LHTR 2.0 tech idea

IMG_20200508_195523_hdr.jpg
Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.
IMG_20200508_200336_hdr.jpg
Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.
IMG_20200508_200349_hdr.jpg
Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.

@655321 said in Looking for feedback on house rule ideas for HBG Marines expansion w/ AAG40:

Thank you, that is helpful information. I like these ideas. I’m going to start a new game soon and try some of these out.

Ya no problem. You have any ideas or questions on any thing I’m sure I or barney can help you out in some way.

Hi, Taamvan.  thanks for the comments.

Sorry, the values are all 4 IPCs for National Objectives.  The NOs came from Argothair, but with some tweaks by our group (I think originally came from a different A&A version).  More money on the board makes the game a little more fun, but in theory it should last longer (which is not desirable), but I feel like we get to the climactic battles faster than we would with minuses…

I do feel like the board is still tilted for the Axis, but Russia having an extra 8 IPCs per turn is a bigger impact than Germany having an extra 8 IPCs.  We maybe could nerf the values down for the Axis, maybe.  I feel like the paratroop rules and the Russian fighter conversion support the Allies.  We’re trying to steady the board without tilting it to the Allies; and meanwhile trying to make some other strategies playable.

I begin by repeating myself: if adding units, add more territories. Given the current map (G40, 2nd edition), I honestly don’t see any room for additional units. More space would need to added to open up additional possibilities for strategic movement on the board. This would create a new problems of its own, which I address below, but it is the fundamental change to which I think one must commit when deciding to add more units.

So, the real question is: How to balance realism/plausibility with a desire on the part of some players to do “new stuff” with new mechanics. Several major challenges arise:

Are we looking at the operational or strategic level of warfare? Axis & Allies splits the difference for the sake of creating a reasonable fun gameplay experience. If each unit is an abstraction of actual forces, then:
Land units (mostly) represent armies or corps of infantry, and divisions of armor and artillery. A few odd units in places like Hong Kong and French Indo-China represent functionally independent divisional commands. I have heard some concern on these forums about artillery moving and attacking at the same time as other units. Some people think that artillery should fire first, as it does during a general advance on the battlefield. There have also been arguments that it should fire in defense. I think that the first argument is most-flawed. Because of the level of abstraction described above (typically at the corps and divisional levels), land combat in Axis & Allies represents strategic, campaign-level movement in a given region. It does not represent operational or tactical activity. Artillery should not be presented separately or be able to conduct discrete “fire missions.” In terms of using artillery on the defensive, I think the choice to do otherwise was dictated by use of the d6 standard. Infantry don’t gain a defense bonus from artillery because they would defend at 3, which would dramatically reduce the value of purchasing armor.

Air units usually represent full wings of fighters or bombers, but the Scramble rule is all about using them tactically. The chief problem with air units has to do with movement. They perform regular movement at one scale, and combat movement at another.

Naval units represent flotillas. Thus, each destroyer represents a group, and each capital ship, a squadron. Together, they form fleets. My only gripe about naval action is that the Cruiser and the Battleship are not sufficiently different. Let’s compare.

So what about the map?
My recommendation would be to increase the number of map spaces at the expense of realism. Each turn still represents about three months’ real time. Crossing the Atlantic would take 2 turns. Crossing the Pacific would take 3-4 turns. This would not be realistic, but it would create more opportunities for movement, blocking, and naval combat searches, which I think should be instituted. (I think that, before any naval combat, a die should be rolled to determine whether the searching fleets even find one another. This creates the possibility that attacks on enemy fleets will be foiled and tempts players into trying to “sneak” forces past the enemy.)

Air units should have different values for attacking other air units and then naval and land forces. Split the current tactical bomber into two units: a naval torpedo bomber that can select which naval units are hit and a dive bomber that is slightly cheaper, but optimized to hit land units.

Does the Cruiser have good value?

The value of a unit can be calculated by adding up its movement, attack, and defense values, expressed relative to its cost. Thus, a cruiser has value 8/12, or 2/3. That is, you get a .66 return on every IPC spent. A battleship has value 10/20, or 1/2, which is a .5 return on every IPC spent. However, it can survive an extra hit, which means that it is technically a 1 return on every IPC spent. The obvious cruiser alternative is more destroyers. A destroyer has value 6/8, or 3/4, meaning that there is a .75 return on every IPC spent before factoring in the benefit of its anti-submarine capabilities. Better, then, to buy destroyers or battleships every time, especially because one can buy 2 destroyers for every 1.5 cruisers. (I’m no math whiz, and I welcome alternative interpretations.)

One approach to improving the cruiser’s value would be, I think, to give it a small area-of-effect bonus against attacking aircraft, representing its role as an escort for the big battlewagons.

In terms of adding other units, I think Commerce Raiders would be useful only if more spaces were added to the game. The inclusion of trade routes in the new HBG 1936 edition may create space for such a unit. I like the idea of adding Destroyer Escorts to safeguard convoy zones and transports, but I think that kind of work can already be performed by the Destroyer. Torpedo boats would be an interesting addition, but their value is really in the Mediterranean, which would need to be expanded in space to enhance the value of maneuver. I’m also concerned that such small craft wouldn’t thrive against A&A air units, which are extraordinarily powerful against other units.

Battlecruisers are interesting but effectively pointless since they will not travel at 3. HBG has experimented with Coastal Battleships and Coastal Submarines for lesser powers, and I suppose these units might be worthwhile, but then only as part of the forces that smaller nations receive at game start and are compelled to use due to anemic budgets.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

@toblerone77:

@knp7765:

I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.

Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.

A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.Â

Interesting extrapolation.
It could be used by cruiser and BB in addition to their basic bombardment.
We can even consider more boosting power toward BB.
Cool. :-)

Ok let me clarify my thoughts on that… They wouldn’t necessarily have to pursue a historic goal, but rather go for completing a certain amount of techs (3 for example)…

GG

When you post something and realize it doesn’t belong delete it if you are a registered user!

THANKS!