German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.
Good to see national unit and national attack are represented clearly again.
Whell, I guess it’s clear, but not realistic. What does blitzkreig have to do with attack modifier? The OOB blitz rules were more realisitc in that if you atack for 1 round only, then you can attack again with armor. I think if we just include fighters to that also, we’d have a simple, realistic advantage.
I guess he is saying the German tactic also meant better fighting or less prepared defense by enemy.
If the argument is worse defense by the enemy, than the defense modifier should be -1, instead of +1 for the attacker. Besides, it’s the speed of the assault that is the advantage, not the strength of the assault.
But we don’t let bombers attack again do we?
bomber units represent medium bombers (or heavy bombers with the tech). fighter units represent fighters and ‘small’ bombers.
If the argument is worse defense by the enemy, than the defense modifier should be -1, instead of +1 for the attacker. Besides, it’s the speed of the assault that is the advantage, not the strength of the assault.
so what are you saying?
bombers attack again like fighters like tanks in OOB’s panzerbltiz?
I’m saying I don’t know what bombers you are referring to… the bomber unit on the game board or the dive bombers that were used in blitzkrieg tactics.
I meant the bomber piece on the game board
I see now, only dive bombers take part in blitzkrieg
German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.
OK ill explain how it could work… under the land combat system… air fights air and land fights land… once one side has “cleared the sky” after any combat round… they ( lets use the germans in our example) get this advantage as a matter of course due to the revolutionary concept of Blitzkreig. Specialized planes (dive bombers… skuka) worked well with advancing armor columns and took out the enemy armor and other strong points to allow the classic breakthru. This was clearly a german concept for war with the mind set of quick victories and a method of getting them. Armor gets a +1 because the divebombers are destroying and assisting the armor to accomplish this task. The benifit has to be rewarded with this bonus… so the germans will commit their armor ( a risk that they acknowledge fully)… i dont want to reward germany to use infantry… we allready have this with artillery giving the bonus to infantry, now planes give the bonus to armor… does this make any sense?
Duke writes:
“Well, I guess it’s clear, but not realistic. What does blitzkreig have to do with attack modifier? The OOB blitz rules were more realisitc in that if you atack for 1 round only, then you can attack again with armor. I think if we just include fighters to that also, we’d have a simple, realistic advantage.”
IN OOB your armor does not attack and attack again…But i do favor something like this in my games ( which have many more territories) in our project something like a “Breakthrough and exploitation” phase would not work because their are too few territories IMO.
Trust Imperious Leader to come up with solutions.
He has many games behind him.
Its probably true that our territories are too big for that.
There is a level of abstaction with respect to time and place that are key ingredients when assigning rules that may interfere with the established “unit” of scale. So some rules may be more complex or less abstracted but as long as they conform to the time and scale of the game they can be made to work.
So we are pretty much good with it? 1 National Unit and 1 National Attack/Defense.
Yea id go for that.
To sum up, round up, clean up, finish off…
I understand there is still strong debating on UK’s national unit.
National Units
USSR = Once per turn, 2 ARM can be puchased and placed in Moscow for 8 IPC.
Germany = Once per turn per IC, 1 SS can be purchased and placed there for 6 IPCs provided no surface naval units are purchased there.
UK = FTRs can be purchased and placed in London for 8 IPC each provided at least one FTR was purchased last turn.
Japan = Once per turn, 3 INF can be purchased and placed in Japan for 7 IPC.
US = Once per turn per IC, 1 CV can be purchased and placed there for 14 IPC.
National Attack
USSR = ARM fire in the opening fire instead of main round in the first cycle of combat.
Germany = FTR get +1 attack modifier and each gives 1 ARM +1 attack modifier when enemy FTR are not present.
UK = UK FTR defending in UK get +1 defense modifier.
Japan = Japan may declare no retreat at the beginning of combat, all INF gets +1 attack/defense modifier provided Japanese side consists of only INF.
US = INF gets +1 attack modifier in the fire cycle of combat of amphibious assault.
Does SS stand for sub??
There’s a lot more that I personally debate with than just UK unit.
Why does Russia have strong tanks? Their tanks weren’t stronger, just much cheaper when mass produced. Give Russia Katyusha Rockets. More rockets but less accurate and used together to create shock effect. So we could somehow let the advantage be better the more rtl there are in a single battle (ideas?). Since they were important more in the star of the battle than the end, we could have it so they roll 3 1’s in the first round of an attack (include advantage on defense?).
I’m still not on board with the other attack advantages.
1)Yes SS is submarine.
2)“Why does Russia have strong tanks? Their tanks weren’t stronger, just much cheaper when mass produced.”
I would think the idea is not actually “strong” tanks but 2 things: 1) at the start of the campaign till about a year later the t-34 was the best all-around tank and it achieved superiority. 2) The tank also represents self propelled artillery ( su-122, su-155, etc) these things were very efficient as tank destroyers and i think thats what hes driving at 3) the katyushkas are also in this equation… but they were not the “icon” of the Soviet armor strike… but all three are embodied into the NA.
I think when we introduce the new units … somewhere a Soviet Rocket ( katyuskas) may be part of this… another use for the AA gun.
The list is very close but not exact he was tidying up the current situation… BTW where are we with Neutrals?
Yeah we haven’t defined clearly what the ARM or ART piece represents. It just because the ART piece looks like little infantry-pushed guns to me.
So these are some of the conflicts:
USSR attack: ARM opening fire (IL), or +1 modifier ART (theduke) ?
UK unit: FTR, or cheaper DD (theduke), or modern BB (IL) ?
US attack: toss up between marine and mech infantry?
I’ll try to avoid +1 modifiers whenever possible so I wouldn’t nec. say I’m for +1 rtl.
I’m not totally attached to DDs. I like spitfires also. I just don’t want unit for UK and Japan to both be fighters.
I like marines better than mech infantry.
I don’t like a nation’s unit and attack to benefit the same unit. example: russia with tanks. key is to diversify advantages to stimulate variety of purchases whenever possible.
I’ll try to avoid +1 modifiers whenever possible so I wouldn’t nec. say I’m for +1 rtl.
So what do you prefer? You want Katyuskas rockets right?
I’m not totally attached to DDs. I like spitfires also. I just don’t want unit for UK and Japan to both be fighters.
Thats fine then. Japan is infantry at the moment.
I like marines better than mech infantry.
Thats fine too then.
I don’t like a nation’s unit and attack to benefit the same unit. example: russia with tanks. key is to diversify advantages to stimulate variety of purchases whenever possible.
So Germany and US is fine for that.
Russia is both on ARM. UK is both on FTR. Japan is both on INF.Actually for UK attack…what is it about Spitfire historically? dogfighting? bombing? patriotic defending London?
As of now I prefer rockets for Russia, but we’ll have to redo how it’s presented so it has more of an attack advantage feel to it, if you know what I mean. IMO rockets are the best idea we have yet.
We will continue to disagree about allowing the nation’s unit advantage and attack advantage to apply to the same unit/s. I put in my 2 cents, that’s all I can do.
I really like the idea of limiting Russia’s adv. to 2 arm per turn, Germany’s to 1 cheap sub per IC where no surface unit is built, and UK’s to 1 cheap fighter in London per turn. For japan, i think inf is the best cheap unit. i think allowing 1 to defend at 3 for every yellow territory is a good idea.
From wikipedia on spitfire:
Another contemporary, the German Luftwaffe’s Messerschmitt Bf 109, was similar in attributes and performance to the Spitfire. Some advantages helped the Spitfires win many dog fights, with maneuverability the attribute most often quoted. Good cockpit visibility was probably a greater factor, as these early Bf 109s had narrow, paneled heavily framed cockpit windows. Where possible, Spitfires were assigned the task of taking on the Bf 109Es, while the Hurricanes intercepted the bombers. Nonetheless, seven of every ten German planes destroyed during the Battle of Britain were shot down by Hurricane pilots.
Even though the Hurricane seemed to perform better, for some reason the Spitfire is the symbol of the British resistance in the Battle of Britain and is better well known. This might be because the spitfire is the ‘most beautiful’ plane ever made.
