@Imperious:
People who learn this for the first time need to be explained this in the rules. Everything must be explained fully at least once. Straight and Canal must have a section and be explained.
Canals and waterways are really just map specific features.
I didn’t add it previously cos it can be ridiculous and not make sense.
It wouldn’t be as bad if we had double-red-line and double-green-line symbols for them as a standard.
Anyway I’ll add a Canals paragraph near the Strait Interdiction paragraph.
Still you should add symbols to the map so people won’t forget.
Explain when somebody is gonna have money that they don’t save? What benefit would it have for them to lose it?
remember the preceding sentence
you can only save money at victory cities
so can’t leave money laying around at just any territory
Why say things like this? just leave it out. People think they cant save at all. I got 2 people who see it that way. Rules lawyers read it literally. NONEY THAT YOU DIDNT SPEND YOUR IPC ON OR SAVE IS LOST. Its assumed that all money that you don’t save is lost, SO you don’t need to have this.
which version are you reading? the file is more precise than that and says…
IPC not spent nor saved is forfeited.
how about I change it to
Units loaded in Combat Move must be offloaded in Combat Move same turn. Besides an amphibious assault you may also offload into friendly territories.
This is the way to do it. Add it.
Of course if you feel its weird that you do a friendly landing in Combat Move, then we can also do
Units loaded in Combat Move must be offloaded in the same turn. This can be an amphibious assault in Combat Move or into friendly territories in Non-Combat Move.
OK 50% rule is fine make it rounded down: 5 defending can bring in 2 reinforcements.
ok
The rule should be this: if the attacker brings in more air units than he has land units, all excess air units attack at 1.
forget the -2 thing. thats just another thing people have to commit to memory, its easier to blanket them to only 1.
oh yes that’ll easier
ok
Defender needs to declare his retreat intentions first, followed by attacker. That way you cut all this out… as either player can retreat partially or in full.
“Attacker followed by defender” is a pretty much everywhere in the game.
We’ll have to think twice before changing that.
Making defender decide first is probably not realistic.
They are defending, without logistic concerns. They are not forced to make decisions before the attacker.
But if either side rolls out for combat, they must enter the vacated territory unless they have the extra movement point left over (armor) this is equitable for both sides.
Lol. I see where this is coming from.
Defender-retreat-first gives the attacker advantage and you want to minimise that.
But, again you are forcing people to stay behind. Its not realistic. This solution starts a new problem. And I don’t even agree with defender-retreat-first yet.
The way it is currently, I just don’t think its not historical.
You are not forced to remain behind by an invisible force.
Tactical victory for A, strategic victory for B.
A bunch of infantry skirmishes with air suport and retreats. It killed the enemy but it can afford to remain behind and get surrounded by tanks, blocking retreat (AARHE capture roll).
Or, identify the unrealistic rule.
I found “minimum force to capture”. A rule we didn’t implement probably for a good reason.
You can look for others.
When you explain something that it latter referenced again in another part of the rules it must be referenced ( “for further information of ID rules see page x”) The rule applies to ID and they must be linked. They are not separate items because both are dealing with the “ID” unit.
Of course I would reference it if it was relevant.
I am adding reference to Implicit ID to
*ID section in Land Combat
*Rocket section in Technology.
But the rules regarding air missions and what air units can do must be in the same section. Land, Sea, Air need separate sections covering movement and combat. I don’t want to have to look for 10 different rules for air. of course the exception would be technology for air. But id expect to see:
Well since you need to declare Air Missions in Combat Move I’ll add reference of “Air Mission”.
Air movement
1. land and naval based air
2. Air transport
3. Transport planes
Air combat over land
1. DAS missions
2. CA missions
3. Airborne missions
4. Air inderdiction missions
5. Jet power
6. ID ( just quick note that they roll)
Air combat over sea
1. CAP
2. Aerial Attacks
3. ASW search and combat
Then have ID in its own section and write how it works against air in each event.
its mostly in this structure already
its just that its not all lumped together
movement is mentioned in Combat Move and Non-combat Move
combat is mentioned in Conduct Combat
ID information pops up only when it affects it
Air combat over Industry ( SBR)
1. escorts
2. bombers
3. interceptors
4. ID ( just quick note that they roll)
SBR is one paragraph all up.
It does contain all 4 information.
This is now solved under defender then attacker retreat declarations.
its solved with defender then attacker retreat declarations