched out for American units. China is considered USA supported Chinese Forces, represented by American units and behaving according to Normal rules for USA movement.
“Comintern” basically do the same thing as above except place one of those Chinese territories under the aegis of the Soviet Union. Hopei or Shensi or both, would make the most sense, given the way China is compressed on the G40 map. Instead of the Kuomintang KMT under direct Washington control, you would have these spaces as Communist Chinese CPC forces under direct Moscow control.
And if you go that route you should make Mongolia a proper Soviet puppet too.
To me part of the interest in developing a third faction to begin with would be the endgame potential where victorious factions could immediately declare war against their former friends. So on the Axis side a situation where European Axis could go to with Japan. On the Allied side, one where the Western Allies could go to war with the Soviets. And basically play on for another 20 hours lol. In that sort of situation a battle ground in China could be fun, as the United Front totally collapses and the Civil war is resumed.
Just food for thought. I’m not really the biggest fan of China as separate faction with its own weird rules.
China aside, the main thing you’d need to figure out is what sort of Victory Conditions you want to adopt, and how the two “Allied” factions (the Western Allies and the Soviets) figure into that. How do the players actually win, under this new system?
Also, pretty important too… I’d say its almost pointless to develop a game that cannot function as a two player 1v1, because most people only have a single opponent that can commit to a game like G40 with any kind of regularity. Most FFA 3 way games have a way of stalling out in fairly short order, or when one of those 3 players quits prematurely. That doesn’t mean though, that just because you have a game with 3 factions and 3 turns, that it can’t still be made for 2 players.
Hi Black_Elk,
@China
I kind of like making China playable in this 3-Turn version of G40. By having them go during the Russian turn, it lets them be Allie-Friendly, but not a full-out Allie. This way, China and Allies cannot coordinate attacks, but can defend together. I think it kind of helps to represent all of the conflict that was happening internally in China at the time. … they are kind of an “odd-man-out”.
@3rd Faction and Victory Conditions
Now that I think of it, I’ve never played a game using Victory Conditions … even since playing as a kid back in the late '80s. We just let it be more organic. Sometimes its clear who’s winning, sometimes not so clear. But playing with three factions ALWAYS leaves a “Cold-War” scenario at the end. As you mentioned in your post, it is wise to STOP the game once WWII ends and the “Cold-War” begins!! If not, you are going to be playing a long, long time.
The game usually ends one of two ways:
Axis Lose: This creates the historical ending. Allied and Communist power blocks mark their holdings and the historical Cold War begins.
Axis Win: Usually Russia is knocked out. Remaining is the USA and possibly UK Europe … sometimes ANZAC as well. This would have led to a different Cold War. The cold war between Democracy and Fascism instead of Democracy vs. Communism
I always felt that instead of artificial Victory Conditions, you can see who is winning by arriving to the “Cold War” boundries. … but not actually playing out the Cold War.
@ Greater than 1v1 Play-ability
I don’t know about this. Sure, A&A CAN be played with 2 people … even G40 … but it is WAY WAY WAY more fun to play with more people!! I’ve never had a problem patching together a 5 or 6 people group! Heck, I moved down to Mexico City 10 years ago and have a pool of 8 people to play with here! Getting a group together is part of the fun.
Combat Steps (There are no modifications to the steps. All revised rules fall within the existing game structure)
1) Sub Special Attacks
2) AAA Rolls (Naval Combat ONLY) … Land-based AAA roles are conducted during normal combat.
3) Attacker’s Rolls
4) Defender’s Rolls
5) Remove Casualties
**6) Continue? **
MODIFIED UNIT RULES (Information not stated here remains OOB)
Ship Based AAA All ships have AAA capabilities. It works as follows:
Ship AAA is rolled at the beginning of every combat round. (Just after the “Sub Special Attack” step, and before the normal attack rolls) Airplanes can still only be targeted up to ONE time per combat round.
Is rolled independently from a ship’s normal combat rolls. So, in theory, ships can roll 2 times per combat round. Once for their AAA which must be applied to enemy planes and once for “Ship-to-Ship” which must be applied to enemy ships.
Can be used in the attack as well as defense.
IMPORTANT: Is the only way a ship can hit an aircraft. Ship’s regular combat rolls must apply their hits to the other ships.
Is treated as normal AAA in all other aspects.
Land Based AAA
Is rolled during the normal combat rolls.
Is rolled during every round of combat.
AAA can now only target up to a single enemy airplane. (Airplanes can still only be targeted up to ONE time per combat round)
AAA now cost 4 IPCs.
**Aircraft Carriers **
Aircraft carriers can only launch attacks with airplanes of the same nation.
Aircraft carriers can launch and receive friendly aircraft during the Non-Combat move.
Have ship based AAA that can target up to 1 plane per turn.
Transports
Transports can only launch amphibious attacks in the Combat Move with units from the same nation.
Transports can load, move and unload friendly units in the Non-Combat move.
Transports do not control a sea-zone. Therefore, when not escorted, they cannot interfere with an amphibious assault. However, attacker must still roll for “Hits” and any surviving transports may attempt to retreat after each round of combat. Once this is finished, the amphibious assault may continue as normal.
Transports must be chosen last for casualty selection unless Die-Roller choses a transport with a Tactical Bomber @1 hit. See TAC Bomber rules below.
Have ship based AAA that can target up to 1 plane per turn
Destroyers
Can only apply their special anti-sub abilities to ONE enemy sub in the sea zone per destroyer.
Destroyers now cost 7 IPCs
Destroyers have ship based AAA that can target up to 1 plane per turn.
Cruisers
Have ship based AAA that can target up to 2 planes per turn.
Cruisers now cost 11 IPCs.
Battleships
- Have ship based AAA that can target up to 2 planes per turn.
TAC Bombers
Applies to NAVAL BATTLES ONLY: During attack and defense, if a TAC bomber rolls a 1, the DIE ROLLER may choose which ship to apply the hit to.
The Die Roller applies their TAC @1 hits before the regular hits are applied that are chosen by the defender.
With an “@1” hit, Die Roller may choose to hit ANY enemy ship, including Transports.
Strategic Bombers
- Attack at 2 against Naval Units
Battleship should be 18 IPCs.
Because 1 DD 7 IPCs + 1 Cruiser 11 IPCs = 1 Battleship 18 IPCs
In combat, 1 DD + 1 CA vs 1 BB gives 50% odds of survival
So, there is no more single combat round assault for planes vs warships and planes?
If the case, why don’t try:
Tactical Bomber
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 4 or 5 (with AB)
Cost 11
Land combat: Can pick any ground target as casualty on any hit.
Naval combat: can target capital warship or Transport as casualty on any hit (owner still choose individual target amongst Carriers or Battleships or TPs).
Such casualty for land or naval battle must be determined first in combat round, then other regular casualty are selected.
No more combat bonus for pairing with Fighter or Tank.
Maybe you should allow a damaged Carrier to be able to hold 1 Fg or TcB.
Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 or 5 (with AB)
Cost 10
On any “1” or “2” roll, hit another plane (owner still choose individual casualty).
Also Submarine loose their special capacity to hit ship only since all warships hit directly other ship.
To simplify naval combat and gives something to sub which also do not get the AA attack roll bonus, let them roll always surprise strike (DD or not):
Sub A2 first strike D1 first strike cost 6.
OR
Reduce Submarine cost to the sweet 5 IPCs spot with no change as in your OPost.
(But it can remain a too much interesting Naval fodder at 5 IPCs).
On AAA, I believe it should cost 3 IPCs or should have up to 2 targets each round for 4 IPCs.
(2 AAA for 8 IPCs, it is not very attractive compared to a Destroyer, 1 IPC cheaper, which have AAA shot, A2 D2 and offensive capacity and anti-sub capacity.)
It is also simpler to keep it preemptive to be consistent with Naval combat AAA.
Let me know when you’re play-test will be done, I would like some feedback on your AAA unit.
On Strategic bombers.
I believe there is no need to nerfed it to Attack 2. With all the AAA coming from warships every round, the Darken Skies cannot be that powerful. Simpler to keep its A4 values, but for historical accuracy I can understand that you prefer A2.
On Strategic bombers.
I believe there is no need to nerfed it to Attack 2. With all the AAA coming from warships every round, the Darken Skies cannot be that powerful. Simpler to keep its A4 values, but for historical accuracy I can understand that you prefer A2.
Forget this comment.
According to your rule, a single battleship has only 1 AA shot @1 against 1 StB.
So, StB can roll @2 to get a hit.
Repeat on next combat round.
If StB stay @4, it will be OP against poor BB.
Hello Barron,
A lot to address in your previous post.
Battleship should be 18 IPCs.
Because 1 DD 7 IPCs + 1 Cruiser 11 IPCs = 1 Battleship 18 IPCs
In combat, 1 DD + 1 CA vs 1 BB gives 50% odds of survival
I did several test battles and a probability calculation with the “High Luck” casualties model. This means that the BB will hit the Cruiser with a roll of a 3 or a 4. Results are about 16% Tie, 47% BB win, 37% BB Lose. Therefore, personally, I think the cost of the BB is OK “as is”. Definitely 18 would be too low based on these probabilities.
So, there is no more single combat round assault for planes vs warships and planes?
Correct. To keep it simple, I just made them work under regular combat. Ships have a 50% chance of escaping between combat rounds. That should be enough. Also, it made things more complicated when a regular naval battle had only air-units remaining on one side.
Fighters, TACs and Damaged Carriers
Those all look like good suggestions. I want to do an actual play-test in a full game with the “as is” set first. Fortunately, this is programmed for this Saturday! So I will do an AAR an write it in this forum so we can analyse.
Also Submarine loose their special capacity to hit ship only since all warships hit directly other ship.
To simplify naval combat and gives something to sub which also do not get the AA attack roll bonus, let them roll always surprise strike (DD or not):
Sub A2 first strike D1 first strike cost 6.
OR
Reduce Submarine cost to the sweet 5 IPCs spot with no change as in your OPost.
(But it can remain a too much interesting Naval fodder at 5 IPCs).
Subs currently cannot hit air units. They don’t have any AAA capabilities. But, if subs could hit using their suprise attack with or without DD’s, wouldn’t that kind of eliminate one of the most important aspects of destroyers in the game? Also, it would eliminate the Cat-Mouse ratio of Subs vs. Destroyers. I’m not so sure about this. Having a Destroyer cancel ONE sub, makes players have to have lots of destroyers in their fleets. It also gives an incentive to have separate “wolf-packs” of subs.
On AAA, I believe it should cost 3 IPCs or should have up to 2 targets each round for 4 IPCs.
(2 AAA for 8 IPCs, it is not very attractive compared to a Destroyer, 1 IPC cheaper, which have AAA shot, A2 D2 and offensive capacity and anti-sub capacity.)
It is also simpler to keep it preemptive to be consistent with Naval combat AAA.
Let me know when you’re play-test will be done, I would like some feedback on your AAA unit.
Good points on the AAA. Like you said, I want to play-test first with the 1xPlan per AAA (AAA can roll every combat round). This is still pretty powerful because it targets planes directly. Also, with “High Luck Casualties”, a defending tank could hit an airplane directly in theory with a roll of “3”. But you might be correct. I’ll let you know how it goes in the AAR and we can discuss some more next week.
STRATEGIC BOMBERS hitting Naval Units @2 instead of @4
I saw your new post. But regardless, I think this picture says more than a thousand words regarding High-Altitude Strategic Bombing raids on Naval Convoys :-D
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/f000001/f003725.jpg
After Action Report - AAR
I hosted a G40 game this Saturday using the rules set listed at the top of this thread. I think by far the thing that we liked most was the way Naval Combat works.
Giving ships 2 different rolls (one for AAA and one for ship-to-ship) made for a very realistic and fun game. Remember, their AAA is the ONLY way a ship can hit an airplane. All of the sudden, your ships start to feel naked if they are not either grouped with a CV or under the protection of an air-base. Also, the @1 rolls for Tactical Bombers made for some pretty interesting outcomes.
The other thing we enjoyed was the ability for Naval Units to attempt to flee. Both the attacker and defender can do this with a roll of 4 or higher. This allowed for Naval Engagements to be violent … but not necessarily fatal. There was one occasion when a smaller Japanese fleet attacked a SUPERIOR US fleet. A Japanese TAC bomber got a lucky hit on one of the defending CV’s. … The US defender decided to run on the next turn, got lucky with a die-roll, and managed to escape. Also, there were several times where smaller fleets were attacked, and managed to escape after the 1st or 2nd round of combat. This made for more diverse and fun gameplay.
The other “Hit” was the HIGH LUCK CASUALTY system. This is a very simple and fun rule to implement. Young Grasshopper and Baron really nailed this one. On the Naval side of the battles, Defending Fighters and Modified TACs can hit BBs or CVs with rolls of 4 (we put the CV’s in the 4 column instead of the 3 column … reasoning was that these would be the most valued and protected ships in the fleets). On the Land Side, Tanks and fighters could occasionally hit high-value targets.
Finally, 3 turns per round makes the game go a lot faster. But we had already been playing a simplified version of that system for several months now.
Anyway, thanks for everyone’s input on this rules set. So far, we really enjoyed it. We are going to try another game in about 3 to 4 weeks.
Also Submarine loose their special capacity to hit ship only since all warships hit directly other ship.
To simplify naval combat and gives something to sub which also do not get the AA attack roll bonus, let them roll always surprise strike (DD or not):
Sub A2 first strike D1 first strike cost 6.
OR
Reduce Submarine cost to the sweet 5 IPCs spot with no change as in your OPost.
(But it can remain a too much interesting Naval fodder at 5 IPCs).
Subs currently cannot hit air units. They don’t have any AAA capabilities. But, **if subs could hit using their suprise attack with or without DD’s, wouldn’t that kind of eliminate one of the most important aspects of destroyers in the game? Also, it would eliminate the Cat-Mouse ratio of Subs vs. Destroyer**s. I’m not so sure about this. Having a Destroyer cancel ONE sub, makes players have to have lots of destroyers in their fleets. It also gives an incentive to have separate “wolf-packs” of subs.
Destroyer doesn’t loose its ability to block Submarine submerge and stealth move on 1:1 basis.
Also, it is a cheap fodder at 7. You prefer to loose DD rather than a Cruiser or a Carrier.
Maybe this suggestion about Sub always having first strike is tied to another aspect I forgot to mention (but introduced in G40 enhanced thread) still can enhanced naval depiction accuracy:
Submarines are immune to other Submarines. Sub cannot hit Subs nor planes.
That way DD is the only naval fodder available against enemy’s subs.
I’m pretty sure it worth the try since you seems to like accurate naval depiction.
Also, an issue I noted with DD blocking Sub surprise strike on 1:1 basis is that sub attack and defense rolls constantly change from surprise phase or regular phase according to number of vessels in excess, whether Subs or Destroyers.
With my idea, it is simpler: Sub attack is always in the surprise phase.
And according to AA calc, a 6 IPCs Sub A2 first strike vs 7 IPCs DD A2 D2 is the same odds than OOB Sub vs OOB DD.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1460601#msg1460601
@Baron:
@The:
“Since Sub always have First Strike” I thought only undetected subs have the “first strike option” (@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games…
OOB, you are right Sub cost 6, A2 D1 and gets Surprise Strike if no DD is present.
In my redesign Sub suggestion, DD cost 6 and block 1:1 Sub’s Submerge and Stealth Move, but can’t affect the Sub’s Surprise Strike (at 5 IPCs vs 6 IPCs, A2 first strike vs D2, the IPC ratio already put DD at the same OOB AACalc odds of 6 IPCs vs 8 IPCs, A2 vs D2)
Simpler to let Sub, cost 5, attack A2 First strike all the time, but defend @1 regular.
Anyway, you would need Destroyer as fodder and to attack Sub, because they can Submerge, if their is no DD.@Baron:
Unit type
Cost � Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth MoveDESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.Undecided: Submarine’s Stealth Move and No Control of Sea Zone still afford 1 single shot @1 per Submarine unit against any warships or transports passing by in the same SZ.
Hello Baron,
@Subs cannot hit other subs:
I really like this. Actually, we were already thinking about this in my group. I think I’ll do some test-scenarios later this week to see how it effects balance. But it should be OK.
@Destroyers blocking Subs on a 1:1 ratio
Big Battles: We found it quite easy in the game to keep track of the Surprise Attacks when there were big fleets involved. …. Just count the Subs against the defending Destroyers. Yes. The number of Surprise Attacks can change from round-to-round in a battle. But I don’t think that is a problem. Also, any “Left-Over” subs that exceed the enemy’s number of destroyers may opt to submerge. We played that as if those subs left the battle, never to return. This is regardless of what happens to the rest of their fleet that was accompanying them.
Defending Subs in a “Wolf Pack”: One thing we did encounter is the following. Sometimes there are groups of subs-only in a “wolf-pack”. Let’s say there is a group of 4 subs, alone in a sea-zone. An attacker might want to hit those subs. However, lets say the attacker only has 2 destroyers. In this case, we played that 2 of those 4 subs would be carried to the battle-board. The other 2 subs would remain on the map, regardless of what happened to the other two on the battle board. … And also, per the revised Navy Retreat Rules … If any of the defending subs survived the 1st round of battle, there is a chance that they might be able to retreat/escape with an retreat roll of 4 or higher. So that makes for some pretty interesting outcomes.
I would like to ear about your play-test with Sub when it will be done.
In my version of destroyer blocking sub, it was only for a single round.
Navy retreat can work instead of single round blocker.
I played once with 1:1 blocking surprise strike. It is playable but it is another thing to manage during resolve combat phase. My point is you can get the same statistical odds than OOB witth less Sub and DD mechanics, just by reducing the gap to 1 IPC between DD and Sub.
About blocking first strike attack, it seems like inspired by tactical level of antisub warfare rather than strategic theatre level of operations.
Any Submarine going underwater seems to have better chance to surprise any assaillant.
On defense, Submarine is not actively chasing target but remain difficult to find, which can easily be depicted that it must show its position first before being engaged by ASV DDs.
Giving this generic ability of surprise strike is not OP vs DD if you considered that your system gives a boost to DD (-1 IPC, 1 AAA shot, A2 D2 on ship). And, as I suggested, DD still able to block Sub ability to escape or using stealth move 1 on 1.
Maybe you can have an opportunity to try such 2 hits AAA unit at 5 IPCs, since you were open to lower AAA cost to 4 IPCs?
@Baron:
@Baron:
Do not forget that AAA have no offensive capacity.
Infantry have a way to reach up to Att @2.
AAA have only defensive and fodder purpose and it is a high cost fodder at 5 IPCs.@Baron:
@Arthur:
The circumstance comes up almost every single game: a final raid on Moscow. Usually you know that the Germans have one or two rounds to do the attack and then have to return their planes to western Europe to defend against Allied invaders. Russia must choose how to spend their final 10-15 PUs. The choice might only change the outcome by a couple percentage points, but why not take the best odds.
IMO, a unit which is only good to purchase in this particular condition should be improve to be balanced vs other units specially Infantry, since it is THE fodder unit par excellence, and AAA are meant to be use as fodder too after the initial combat round, since they have no attack value.
Also, can we really compare 2 AAAs (10 IPCs) with 1 Fighter and the tactical possibility it can generate?I know it is not suppose to become a new idea thread (but I can refrain myself :-D), what do you think about this?
If we acknowledge that AAA is to figure defensive kind of weapons which need a lot of hard work to move from one place to another, hence it only moves during Non-Combat Move phase.
What if AAA becomes also a way to simulate defensive features and fortification?Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack: 0
Defense: 0 or 1 preemptive against up to 3 planes, which ever the lower.
Move: 1, NCM only
Hit point value: 2, no repair needed if it survives combat
Cost 5
This means that AAA can take a free hit the same way Battleship does (or 1914 Tank does).Do you believe people will want to buy a few more of them, more often?
Can it become a way to simulate an Atlantic Wall for Germany?
Can it become a more interesting fodder?
Hi Baron,
I’m having a small game this Sunday. We’ll probably just play the Pacific side of the map instead of Global. Should be a good opportunity to test your Sub idea. The land-based AAA will come into play some. I’ll give the 5 IPC version with up to 2 shots a try as well. I’ll post an AAR early next week so we can discuss.
Cheers!
Hi Baron,
I’m having a small game this Sunday. We’ll probably just play the Pacific side of the map instead of Global. Should be a good opportunity to test your Sub idea. The land-based AAA will come into play some. I’ll give the 5 IPC version with up to 2 shots a try as well. I’ll post an AAR early next week so we can discuss.
Cheers!
Cool. 8-)
Thanks and have fun.
I will read your report for sure.
Hi Baron. We had a very long 8-player game on Saturday. However, 2 of the players where 1st timers and this was only the 2nd time for all of us to play this revised rules set.
In the end, I didn’t want to through too many new variables. So, in short, I elected to not implement the submarine rules this time. However, I think it is a good rule. Subs vs Subs simply does not make sense in a WWII environment and I think the rules can easily be modified to reflect this.
Hi Baron. We had a very long 8-player game on Saturday. However, 2 of the players where 1st timers and this was only the 2nd time for all of us to play this revised rules set.
In the end, I didn’t want to through too many new variables. So, in short, I elected to not implement the submarine rules this time. However, I think it is a good rule. Subs vs Subs simply does not make sense in a WWII environment and I think the rules can easily be modified to reflect this.
Fine.
I’m just thinking about the special “4” roll to directly hit Carriers.
Since your game is more air oriented, why not simplify, KISS, this one to a “2” roll (CV gets A0 D2, 2 hits, OOB) but since DD is also in this category, you can protect them with fodder, or even with Cruiser, since it is a higher roll casualty “3”.
Also, to simplify unit interactions, if DD cost 7 and Sub 6, there is no need to require that a friendly DD be present to score some hits on Submarines. The OOB intent was to be sure to use DD as naval fodder and not just sub as cheapest fodder, since in your rules DD is far better than Sub.
Keep DD as Sub submerge blocker and it still works.
I’ve been really happy with giving ships @1 preemptive AA abilities. … and that is the ONLY way ships can hit airplanes.
During a ship’s normal combat rolls, their “big-gun” hits must be applied to other ships.
This lets you attack fleets with only air units and dish out some serious WWII-style dive-bomb/torpedo damage unless the defending fleet has air-cover. (which it should)
When planes are attacking with naval units, if defending planes score some hits, the attacker can still apply casualty to his naval units, right?
