@HMS:
We can’t forget that ground forces normally had some heavy AA (in British forces these were often a Brigade of 3.7s attached at Corps level).
Hey hey thats more than what you are saying in the Units thread. AA at Corps level? Really?
I reckon we need anti-tank artillery units anyway (cheap, good in defence against tanks, bad against infantry)
Its going to be complicated to have different attacking value against different units. Its like the phase 1 draft destroyer having stronger attack when enemy contains sub. Its weird when 3 DDs attack 3 DDs + 1 SS.
Out of interest, considering the duration of a turn (3 months) the fact that planes have to reload is not all that serious.
Yeah it won’t be strangely powerful provided do the 3 turn thing to model how planes are powerful but can’t fight for extended periods of time.
I think that Artillery units shouldn’t be able to occupy a country, if they are the only units left for the attacker. (or when supported by only air units) They should need infantry or tank units to take controll of the area, they can only bomb it :wink:
But I feel an Artillery division/corp should be able to hold on its own.
Artillery should be able to occupy territories, because they represent the essential components of an infantry division. All three land units are the “rock, paper, sissors” of the game and to remove an essential feature of “control” from one unit takes too much away and is too much of a departure from what axis and allies players would accept IMO.
@Imperious:
All three land units are the “rock, paper, sissors” of the game…too much of a departure from what axis and allies players would accept IMO.
Its not much of a “scissors paper rock” really and its too earlier to say what people can accept but yeah.
Imperious Leader is getting B.Andersson to help with the project.
This is what he sugguested from the other thread.
@B.:
Shore Bombardment
In an amphibious assault…For each support shot one must put ashore one land unit
This is good. It gets rid of the strange situation where one off-loads one troop and bombard with 5 battleships against the defender…
Defend is upset “what a stupid game why do I have to send all my forces to the shore just because of 1 troop…!@#$%”
However I note that nothing logically can prevent a battlehsip from firing just because of a small amphibious attack force.
Maybe it should be damage capped to number of attacking land units. This is to model defender sending sufficient defending forces to the shore to expose them to shore bombardment.
I think that Artillery units shouldn’t be able to occupy a country, if they are the only units left for the attacker. (or when supported by only air units) They should need infantry or tank units to take controll of the area, they can only bomb it :wink:
I totally disagree, artillery should be able to occupy a country! I can not see a singel reason for not!!!
Ok, Ok… I got it…. :wink: Just taught of it, because I saw them as less mobile, but you all convinced me of my mistake!
More details on planes rearming we could have it like this…
Planes land every 4th cycles of combat.
(3 cycle of combat is quite a lot keeping in mind fighters carried 1 standard bomb or 2-4 small bombs and some machine gun rounds which is useful for air combat but useless against tanks.)
Attacking planes normally attack in cycle 1-3 and retreat. But may use 2 movement points to rearm and attack the same territory again in cycle 5-7.
(So distance reduces effectiveness of planes but long range aircraft can help counter it.)
Defending planes attack in cycle 1-3, 5-7, etc until it loses ground control on cycle 4, 8, 12 etc and must retreat. If it cannot it is destroyed.
@Imperious:
3)…Each hit caused by an Infantry unit can only be applied to an infantry unit, while armor unit hits must be applied to any defending armor units first before any other unit can be selected as causality. Armor units also include artillery types of units.
Russia would be in trouble if it cannot use infantry to kill tanks?
I think infantry has anti-tank weapons like rockets, mines and C4s.
3)…
4)…
There seems to be a mistake about rolling of dice among those two steps.
Retreating units do not get to fire as they retreat however; attacking units get one free “parting shot†roll on all defending units and they receive no return fire. The defender can declare to retreat a portion of his forces and leave a few units behind to “cover†the retreat. The retreating units do not get to fire, but the units left to fight still roll on defense. Additional casualties incurred are removed from those units that retreated.
Reworded:
Retreating units are still in combat the next cycle but do not fire. They may still be hit by dive bombing but otherwise units left behind (if any) must take hits first.
Ok those are fine changes…. OK i have to reword this idea that you brought up… Armor can hit armor first but within those pieces that are “armor” the player losing these pieces decides … either a artillery or tank is lost. When infantry hit they hit only infantry unless their are no causalities of this type to be removed.
So thats “infantry kill infantry first” and “tanks kill tanks/artillery first” ?
Tekkyy, I like those air units rules. Having to leave the battlefield for a cycle to reload. It was decided that air units may move their total range ability when tying to retreat?
So thats “infantry kill infantry first” and “tanks kill tanks/artillery first” ?
yes…
On the air plane idea… if a turn is 3-6 months it does not seem correct to have this thing where air units fight “every other round” it takes like a few hours or less to get in position to attack and the same to fly back to an airfield. This on/ off thing only works in something thats drastically more tactical like a game about midway sea battle where your covering turns in hours not 6 month periods…
Yeah thats why I try to incorporate the distance factor into it.
Turn is 3-6 months but we what have here is still supposed to be a “battle”.
While attacking from the next territory we can understand fly back and forth to repair but if you think about of a UK fighter flying all the way to Germany…you wouldn’t imagine it to kill more tanks than its bombs.
I just want to model that as well as the home ground advantage of planes…they have the luxury of an airfield.
Thats why you change the aerial combat values so the defender possibly has more value:
aerial combat values:
Unit As attacker As defender
Fighter 1-2 1-3
Dive-Bomber 1 1
Bomber 1 1
Jet Fighter 2X 1-4 2X 1-4
Jet Bomber 1-2 1-2
That doesn’t model the endurance though. Thats the main thing I am looking at. More important than “luxury of airfield” I mentioned just now.
Like if we have lower attack/defense values for dogfighting ongoing undecisive air combat cycles is bad for the attacker.
Ok what combat values do you propose.?
Like if we have lower attack/defense values for dogfighting ongoing undecisive air combat cycles is bad for the attacker.
@Imperious:
Ok what combat values do you propose.?
No I am saying the above mentioned situation is good to have. Ongoing undecisive air combat cycle should be good for the defender. I think thats realistic.
The only thing is that from a economic point of view fighting the war at home should be bad. But thats something else we’ll look at in the income thread. (Slight reduction of income due to war at a territory.)
So nothing wrong with what we have now the reduced combat values for dogfighting compared to bombing.
The bombers 4/1 might need tuning though but thats “Units” thread stuff.
Combat values can’t represent endurance though.
Well the endurance is entirely dependant on how log each side decides to stay in combat… once land combat is finished… those aerial combat rounds are over.
