AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@Navalland said in Artillery to defend at 3?:

Just trying to figure out the most balanced unit set up and wondering if +1 defense to artillery would be good idea. Probably better to leave it as it is right now.

Ya I would for now.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

I have play tested a revised artillery unit with improved defence capabillity. When an infantry defends along with an artillery, the infantry’s defens increases to 3. Artillery do still support infantry on attack. Remember that the artillery unit we have today were made when the armour unit still defended on a 2, in A&A Europe.

Artillery was mostly a defensive unit during WWII and proved to be the basic weapon of fighting tanks. However, in A&A, it is usually only used as an offensive unit, mainly to give large infantry formations more punch, not for anti-tank defences or counter-battery fire upon enemy artillery. The task of destroying enemy tanks and artillery batteries can also fall to attack aircraft, but unless they are already on patrol overhead, they are usually not quick enough to save friendly forces from damage. More often, ground-based counter-battery fire would suppress the enemy artillery batteries and force them to move, while aircraft would follow up later with a strike to destroy the rest of the enemy artillery.

Once Germany had been thrown on to the defensive in WWII the burden of combat shifted away from aircraft and tanks to the infantry and artillery. This were not because the former were not needed but rather their short supply forced reliance on the latter. However Germany had a shortage of artillery and therefore carried severe penalties. The inabillity to conduct effective large-scale counter-battery operations,as well as the loss of air superiority, was primary cause of German failure in both the West and the East. The early hopes of victory through mobility were replaced by an insatiable demand for the firepower of artillery.

if i had nukes tech i would build a stack of bombers and nuke every opposing territory within range,
for 45 - 50 I.P.C. i could build 3 -4 bombers and nuke territories with no opposition with the superfortress tech,
getting nuke tech needs a twist because of the damage that it can do,
simply getting lucky by rolling a tech that has nukes tech combined would be a game killer, i think that a cost for nukes that would force a player to factor the cost of nukes into the I.P.C. spend would make nukes plausable within a set of house rules,

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)

AARHE stands for Axis and Allies Revised: Historical Edition.

A set of house rule with enhanced realism, to be used on top of LHTR 1.3.
Comes with historical justifications in italics for each rule.

The two stickied threads has the files.

replace
“its income cannot be spent in other territories.
That income and only that income can be spent in its IC or VC during purchase units phase this turn.
That income is forfeited if not spent this turn.”

with
“The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
If the blockade territory’s income is not spent this turn it is forfeited.”

ok