no , i meant AA guns in territories, sorry i thought thats what tt meant. not transports.
for example - germans have radar tech, an AA in fra & germany, and italy has an AA. if UK sbr ita, then ger AA in fra gets a shot at 1 as bmrs fly over fra. if uk was to sbr ger and for some reason fly over fra, then AA in fra gets a roll at 1, and AA in ger gets a roll at 2.
make sense?
Ahhh gotcha now….
IMO I’m thinking the next AA Boardgame should have its own convoy concept similar to what the Theatre-level games employed so you can isolate overseas possessions and conduct interdict shipping with your subs.
I don’t think I’m the only one who was thinking that AAE and AAP was a step in a new direction with a number of features that would have some merit on a global scale… only to find them missing from AA50 and not holding my breath for AA42.
OK Kat, so linking a tech development w naval AD eh?
radar - any AA gun in a tt being attacked rolls at 2.
- any AA gun in a tt being flown over during cm gets a shot at 1.
- no AA shots during ncm
I can see the tech connection in terms of “if you got radar on land you should have AD at sea”. Makes sense to me.
Just stuck on the AA gun being stuck on the tpt… normally there’s no requirement to purchase a unit to take advantage of a tech breakthru right? And this rule pretty much “grounds” an AA and a Tpt.
So instead it seems to argue that radar should give warships some intrinsic AA without using up a gun token… which brings us to:
@Imperious:
From AARHE we have this:
Anti-Air
Certain naval unit has an Anti-Air value….
Hmmm, maybe the radar breakthru should be linked to this value? As in reduce the AA value if you don’t have it and you’re just relying on binos + Mark I eyeball…
7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.
@Cmdr:
Queen: 120 IPC, Automatically Wins the game…
… unless, opponent counters with: :evil:
6. Shoe token [[i]Monopoly] [Cost: Definitely Affordable if it fits] The token is placed at the beginning of the Turn in Ms Marcos’ closet / Manila, the Queen will immediately combat move over & be stuck in the Philippines hunting for the strappy little glass slingback that she can never find in her size! Her stimulation of the local economy doubles the IPC value of the territory.
Tired of running low on game pieces?
To resolve the shortage, add the following playing pieces:
1. Meeple pig [[i]Carcassone] (no A, no D, no Move, $2) - place in a territory to boost agrarian production by 1 IPC. Never captured like an IC, the Meeple Pig will be made into bacon should the enemy lay hands on him.
2. Hotel [[i]Monopoly] (no A, no D, no Move, $7) - place in those nasty contested areas. Doesn’t defend worth a hoot but charges 1 IPC rent for the enemy to occupy.
3. Wrench [[i]Clue] (no A, D1, no Move, $8) - place in an IC and it automatically halves SBR damage. Defense value cuz it really smarts when a hand tool that freakin’ big falls on you…. it could happen. That’s how the got Heydrich y’know… in the Study.
4. Robber [[i]Catan] (no A, no D, Mov 1, $Free) - Place him in a Neutral space randomly determined. After every US turn, each side rolls d6 and, if a 7 results, the side with the higher die gets to move the Robber one space. Robber blocks IPC value of the territory he’s in cuz he’s just that kind of jerk… and a few other things we can’t say in polite company so we’ll call him a Partisan instead. An infantry unit can force his re-location and until then pilots will grumble in their beer that the loveable rogue is ruining their Alpha Male status with the ladies of the territory. Like I said: jerk.
Anyway, you get the idea….
@Imperious:
My Vote: Yes to reduced combat value. No to restrained target selection.
Why: So here we get to the crux of the exchange.But that makes the BB worth less if you “discount” its damaged status. Now its worth far less in battle and the 2 hit thing is no longer a value but a hindrance. Each BB piece is 3-5 battleships. In battle they may be damaged but to the extent of which they no longer render effective fire or now fire at 50% is not fun… perhaps the solution could be that they fire at 3??? at least this somewhat models damage, but not to the extent that its reduced to a destroyer. I prefer 3 if anything.
Personally, I’m of the mind that the defender choice of casualty principle reflects a number of variables outside the scope of this game not the least of which is deployments putting different vessels at risk at different times.
And remember, with combat value being reduced there are no more disappearing hits on BBs… so I don’t see the defender choosing to reduce all of his BBs to absorb 3 hits as less historical than sinking one and maybe some other smaller warship so as to keep his other BBs intact.
yes but its still too harsh to reduce it to 2. it costs 20 and your reducing it to a unit costing 8. Id make it a cruiser value.
If in your view of WW2 the sides agreed that no other BBs would be hit until the first one was sunk… knock yourself out.
Thats not my view, but in terms of keeping the same as simple as possible and maintaining the unit values as they are its more in keeping with leaving the rating at 4 and just not allowing the ‘damage, damage, damage’ syndrome to exist by requiring another ship to be sunk instead. This would be more consistent with the idea of ‘screening’ even at a lessor degree than what i proposed that can be tedious.
So in essence, lose a hit and it’s a cruiser until repaired.
I think that’s sensible.
And I’d maintain that line of reasoning for KISS, so if your House Rules include any other Bonuses for BBs not enjoyed by cruisers then they should also be lost while damaged IMO.
… although I must confess: :evil: I still like the idea of reduced mobility… can I pounce on the bloodied but unbowed Queen of the Seas before she limps back to San Francisco? hmmm… :-D
OK that could just be me.
They can shove their new game up their behind.
…in which case going with a smaller mapboard than AA50 really seems like a good decision.
OK thanks I guess for the Turkey shoot stats… just never heard anyone refer to it as a surface action.
Anyway, getting back to the House Rule being proposed by you:
@Imperious:
Now in the actual game to make it KISS you do this:
1)Allow BB preemptive fire (unless another Battleship is present- E.G. assuming both sides have battleship groups negates the advantage.
My Vote: No.
Why: IMO presumes that the BB can always engage before any other ships can damage each other. Long range gunnery is huge advantage but it’s a tactical consideration not in keeping with the scale of a turn. And it’s not like offshore bombardment against fixed defenses or a stealthy sub strike.
@Imperious:
- If a BB rolls a one it can select the hit on the defender. Could be any unit
My Vote: No.
Why: For discussion purposes, let us trash my BIG SEA principle and agree with you that all of the target ships will be equally available to choose from during a naval operation of no fixed number of engagements…. well, if you’re modelling the primacy of striking capital ships in surface warfare then shouldn’t this Critical Hit ability extend to all warships? Surely cruisers and destroyers didn’t fire willy-nilly.
@Imperious:
- If you got a hit on a BB, it now costs money to repair =D6, if you roll a 6 consider it a critical hit which means you roll a second D6 and add result as the cost of repair of damage
My Vote: Agreed.
Why: Explained at the beginning of this thread.
@Imperious:
- If you got more than one BB you cant assign hits on all the BB’s… instead you must select to either sink the BB, or sink a new ship. When a BB is hit its new combat value is 2.
My Vote: Yes to reduced combat value. No to restrained target selection.
Why: So here we get to the crux of the exchange.
Personally, I’m of the mind that the defender choice of casualty principle reflects a number of variables outside the scope of this game not the least of which is deployments putting different vessels at risk at different times.
And remember, with combat value being reduced there are no more disappearing hits on BBs… so I don’t see the defender choosing to reduce all of his BBs to absorb 3 hits as less historical than sinking one and maybe some other smaller warship so as to keep his other BBs intact.
If in your view of WW2 the sides agreed that no other BBs would be hit until the first one was sunk… knock yourself out.
@Imperious:
- BB is repaired by moving to any sea zone next to a factory ( yours or allies). If you spend one MP to do this, you can use the last MP and keep moving.
My Vote: Agreed.
Why: Explained at the beginning of this thread.
@Imperious:
When planes are involved they fight at aerial combat values
when one side has planes, these hit at normal values.
My Vote: Tentatively agreed.
Why: Well I agree that when planes share an airspace they should have reduced combat values. And very lethal at sea when they dominate the airspace.
@Imperious:
- alternatively, you can have a player declare that if he rolls a one in defense he can declare that a enemy plane is eliminated ( only if he does not have planes)- This would need play testing. I have played the other rules for years.
My Vote: Tentative agreement.
Why: If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that the ships have an inherent AA capability? Is this the only roll that would shoot them down when one side has air?
And I don’t mean whatever you’ve written in other rules, I am asking about your 8th point please.
@Imperious:
The idea in this example is that surface combat is done by seeing who your shooting at, rather than some claim by you that combat occurs by some kind of long distance phone call of some coordinates captains relay to targeting crews.
OK now you’re just making up things I say.
I’ll break it down for you:
1. Sea Zone = Big Ocean.
2. One Turn = Lot of time.
3. One piece = lot of ships.
4. Combat = things not going as planned.
There is no realistic or historical claim that putting a BB in a sea zone means you get to fight whatever you choose there.
No phone calls Imperious. Sighted warfare requires you see the ships. Again, I refer you to numbers 1-4 above and that should be clear it is not always up to the capital ships how things unfold.
Heck, let me reference the wiki articles you provided:
Leyte: clearly the Americans chose their Destroyers to take the brunt. So, in other words: not the Japanese’s choice.
Java: the ABDA were incapable of selecting the convoy as their targets. In fact the Japanese sunk their own minesweeper. (A roll of 6 I guess.)
Savo: A fine example of fighting fleets in groups and the Fog of War as surface warships fumble around uncertainly.
Bismarck: Well, an odd battle since the number of actual vessels is so small and it resembles a bar fight in a phone booth. Even so the article clearly states that the Hood was firing on the wrong ship for most of the battle.
Ask Larry if you like, I don’t anticipate he’ll say BBs get a First Strike Capability. Seems to me that he designed that ability for subs.
And as for my “read UP a bit”, if you press the UP arrow or scroll UPwards with your mouse for a bit you will find your initial evaluation of my suggestion which I am referencing way way back at the beginning of this thread.
I did not mean to imply you were uneducated or any other groundless ad hominem.
Believing the quote function to be a trifle heavy-handed, I invited you to scroll up at your leisure.
All in all, the BB First Strike just ain’t working for me. All IMO.
Thank you Imperious for providing excellent examples of fleets not joining battle en masse and inflicting casualties on the choice targets.
Yamamoto’s main body not entering battle, Nishimura’s failure to synchronize his forces so that he could target select warships, and in general the deployment in anything other than one big mass of ships targeting the capitol ships….
Well, your support for my point of view is greatly appreciated.
@Imperious:
In these battles within the Leyte Gulf campaign,show the situation if surface gunnery warfare. In modeling this it looks like the idea that the Americans had more ships, so they allocated the destroyers to take the brunt of the Japanese ships, while the carriers retreated from the scene. Many of the main japanese ships were targeted and damaged or sunk. In terms of damage its not the case that only Battleships were damaged… cruisers were damaged and carriers sunk…All combat was the same as it was at Leyte in terms of how warships fight surface actions.
Yes indeed. And did the Americans “allocating the destroyers to take the brunt of the Japanese ships” remind you of anything? Not just BBs sniping away at each other as you claim is “historically” accurate.
@Imperious:
Their is no one “sea battle” that lasts longer than a few days. The various campaigns are loosely modeled in AA, The combat at sea is modeling key battle. For example, Midway is not 6 months of real time! You must remember a turn could be between 4- 6 months representing many battles and only the most important battle is what your actually playing. Each battle does not necessarily model 6 months of fighting. Thats misguided.
Misguided and misquoted. For indeed that’s what I’ve been reminding you of.
After all, it is you that has all hands of both entire fleets sitting there shooting at each other for an entire turn. Heaven forbid a hit go to a lowly DD acting as a fleet screen. What an unrealistic waste eh!
As for the most important battle…. uh, okay. That’s unsubstantiated and solely your opinion.
@Imperious:
Yes i will reread my 500+ WW2 books in my library. I will tell my Stanford History professors to take back the A’s and i will mail back my masters in History because i typed: “When a BB is hit its new combat value is 2.”
Oh good for you. Maybe you can convince one of them that naval battles are polite little affairs where all participants get to pick their partners.
Perhaps you’re confusing it with a school dance?
And you typing that its combat value is 2 when a BB is hit, doesn’t bring into question what you did in school.
It just shows that maybe - just maybe when you consider it, that suggestion doesn’t merit an automatic NO from you.
That’s all.
After all, not like your opinion on it is that vital. You’re just another one of us players. :-D
Happy Gaming.
@Imperious:
We are talking about naval combat between surface naval ships.
My point is: the enemy doesn’t present themselves made to order, Fog of War and the numerous variables effecting the course of a turn’s engagements with respect to limitations of target acquisition.
@Imperious:
The example again for your edification was stated as : battleships and other surface warships fighting each other. I am not aware of this form of sea battle at Midway.
But for your edification, may I suggest Leyte Gulf then.
Or better yet, perhaps you can suggest a naval campaign of a turn’s length unfolding as you describe…
@Imperious:
AS is describe earlier, a realistic solution is to line up the players fleet with less ships and the attacker matches up his ship with the defender….
Seriously… realistic? It’s hard enough to get your own forces to line up meekly let alone get everyone to square off for broadsides.
Don’t get me wrong if a Turn represented a couple of days and this was a tactical game then Bob’s your Uncle. But cherry picking your targets in A&A…?
Sorry. Not working for me.
@Imperious:
- When a BB is hit its new combat value is 2.
Whoa. I’m sorry but read up a bit. When I suggested losing one hit reduced the combat value of a BB didn’t you say it was… too complicated and made the BB such a bad buy no one would ever buy them?
I dunno… 3 for inf on the defense? :|
My initial impression: sounds kind of too lethal, too easy.
I guess I’d rather see a Fortress piece or something to signify elaborate strategic defenses reflecting what arty + inf can do… but make it rare or special investment rather than make every arty + inf combo automatically get it.
Still, worth playtesting and definitely food for thought.
@Imperious:
The reduced values are realistic because the target is a fast moving plane and not a slow moving tank.
My point is: if you don’t dominate the skies, then you can’t loiter around doing the damage required to neutralize a dug-in infantry division, for example.
IMO, there should be some decrease in fighter lethality if enemy fighters remain in the battlespace.
@Imperious:
In nearly ever sea battle involving surface ships, when ships are sighted for targeting decisions they do decide which target is more important. They identify exactly which ships they are shooting at and decide which once in range they want to fire at. Its not happening in such a manner where nobody knows anything and they are just firing guns at anything and have no information of what they are engaging.
You must be confusing the targeting capabilities of modern weaponry which uses advanced naval radar and sonar and sends missiles against targets 50 miles away. IN WW2 Everything is ‘sighted combat’…
Sorry but Incorrect.
Midway is an example where the combatants did not just line up to present themselves for targeting.
Rest assured I am not confused. Perhaps you’re confusing WW2 with the Wooden ships era when all warships kept within sight of each other for C3I 24/7?
Also you have to remember a turn is not a single engagement but a series of engagements over a period of time when not all forces will be equally in harm’s way.
I agree that the defender choosing casualties has its weaknesses but the degree of detail you’re demanding is simply not in keeping with A&A’s scope.
@Imperious:
Well its true that when warships fight they select their own targets……It is not realistic to assume i have my battleships ignoring enemy battleships which have the same range as my main guns and instead firing against destroyers, when the Battleship is far more potent to me.
Setting aside the principle of owner casualty selection, your comment would be valid in a battle that unfolds as a single head-on set-piece confrontation.
But a BB cannot select what they cannot “see” and the scale of engagement doesn’t get into formations, relative position, line of sight, initiative, time of day, toast of the day, etc. so who’s to say what targets were where when?
@Imperious:
…your fighting capacity was reduced by 30% and your still at 100% makes no sence at all.
Well, of course, the original proposed House Rule that started this thread would not automatically keep my fighting capacity at 100%… right? :wink: Exactly.
@Imperious:
WE also allow the defender to retreat his planes and that minimizes loses too.
Hey it worked for Saddam Hussein…. :-D
Definitely can see the value of air retreat option.
Anyway, thinking that in the absence of “dog fight to the death” the fighters shouldn’t have their full Attack/Defense values as long as enemy fighters are present… sort of like tactical dispersal and still watching their six while strafing keeping them at diminished intercept values… IMO
@Cmdr:
Actually, i think I’d like it better for Artillery, not Armor.
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 2.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 3.Then again, I like changing Artillery to a 2/1 unit, instead of 2/2. (attack/defend.) I mean common, those 88’s on defense have to fire into their own ranks, right? One would hope the cannoneers would be EXTRA careful lining up those shots!
Good call. Totally agree with:
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 1.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 2.
But I’d also keep Armour without infantry support - Defend @ 2
OK so this joint defensive bonus with inf + arty: would it still apply if the arty and inf were allies conducting multinational def?