AARHE Historical Map

@cds

Here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32236/oztea-s-1939-global-setup?page=1

I don’t think it says either way, which is why I have all these questions.

I will summarize 3 ways of doing G40 SBR with Fgs escort and interceptor which could be use as 3 different historical tactics by the attacker trying to whether reduce the enemy’s air power or the IC production while better protecting StBs.

First, is A) the Close-Escort Mission, which is done as OOB SBR.

Second, is B) the Offensive Counter-Air Mission, which gives Fgs A1 first strike and D1 but an opportunity to roll a second time against bombers in A-to-A dogfight.

Third, is C) the Night Bombing Mission, in which Fgs units cannot participate neither offense nor defense.

A) Close-Escort Mission, as OOB
Air-to-Air phase
All attacking planes (Fg,TcB, StB) inside roll A@1.
All defending Fgs roll D@1.
Remove casualties.

Bombing phase
Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires @1 against StB and TcB
Then roll damage as OOB: StB D6+2, TcB D6.

B) the Offensive Counter-Air Mission, Fgs are actively chasing intercepting Fgs
Air-to-Air phase
First cycle:
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other attacking planes (TcBs, StBs) roll A@1.
All defending Fgs roll D@1.
Remove casualties.

Second cycle:
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second time inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated first to bombers, if any. Remove casualties.
All surviving attacking Fgs can now roll A@1 in this second cycle. Remove casualties.

Bombing phase
Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires @1 against StB and TcB
Then roll damage as OOB: StB D6+2, TcB D6.

C) the Night Bombing Mission

Night Bombing phase
Proceed directly to SBR over IC, NB or AB.

AAA fires @1/D12 against StB and TcB or
@Baron:

“Historical” light projector “search and spot” in the night sky:
Each StB/TcB is spotted on a 3 or less.

Then roll to A@1 on spotted StB with AA gun: on “1” roll a spotted StB/TcB is destroyed.
(Work as the usual in-built AAA in IC.)

All surviving StBs bombard roll for damage: (1D6+2)/2 rounded down against IC.

All surviving TcBs bombard roll for damage (1D6)/2 rounded down, minimum 1 IPC, against IC.

@Baron:

Trying to depict the two escorting fighters tactics with an additional HR inside the actual G40 OOB SBR escort and interception rules, I come to this:
It would be an attacker’s choice whether he chooses the close-escort mission or an Offensive Counter-Air mission.

Close-escort mission:
When playing as OOB SBR (all @1), it is like Fgs are providing close-escort to bombers.

Offensive Counter-Air mission version A:
Air-to-Air combat phase in SBR with Fgs actively chasing intercepting Fgs :
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other planes (TcBs, StBs and defending Fgs) roll A/D @1. Remove casualties.
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second cycle inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated to bombers. Remove casualties.

Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires against StB and TcB.
Then roll damage as OOB.

I think it is a way to simulate the two tactics at a Strategical level game.
It can give a better historical feel and variation of attacking SBR strategy, at least on this point, than just the actual OOB.
Attacking Fighters get a preemptive strike, and any hit is also a way of protecting bombers,
while defending Fgs get special treatment on the second cycle: a second chance to make a hit @1 on bombers specifically.

In addition, maybe the comparison can provide us a way to explain why Fgs are not better than bombers and stay A/D @1:

the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.

If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down, but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.

On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less manoeuvrable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)

In summary, about Offensive Counter-Air mission :
The first cycle is a regular for defending planes, because they have to scramble and can be caught off guard by attacking Fgs. They get the superiority once in the air.

The first cycle of SBR interception phase is as OOB, except for attacking Fgs.
The second cycle is for surviving defending Fgs which get an advantage since there is no close-escort Fgs for Bombers.

In addition, this can provide a distinctive ability toward Fgs vs TcBs.

This HR was only a way to depict in game term this historical tactics, but if there is already a way to rationalize it inside OOB rules, feel free to develop it, so it can add a layer of historical depiction and feeling toward Fighter unit.

EDIT:
Here is another way of depicting this Offensive Counter Air-Mission version B:

What could happened historically?
A typical example from the Battle of Britain:
A flight of Ju88, He111 and Do17 Bombers sent in to bomb British ABs with a group of 109’s in support.
A group of Spitfires and Hurricanes comes up to intercept.
The 109s jump the interceptors.
The interceptors try to blow by the escorts and get at the bombers.

Escorts are flying in ahead of the Bombers and meet the interceptors before the wing of Bombers.

Escorts and Interceptors fight one round.
Escorts and interceptors roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties.
Then, escorting and intercepting Fgs and Bombers all roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties, but Bombers are taken as casualties.
Then, AAA fire, remove casualties.
Proceed to bombing damage.

here is a 2009 post from me at HGD: ( note this applies to when AA50 came out)

All you have to do to extrapolate these GDP numbers is to divide the GDP by 15

using 1941 numbers:
Axis: 911 divided by 15= 60.73

Allies: 1798 divided by 15= 119.86

IN AA50 the axis are at 60 total

IN AA50 the allies are at 112 total

This is why the game is somewhat accurate, and the balancing is all force projection with the advantage going to the axis, and the US and UK player facing the commitment of their forces all over the map.

For 1940 you have to make additional considerations because the game will have say 50% more territories than AA50, so the number you divide will be smaller and the total will be greater in the game so that you don’t have too many worthless territories.

So lets do June 4th, 1940:

Germany: 387, plus Poland 76.6, Czecho-Slovakia 30.3, Netherlands 44.5, Belgium 39.6, Norway 11.6, Denmark 20.9, Austria 27=637.5

42.5 IPC

Italy:147 = 9.8 IPC

Japan: 192= 12.8 IPC

Allies:
USA: 943
US colonies: 23.9
Total: 966.9= 64.4 IPC

UK: 316
UK colonies 14.4
Total 330.4= 22 IPC

France 82
French colonies 10.9
Total 92.9= 6.2 IPC

USSR 417
Baltic states 12.9
Total 429.9= 28.6 IPC

Now you have to account for peace time status vs. total war mobilization for both USA and USSR. The amount of GDP used for wartime purposes was at least twice as great for the current belligerents than neutrals. So i would put USA and USSR at 50% rate with the difference going to domestic purposes.

So problem solved. Game balanced unless your trying to make the game unhistorical with notions that the axis had ZERO chance to win, which is a bogus argument even by economics.

I’m still thinking the 2 dollar Russians are unbeatable.  unless they are 1-1 or 0-2 or something.

Bring in all the mec/arm combinations and double supporting artillery you want.  at 37 IPC’s a turn, I’m putting 18 men on the board each round.  Germany is not going to be able to do anything about that.

Oh and lets not forget, once I have a fat stack, if things don’t look good, I can call in the Russian winter, and defend with a $2 unit at 3 or less.

@Flashman:

Italian Navy

I really think ships in port rules are the only thing that will prevent navies being sunk on the first two turns.  Without this they are simply too vulnerable to aircraft.

US Build UP

Simpler to make US factories minor until at war.

Free French

If anything they are over represented, since all surviving French units are assumed to be Allied, with the considerable Vichy French forces entirely absent.  All FF fought effectively under UK command, as did the large Free Polish forces, which are not represented.  The Western Allied forces are fragmented enough already.

Other things needed for historicity:

No new factories, no use of captured factories

Unlimited rail movement during NCM; i.e. all land movements between war zones used this method and should therefore all land units should have the same movement

Collect money at start of turn rather than “money grab” attacks

Defender retreats

Thank you for your insight on this project.  I am trying to keep it simple… rather than change the rules all together.  Some of your suggestions are MAJOR changes to the game.

Yeah you’re right, finished, not finalized…

ok

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.