@Imperious:
If DAS work for both dogfighting and ground support then why should DAS air force retreat after attacking air force is destroyed?
+++++ This is not exact interpretation of the rule as written: DAS is allowed to stay and help its units defend untill the attacker has broken off the attack. At this point the attacker will probably retreat w/o his own air support… but if he wants he can continue.
Ok so DAS air force can retreat at time. But must retreat when attack (or defender) retreats completely.
If DAS is also possible if attacker do not send air units…then “ground radars” no longer remove the 1-combat-cycle response latency of DAS?
++++++well not exactly the one round thing is if the planes are adjacent and not actually in the attacked territory. This promotes disbursement of your air force and a more historically realistic strategy.
if planes are adjacent?
So “reduce by” rather than “remove” 1-combat-cycle latency? But DAS must be from adjacent territories right?
not actually in the attacked territory?
Are you saying DAS can be from the territory itself? But don’t they just fight normally? To say those air units are doing DAS as well would be confusing.
So if you have the “powerful computer” technology, successful rolls now give you 2 boxes instead of 1 (for certain technologies).
+++++ AHHH! i didnt see that coming! thats a good idea… i would rephrase it because the word computer was not really in use at this time.
Ok good.
+++++ ok on asw we only really need:
- something to allow the use of planes in ASW search
- something to allow fighters/divebombers ability to attack subs in asw
- something to say “your sucess roll for asw search and destroy has gone up from 2 to 3”
thats it… i was using asw 1,2,3 for simplicity.
Ok I see….so something like…
what can you add to that list?
Mech infantry?
Some of our new units can be purchasable after technology acquired?
Say did everyone have dive bombers at the beginning?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 08:54:31 PM
If DAS work for both dogfighting and ground support then why should DAS air force retreat after attacking air force is destroyed?
+++++ This is not exact interpretation of the rule as written: DAS is allowed to stay and help its units defend untill the attacker has broken off the attack. At this point the attacker will probably retreat w/o his own air support… but if he wants he can continue.
Ok so DAS air force can retreat at time. But must retreat when attack (or defender) retreats completely.
++++yes exactly!
Quote
If DAS is also possible if attacker do not send air units…then “ground radars” no longer remove the 1-combat-cycle response latency of DAS?
++++++well not exactly the one round thing is if the planes are adjacent and not actually in the attacked territory. This promotes disbursement of your air force and a more historically realistic strategy.
if planes are adjacent?
So “reduce by” rather than “remove” 1-combat-cycle latency? But DAS must be from adjacent territories right?
++++ yes the idea does not seen correct but the idea has to do with positioning of forces… trying to force the players to get away from big stacks of plastic and break it down into smaller armies… anything i can do to facilitae a player to place his air force in different stacks the better. where his air units goes so does his land stacks to protect them.
not actually in the attacked territory?
Are you saying DAS can be from the territory itself?
+++++ thats the most common way from the same territory you perform DAS the one combat round latency thing is for adjacent territories where it has to fly from to the attacked territory.
But don’t they just fight normally? To say those air units are doing DAS as well would be confusing.
+++++ any plane thats defending land units by engaging attacking air units is performing a DAS mission
Quote
So if you have the “powerful computer” technology, successful rolls now give you 2 boxes instead of 1 (for certain technologies).
+++++ AHHH! i didnt see that coming! thats a good idea… i would rephrase it because the word computer was not really in use at this time.
Ok good.
Quote
+++++ ok on asw we only really need:
thats it… i was using asw 1,2,3 for simplicity.
Ok I see…so something like…
+++++ yes exactly i am not sure of the language to describe it but yes…
Quote
what can you add to that list?
Mech infantry?
Some of our new units can be purchasable after technology acquired?
Say did everyone have dive bombers at the beginning?
++++++ the new units are on the optional list as per duke… but yes all nations had tactical fighters that specialized in attacking tanks with a single bomb underneath the fuselage. each nation had its own name for it. The divebomber suits the bill for a name thats acceptable.
+++++ any plane thats defending land units by engaging attacking air units is performing a DAS mission
The definition is a little confusing,
I mean the defending air units may not even be engaging attacking air units. Since we can “DAS” even if the attacker does not send air units.
Maybe just call it “air support” or something. I mean there is no different in “offensive air support” or “defensive air support” anyway…besides for fighting values.
Air support is just “dogfighting” and “air superiority bombing”.
Ok I see….so something like…
- -> naval radar?
- -> air dropped depth charge?
- -> ***?
+++++ yes exactly i am not sure of the language to describe it but yes…
Some possiblities:
Airborne sea scanning radar - asw search for planes
Aircraft searchlight and sonobuoys - +1 asw search for planes
High frequency direction finding - +1 asw search
Ahead-throwing anti-submarine weapons - +1 asw attack for ships
On the other hand we could have
Submarine fuel and stealth: -1 asw search
The definition is a little confusing,
I mean the defending air units may not even be engaging attacking air units. Since we can “DAS” even if the attacker does not send air units.
++++ DAS occurs any time the defending player uses air units to defend attacked territories. If the DAS support mission is to come from an adjacent territory, their is a one combat round penalty… thus they can participate on the round after they are called in. Thats it… their is nothing more complicated. If they stay where they are thats fine too. Defensive air support is the correct terminology for this. When the attacker uses planes its called close ground assault mission… and thats the correct terminology as well.
Maybe just call it “air support” or something. I mean there is no different in “offensive air support” or “defensive air support” anyway…besides for fighting values.
Air support is just “dogfighting” and “air superiority bombing”.
+++ thats slang words… we are using historical terminology…nobody ever said: “just go out and dogfight enemy planes”
Quote
Ok I see…so something like…
+++++ yes exactly i am not sure of the language to describe it but yes…
Some possiblities:
Airborne sea scanning radar - asw search for planes
Aircraft searchlight and sonobuoys - +1 asw search for planes
High frequency direction finding - +1 asw search
Ahead-throwing anti-submarine weapons - +1 asw attack for ships
++++ again this is not proper terminology… if we dont know exactly what its called we have to resort to a generic name… that is not the case in air missions. The nomenclature must be accurate and realistic…
++++ again this is not proper terminology…
I pulled those out from wikipedia.
Do you mean it shouldn’t be named after a specific technology?
NO im saying the air missions must have the proper name. The aspects of ASW that represent say the ability of planes to enjoy search should be named according to what it was historically referred to… post anything on this… we need to have proper historical names for this technology.
So how is heavy tanks gonna work?
Opening fire? +1 attack? Cost ?
AS a new unit … that would be a different thread. as part of the tech tree i see Germany having the lead followed by soviets, british and americans, last is japan.
so say the total tech boxes for heavy tanks is fixed at 4 boxes…
germany would have 3 boxes checked allready, soviets 2, US/UK one box allready checked… and japan has a full 4 boxes empty they are lagging…
as a unit its best to address this under a seperate thread… but
attack 4 ,defend 4, cost 7 or 8, move 2 spaces.
what would guided torpedos do?
I would have Japan allready with this and with USA about 1-2 boxes away from completion. this would be a 3-4 box tech. it would allow a +1 attack by divebombers/ torpedo bombers on surface ships.
as mentioned before I hope we don’t have a very varied no. of boxes for the technologies
say would be good if it was either 2, 4, or 8 boxes
rather than 2,3,4,5…
OK then you accept that fact that some technologies are “harder” than others? Secondly, why does the boxes have to be 2,4,6,8… or rather even quantities? is their some special consideration you have in mind? are you aiming for simplicity in some way?
where would you have the tech box count as?
yeah I certainly accept harder and easier technologies
doesn’t have to be 2, 4, 8 I guess
just 2 or 3 “difficulty” levels
could try 1, 3, 6 actually
oh yeah we need names for the two “categories” of technology
like weapons development and weapons upgrade
I know you guys are deep in discovering new technologies, but have you ever thought of this?
How about making certain technology “Appear” when it becomes “necessary”. Like you lose all your tanks in one turn or a certain amount of a course of turns and then you start researching it with benefits to research it i.e. Cheaper costs free rolls etc…
GG
Hey Guerrilla Guy and Imperious Leader,
I registered at this website, like you told me to. Can anyone brief me on what’s happening? I understand this is the tech section.
Peace
Gen. Alexander Patch
Welcome to AaA.org! Tech discussion is going on here… Any thread with AARHE (Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition) is the ones your looking for…
GG
Hey General Patch: Please read topics under phase two sections. Currently were still working on Tech, new units, neutrals, lend lease. the top 4-5 threads are mostly exactly what were doing. Our team is: The Duke, Tekkyy, Micoom, B. Andersson, Guerrilla Guy, and about 4 others who chime in from time to time… and myself.
welcome to the group
Whew this was a long read… and there’s even larger topics to go. Yay for summer! J
War has traditionally been a time for technological advancement - primarily because circumstances force. Free dice, though, doesn’t seem real to me. Instead, what about a progressive investment scheme?
It would go something like this: For every X IPCs you invest into research per turn you receive X number of research credits. Each technology/development costs X research credits. This helps to eliminate those instances where you effectively lose the game because of a few bad rolls (God knows how many times I’ve lost 10-15 IPCs trying to get rockets… and failing). It also makes research more realistic, as every breakthrough would have a different cost and time frame.
