AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.

I’m glad I cleared your principle concern and I do take your point with regards to world-wide naval redeployments. I think, from a purely historical perspective, I do have to concede that what I am proposing does require a suspension of disbelief. Even today, that sort of operation is incredibly difficult to plan for, let alone execute, (although it is only a concern for the USA at the time of writing).

If I may touch on your examples, my limited understanding is that thanks to the Dogger Bank incident, the British closed the Suez Canal to the Russian fleet, which they were hoping to do anyway. The Brits had recently signed treaties with Japan against Russia, so Dogger Bank just gave them a pretext, which has always made me wonder if the British had something to do with the whole mess. So, on top of the two other major problems you previously mentioned, the required transit distance was increased by thousands of kilometres. Had that not happened, I still think the Japanese would have just as easily and completely annihilated the Russian fleet, but every little helps.

The Great White Fleet and Force Z are good examples too, although Force Z was defeated largely by lack of air cover, not so much to do with logistical challenges, again, as far as I am aware. I agree that this sort of thing is likely done in stages, as you mentioned in your last paragraph, not as one trip only stopping for food and fuel, but I did consider that for the House Rule.

As for the colossal US naval builds and deployments, again I think you are correct. In GW36, to build cruisers and light carriers takes 18 months and battleships and fleet carriers take 2 years, that is, 3 and 4 game rounds respectively, so that aspect doesn’t detract from reality when taking my House Rule into account, IMO.

Ultimately, I do agree that the whole thing is a little hard to swallow, but a ship can travel from Liverpool to Bombay, through the Med, and it still takes 1 year in game time. I think if each nation gets 1 Naval Redeployment per turn, things become much less fantastic. I had to try to balance realism with the in game mechanics to address something that I felt was a bit odd, and it can’t be 100% believable, but we are talking about a board game that has to make it at least feasible for the Axis to win the Second World War, which I believe to be a total impossibility.

I agree with King of Aces on the Heavy Tank stats: 4-4-1-8. Not sure about the 2-hit idea, but it sounds interesting. I suppose you could simply put a damage marker under it like you do with Capital ships that take the first damage hit but survive the battle.
Also interested in IL’s idea that Heavy Tanks can move 2 in NCM only.
Light tanks should be 2-2-2-5. Giving them 3 on defense is too much.

_I love this idea , it is very accurate historic wise and also adds a lot of new tactics and limitations to the game , I endorse the upgrading idea mentioned by the guy who posted before me and would like to hear his stats and such  8-)but I battle tested this rule yesterday  and it worked great, I will be using this rule from now on for sure _

It only takes a few days to build airfield so why pay extra cost for that?
There was already airbase everywhere in the pacific (Except Guadacanal and New Guinea island)
so it’s useless.

maybe Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier shouldn’t take 2-hits after all

I haven’t played games with all optional units select for play (usually only select naval fighter)
but yeah its funny how:
BB 2-hit, 2-turn
CA 2-hit, 1-turn
CV 2-hit, 2-turn

yes but we are working on that now with 4.1 no more 2 turn naval builds.

carriers could go to 1 hit units and of course the latter file for AA50HE will have them just at 1 for both CA and CV.

I agree that the current method of defender choosing casualties is simple, so perhaps it should stay, but in war, the casualties were much more random, so here is my suggestion.

Custom create a Battle Board sheet. (A Microsoft Word table will do just fine.) Here is an example.

Battle Board
          Attacker’s Units
1   2   3   4
5   6   7   8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20

Defender’s Units
1 2 3   4
5 6 7   8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20

Now, when a battle is declared, place the units on the board on a number in any order begining from the number 1 position.

Roll the Attacker’s dice as normal, for example there are 6 units defending, 4 Infantry on #'s 1-4, a Tank on #5, and a Fighter on #6.  You get 3 hits, so now you roll 3 6-sided dice to see which units were hit. For example, you roll a 2, a 2, and a 6.  Now you re-roll the second 2 and it is a 4, so the defender lost 2 Infantry and 1 Fighter.

You, the attacker, attacked with 4 Infantry, 3 Tanks, a Fighter, and a Bomber, so you place your units on the Attacker’s side #1-4=Infantry, 5-7=Tanks, 8=Fighter, 9=Bomber.  The defender only hit twice, so he rolls 2 10-sided dice. (If he rolls a 10 or the same number, then he just re-rolls until he hits a valid target)  He rolls a 5 and a 9, so he hits a Tank and a Bomber.

After casualties have been removed, then move the survivors down to the lowest numbers and use smaller-sided dice as needed.

Continue the battle until someone wins, or the attacker retreats.

Of course, you would need to have multi-sided dice such as, 4-sided, 6-sided, 8-sided, 10-sided, 12-sided, and 20-sided, but you can find these relatively easy at a hobby or gaming shop.

This system would seem to be fair, easy to use, and a bit more historical than the current system.

Of course there could be an occasion where you attack a fleet and happen to hit his 2 fully loaded carriers on the first turn, so you decide to retreat, which results in the 4 Fighters being lost at sea, but as we say, “Them’s the breaks!”

Using this system to assign Sub hits (to make sure that it’s not on Air units) would actually not be that difficult.  You would just have to roll them separately, and if the Sub hits an Air unit, then just reroll the die until it hits a valid target.

What do y’all think?

yep

by the way, its buggy at the moment

*some units can move in both combat and non-combat

*not landing friendly air units (which you can’t control) would render them destroyed
(eg. Japanese planes in the axis collided “turn”)

*you can SBR victory cities (which is not too bad since in AARHE SBR is not restricted to ICs)