AARHE Historical Map

@Narvik:

I guess the map designers made all this mistakes on purpose, just to start an extra conflict inside the original conflict, man. Dont tell me they made the map wrong seven times in a row just by accident, I dont buy that, man.

I love how Narvik says man after every sentence.  It carries with it an air of sincerity and character.
:-D

But how would you know how many IPC Ottomans would have if you didn’t do any study on the economic capabilities of the other nations relating to 31 IPC? How would you know how many infantry they would have in each area if you didn’t study where they even had armies in 1914?

You need to just draw a map with territory borders that allows good player options and is realistic. Don’t redo 1914, that’s garbage. This is redesign, not use what you got

This is not checkers my friend.

On Tanks.

Some players will for sure claim that if the opponent choose your casualties, nobody will buy Tanks any more, never again. The land battles will look like they did in the MB Classic games, with huge infantry stacks only. So how do we fix this, and I for sure don’t want to mess with the units cost or combat values. A Tanks should always cost 6 IPC, move 2 spaces, attack on 3 or less,  defend on 3 or less, and of course be able to Blitz. The only way to make rational players keep buying Tanks is to give them one more ability, and again from the A&A 1914 game with established and playtested rules.

An attacking Tank can absorb one extra hit. So it takes 2 hits to kill a tank.

This would be very strong if Tanks was chosen last as casualties, but perfect when chosen first. Tanks are actually the fodder that break through the enemy line, and make a hole in the line that the follow up infantry can exploit. Tanks that survived a real battle got so worn down that they would need months of repair before they could be used again. A Tank should be a hard hitting one round only unit. A Tank need a lot of fuel, supply and maintenance to work, and is really expensive to keep running. But in combined operations with aircrafts, like Tactical Bombers, they really put a lot of harm to the enemy. Tanks win battles. But they get used doing so. Infantry on the other hand live of the land and is cheap, and they can go on and go on forever, but they don’t have a strong punch.

So if you want to win a battle, you need air superiority, this is true for both attacker and defender.
If you want to successfully attack a territory, you also need Tanks and Tacs in Combined operation that gives a heavy punch to the defending stack. Since attacking Tanks will also absorb one extra hit, this first round will be devastating. We must assume that Tanks are taken first as casualties, so the next rounds are likely to be infantry fighting. And in that case, attacking infantry need matching artillery if they want to be hard hitting. And as always, artillery will be targeted in artillery duels, so in the latest rounds only infantry and aircrafts will survive. Just like in the real world.

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.

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)

ok lets do it.

yeah whats what I meant
it should be the “double red lines” canal symbol
since thats how our rules have it for Black Sea

just instead of in the middle of two territories (like Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordon) it’ll be  fully inside Turkey (like Panama)

the debate was never settled. i said why i didn’t think it should be liberty ships are no one rebuted. i never thought US DD’s were on the table, it was Essex CVs (cheap because rushed into production and fast) that I thought had the lead spot.