AARHE: Phase 2: Strategic redeployment

You got me thinking on how now to force attacker to take a bomber instead of a fig in SBR dogfights. Thinking if interceptor rolls a 1 it forces attacker to take a bomber casualty. This way don’t have to raise defense on a interceptor. Just thinking here.

May add this to land naval combats to

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

I just use the same Color for several nations. This is my way. List is ww1-ww2. Germany Germany. Germany ANZAC. France France.  UK Uk. US US. Austria China. Russia Russia. RUSSIA Italy. (Perfect) Italy Japan(perfect)

@Black_Elk:

This thread has too much good information to let it sit for an entire year without comment.
:-D

Right now my group doesn’t play with escort/intercept rules, because it just doesn’t seem worth the risk to the fighters (in either role). So when the rules are in effect it mainly serves to discourage bombing altogether.

With altered abilites, like the ones suggested here, I might be more inclined to play the Escort/intercept game.

I think you probably need 3 things to bring Air into balance:
a.  an improved SBR mechanic.

b. Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery units Abilities. Like one that can move in combat, with a normal attack defense value of 1, in addition to a one time opening shot vs air, or something along those lines.

c. Some form of naval AA-fire.

I think you have touched on all the essentials here. And have brought up the others before. In addition to working out a dogfight system. The stats in thread are compelling and demonstrate how the first aspect “improved sbr” might be approached.

Nice work, as always

Thank you very much.
I forgot this thread, I will probably use some stats into my Summary thread under construction about various SBRs.

Nonetheless, it needs full focus to really weight all the aspects of SBR with all these numbers.
I can easily understand you need to be in a certain “vibe” to read this kind of posts, hence it was quite dusty.

Besides, I agree on your analysis of these 3 points a, b, c. They need to be coordinate to get a better game.
I made a lot of posts on these points over months.
Need to find the good angle to get a fresh start on these.

OK, that makes a lot more sense now. One other thing I do see is someone abusing this rule to get an extra move for some of their units–if I owned a territory that was inaccessible from the territory my army was in, but my enemy owned a territory (with a factory in it) that bordered both of my territories, I could launch a strategic assault against my enemy’s factory and then “retreat” my forces into the inaccessible territory.

For example, a German army could launch a strategic assault against Karelia S.S.R with the sole objective of moving an army from the Baltic States to Finland, or launch a strategic assault from the Eastern Ukraine into Russia, and then “retreat” their forces into the Urals or Novosibirsk once the first round of combat was done (assuming the Urals or Novosibirsk were controlled by an axis power). In each instance, the assaulting nation could attack with a force much too small to actually take the territory, yet still get the advantage of moving through the territory as though they had actually conquered it.

I like the idea of strategic assaults, but if I was going to play a game with them I would require all assaulting land units to retreat back into the territory they had originated in once the assault was over.

The funny thing is if you look at the 1939 map and you read about how the A50 game seems to be about you easily conclude:

Somebody must have gotten a bunch of ideas from AARHE and used some of these for the A50…which is fine. It was designed to be as complete as possible so people can rip from it and it can influence the coming pattern that emerges.

I fully support AARHE and so does Tekkyy. I have provided everything you and Bierwagen asked, and but a few more items like the setup sheets your working on and those cards for NA…we should be complete except for minor clarifications that Tekkyy is doing.

I think AARHE is way better than A50 or anything else w/o a doubt.  But if you want to as they say “turn off the brain” and play a very light treatment then A50 will also be played.

Of course you know the coming storm must erupt and renew and i must again make a phase 4 map for this new game, or at a minimum create a AARHE rules catered deliberately for A50.

The A50 already has flaws: no diplomacy, no defender retreats, not real new units, etc… these must be addressed.

Id like to make a random card system for A50 and come up with a few minor things

Id include: fighter-bombers, fortresses, mechanized infantry, heavy tanks, and dedicated airborne units.

There are a few discrepancies between the 1939 map with set ups and player set up charts in the 1939 rules.

1.  France listed w 6 infantry set up charts:  4 on map
2.  UK shows only Factory in Canada and Australia on 1939 set up charts:  map adds factory in UK and India.

There may be more, this is the most obvious.  I assume the map is correct.  are there updated set ups?  The one I’m refering to is on the download dated 3-08. http://home.exetel.com.au/cometo/aarhe/

Also, on the 1939 map, the UK starts with a factory in India.  This gives UK 4 factories.  Should the UK have a factory in India, particularly in 1939?  Did India have such capability in producting ships, planes, armor etc that early?  I’d rather see UK required to build one.

looking into this now…

GAH!  I always forget the fine print about resorting to OOB/LHTR to clarify – thanks Tekkyy.