my suggestions for air combat:
Dog Fighting fighters( including naval) and bombers fire in opening-fire .
While both sides have air units these air units fight with dog fighting values(2/2).
fighter and defending bomber hits must be first allocated on fighter or bombers. the only exemption to this rule is that Bombers attack ground units at 3 or less but can still be hit by air units. when only one side has air units the units fight with normal combat value.
Bombers
They defend on a 1 during all combat including dog fighting. Bombers can not participate in a dog fight as the attacker. During strategic bombing bombers may be escorted (see more at scramble against bombers). Bombers can carry 1 infantry unit into battle or in non-combat move phase. If so the bomber cannot attack during this turn.
Scramble
Fighters may defend against bombers(s) at a 2 or less. The attacker may escort the bomber(s) with fighters. If the attacker chooses do this it becomes just like a dog fight but only lasts for 1 round and the defender is not restricted to how many fighters will scramble. If a dog fight is occurring in the territory the bomber(s) stop at, they just and tag along. They leave after the first round (when they strategic bomb) of combat and do not count towards the dog fight count.
The game features only two types of missiles:
Tactical nukes and ICBM’s
I am not sure that either can be intercepted, while perhaps missile carriers have a special attack and those fighters can be somehow allocated to deflect this attack. This would be similar to how destroyers and submarines interact under AAR to draw an analogy…
scramble against bombers seem to be ok.
On air combat remember the game has choppers, jet fighters, bombers (strategic) and super bombers ( like the b-2) this is 1962 technology and technology that could have been developed within the next 10 years.
so the idea is to try to integrate those ideas based on the current scenario.
@Imperious:
scramble against bombers seem to be ok.
On air combat remember the game has choppers, jet fighters, bombers (strategic) and super bombers ( like the b-2) this is 1962 technology and technology that could have been developed within the next 10 years.
p yeah, its not even likely a fighter would be a to stop a cruise missile. helicopters and fighters don’t engage each other to my knowledge… what do you think of my unit suggestions.
It will take time to figure out the differences and compare.
Nukes:
tactical: destroy one ground unit of your choice. then roll one dice.
1- destroy your unit equivalent INSTEAD of your opponents in NA then nuke has no effect( consider miss drop)
2- 1/3 of you infantry and militia are destroyed because of drift. round up. the owner chooses which units to take the hits on.(militia or inf)
3-no nuclear drift only target unit is destroyed
4- destroy
5- 1/6 of your opponents infantry and militia are destroyed because of drift. round up. the owner chooses which units to take the hits on.(militia or inf)
6- 1/3 of your opponents infantry and militia are destroyed because of drift. round up. the owner chooses which units to take the hits on.(militia or inf)
strategic
destroy any ICs there and place them on their side. Ipcs can’t be collected while the ic is turned on its side. In order to collect ipcs from this territory, a factory must be purchased and placed there.
Not too keen on that last idea… we need to avoid the math whenever possible. People don’t like to deal with this type of thing in games. They just want to roll a bucket of dice and remove pieces… counting is not fun.
im redoing it.
http://www.mediafire.com/?cxmoxjit8mw
http://www.mediafire.com/upload_complete.php?id=cb1agyy83zz
here is the final rules and set up that reflects play testing. It works well. A few comments from posters didnt like the Lazer tanks or lazer shield idea, but that technology was never attained during playtesting. Most people decided to go for nukes ASAP and blow up the world. :mrgreen: :wink:
Looks cool, I’ll try to play it soon
I was wondering though if you were going to fix any of the geographical mistakes in the map, like Jordan bordering the Mediterrianean and Tibet being impassable. Also what is the reason for not giving some oil producing countries oil feilds.
Also, besides making Veitnam one country, what other changes( espeisally IPC changes) are you going to make to the map in the more modern scenarios.
I will make the map in other versions… possibly. I split Vietnam so that it could be a trouble spot and to allow for latter scenarios which DON’T require another print of the map.
The oil fields could be changed. they only represent areas of importance because the rules specifically involve reasons for invading or (protecting) some of these and if their were too many of these players would then be able to avoid having a reason for invasion and choose a safer alternative plan. I don’t want this and thats why i don’t just have all sorts of oil fields. Tibet should be passable but i don’t like shortcuts to south east Asia so i think it should stay as it is.
The module was meant to be uber playable rather than HISTORICAL
You guys might want to check out the ‘Drop Shot’ series of DTP games.
They are on Board Game Geek.
They are hex based, but not very complex - but they have a nice mechanic of having a tactical map for the USSR/USA face off in Europe, but a strategic map where you can play globally, and luanch your nukes and bombers etc - as well as make the broad military moves of plonking a corps in the Middle East etc.
The strategic rules are nice - might translate into Axis and Allies.
The only difficulty with Axis and Allies is that WWIII would largly be decided in the france space!
Yes kill those white flag carrying, Surrendering to themselves, wimps
Hey, IL, I am not sure if your still interested in this project but, you never made the 1985, 1991, and present setups, and I am sure you would want to base them off the AA50 map
anyways, I just had an idea the other day for doing chemical weapons, most armies today have protection against such weapons, but the systems that keep soldeirs safe do inhibt their ability to fight and move
so one way of doing chemical weapons would be for them to target indivdiual units and keep them from fighting or moving that turn, or combat round
I think i finished that game. I did the set ups and finished.
I was waiting on playtesting before going on to other scenarios.
so you dont like my take on chemical warfare?
i thaught it would be good to have a unit that didnt just (surprise! surprise!) kill other units
anyways, how much playtesting of this is going on?
dont you think you should have a version of this for AA:50, i think it would more accesible if there was not as much board modification and new units could be represented with a national roundel underneath it
refresh me on your rule. its been a while.
also i have only played like 3 games. I require many more plays before tinkering with it in new versions.
my idea for chemical warfare was that instead of chemical weapons killing other peice, they would keep ground and airunits from moving/paticipating in combat, but i am not sure exactly
the reason for this is it adds a unit that plays its own role and it is more accuarte, since armies in the 60s armies had protection against chemical weapons, however maintaining that defence would keep units units moving and fighting effieceintly
since it does not seem like you are playtesting this that much i was thinking that a new variant based on AA:50 would get more attention, and if it did not have that many map changes it would be more accesible for people to play test.
bump
