AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

I found a post which say that SBR AAA kill ratio was 10% max:

What Larry says have flaws, and contradict to to base mechanic.

It should be like this:

1. Attacking fighter escorts roll dice, each 1 is hit, and defender move casualties to casualty zone.

2. Defending AA-gun roll dice, each 1 is hit, and then defending fighters roll dice, 2 or less is hit. Attacker choose his casualties.

3. Surviving bombers roll SBR dice against factories.

In real world, the attacking airfleet would first face the intercepting fighters, and then the escort fighters would do dog-fight. Later, the bombers would face AA-fire at the target. This AA-fire killed historically less than 10 % of the aircrafts. Using Larrys rule where AA-guns target bombers, you could be lucky and roll two 1’s and kill both attacking bombers, and get an unhistoric result of thousands bombers killed and no harm to the factories. Since its an abstract game, let the attacker pick a fighter as casualty to represent a % loss, and still have bombers survive to SBR.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1706&start=8
He is talking about an older version of SBR (AA50 Anniversary).

I doubt the US would buy the truck if all it did was transport units.  The US is constantly doing amphibious assaults from Africa to Italy, then into Europe, and all over in the pacific.  It has no need for a land transport.  Italy and Anzac would have no need for it either.  It’s only use would be on the eastern front and in getting Indians or South Africans to Egypt.  Also, it is unrealistic to use trucks in Asia due to the terrain. Jungles slow things down, and the logistic nightmares they create are one of the reasons Japan’s ground war eventually stalled and floundered in South East Asia.  Better to make it motorized infantry.  Maybe a 1/2/2 unit costing 4 IPC that can pair with artillery or tank for +1 attack?  Mech infantry would then change to the values DannyBoy2016 suggested.

Just let China go first and round up infantry production (5 tt = 3 inf). I would also say let them move into Burma :roll:

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?

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…

ok thats fine then.

@Sergente_nella_neve:

That’s all. What do you think about this?  :-D

its not good if defender chooses, its also not good if attacker chooses
your hybrid system should be fun to play

@Imperious:

which ones are outdated? i was talking about revised specifically and not Milton Bradley.

no.1 and no.5
no.1 - we got rid of the system that separates naval units into classes
no.5 - only targeted attack when undetected and 1st cycle only, replacing the old screening system yeah I know and I agree with you about the transport unit

oh I see
thats fine
the current tech list welcomes scrutiny

check out the draft detailing the techs if you haven’t already

the heavy artillery gives you a new unit at 5 IPC 3/2, it has ability to fight in adjacent territory with -1 modifier, provided itself is not being attacked