Posts made by allboxcars

@ShadowHAwk:

Given it is a rare case because why would you want to SBR a factory you will own soon :P

Luddite pilots?

A jeep? AND a truck?

OK IMO the only use for such playing pieces is jeep could be used for motorized inf and the truck for something like a support unit IF somebody wanted to concoct a chain-of-supply house rule for linking ICs with Forward Edge Battle Areas.

Otherwise, what two distinctively different units are they supposed to represent?

A division composed entirely of staff officers and a division of storesmen?

@Cobert:

…I always thought that nobody would be willing to move a battleship out of their naval campaign to repair and would rather just use it until it dies before building another (if necessary).

I’m guessin’ in the cozy confines of the Med or Atlantic it’d probably be more likely than the Pacific… but still even with one hit the BB is totally The Henway.

@Battlingmaxo:

Does this mean that friendly aircraft can function as interceptors in addition to or in place of nationals aircraft against a SBR ?

I would presume so under the concept of multinational defence.

And thank you all for your replies.

@Cobert:

It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

Well I can see your point ref scale of the action and so I’d support the geographic boundary with no house rule for CAP or any FTRs defending adjacent space etc.

But otherwise, I’m leaning towards the optional escort / interceptor rule as it reflects the operational decision on whether you use your fighter resources defensively or base them forward to project air cover.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I don’t we’d ever be chanting “Heil Hitler”.

Ahh but the question may be which territories that start off as Axis would resume chanting “Heil Hitler” (et al) if the Allies swept thru and left it ungarrisoned?

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I think having the FMG thread under “other variants” is just fine.

OK OK this is kind of mistaking a tree for the forest…. unless you’re telling me that this entire Variants forum is reserved for Let’s Talk / FMG threads…

@squirecam:

You can have a bombing run and an attack upon the same territory.

Well yes that’s understood.

But if that’s the situation this rule’s language was aimed at addressing then perhaps “return to their original territory” carries an unwarranted implication that to do battle they’ve moved from their original territory??

OK so two questions actually:

1. “Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex…. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory…”

OK the second line - and the text that follows - makes it sound like the interceptors came from another territory which is clearly not the case in the first line.
Is the first line’s limitation incorrect?
Or is the second line’s use of the word “return” essentially meaning that they land?

And just for clarity re turns v. rounds:

2. “Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn.”

So, if we’re looking at German and Italian fighters located in Germany defending against a UK SBR then neither fighters can participate in defending against another attack during that UK turn but when the Italian turn comes around after that, his fighters can participate in combat… correct?

hmmm [picturing: air units roaming invincibly over head while land units just lie down and die.]

Naw I’d think any land unit 1s should be “assignable” to aircraft representing the AA batteries on a Div TO&E.
As well as stopping fighters from becoming the “God Guns” of the game

@Cmdr:

Submarines are not a tactical unit anymore, they are strategic.

Which seems to me to be entirely appropriate… I know a game’s a collection of mechanics and probabilities but still, subs serving a cannon fodder just makes one cringe, no?

OK Comd Jen, thanks for the rules… now I won’t need a PhD, two lawyers and a team of bookkeepers to follow this, will I?

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

@Imperious:

The OOB rules for AAE describe fighter escorts and defense.

Jet fighters is another matter altogether, not in AAE

I was talking ONLY about how it was done in that game, while ADDING the part of jet fighters so they have an advantage by a factor of 1 in both cases.

uh yeah but your post actually referenced rocket attacks which do not appear in AAE, verbatim or otherwise, hence my confusion

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

Ref the subs not stopping transports…. yeah that’s not sitting right eh?

I’m thinking Transports passing thru the sub zone can (at sub owner’s discretion) be subject to a single strike before going on their way…

Transports stopping in the sub zone should be snuff-able (again at the sub owner’s discretion) like any other warship.

Transports disembarking amphib assault in a sub zone… maybe the single strike after which all cargo is considered safely ashore.

hmmmm…

Personally I’m kicking around the idea that in general ground combat all hits by fighters must be assigned to enemy fighters.

Excess hits can be assigned elsewhere and are not wasted.

Once the skies are cleared of enemy fighters then fighter kills can go to ground targets. It might be harsh but that’s the fighter jock’s job…. unless your house rules have a specialized ground-attack fighter.

OK what the heck is the difference between this forum and the House Rules forum?

Honestly I thought the “AA Variants” title referred to milieu changes: WW1, American Civil War, Clone wars etc. using the AA template.

What is everyone else taking the difference to be between the two fora?

@Cmdr:

@Emperor_Taiki:

In occupied territory if your garrison is less units than the territory is worth in IPCs you do not receive the difference in income.

I like this idea sort of.

I’d say if you don’t have 1 infantry for each IPC the territory is worth, the original owner gets to throw a die.  If s/he rolls a 1 (+1 for each additional unit missing) they get the territory back with 1 infantry for each IPC the territory was originally worth. (This happens unless the owner’s capitol has been captured.)

Example 1:

England has taken France, but only has 1 infantry, 3 armor present.  Since France is worth 6 IPC, and England only has 1 Infantry, then the German player, before the build new units phase, gets to roll a die at 1 + 4 (since England is short 5 infantry).  If Germany rolls anything but a 6, all British units in France are removed and 6 German infantry are immediately placed in France to be used this round.

Example 2:  Germany has Caucasus with 5 infantry, 7 armor, 3 fighters.  Since Caucasus is 4 IPC in value, Russia does not get to roll to see if the partisans liberate it.

Example 3:  Germany has Caucasus with no defenders and Moscow with 6 infantry.  Since Moscow is worth 6 IPC and Germany has 6 infantry there as a garrison, then Russia does not get to see if Moscow is liberated.  Also, since Moscow is the capitol, garrisons in the rest of Russia do not have to be provided as no liberation attempts can be made until Moscow is liberated.

This allows for certain historical accuracy as France had a resistance that tied up Germans and prevented them from being used in the front.  Also, if you think about it, if New York was captured by the NAZIs, and then all the Germans left North America, do you really think we’d still be chanting Heil Hitler?  Or do you think we’d roll a few Shermans in there?

Meanwhile, by allowing for the taking of a capitol to free up garrisons, it allows a country to make an attack on a capitol and not have to worry about the entire nation rising up.  It also allows that nation to use those infantry for something else finally.

hmmm….

@Cmdr:

Just my opinion here, but I think all house rules need to be a one step process that is very easy to remember and does not lend itself to needing to be referred back too by those using them for the first or second time.

ahhh I see what you mean…. lol  :-D

OK now I do like the effect of the captured capitol but not fond of the regaining the country thing with instant infantry.

And what about a UK failure to garrison Libya?

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

@Imperious:

The rule comes from AAE verbatim. I was not talking about jet fighters, but normal fighters involved in air defense to SBR.

Ummm do you have a special version of AAE?  :wink:

OK if you meant SBR instead of rockets then your point is clearer… although AAE limits interception to the target territory which some house rules would extend dramatically!  :-o

@Emperor_Taiki:

I also think it is fun for a player to have total control over his people and not be bothered by politics.

@Imperious:

I would say perhaps a nation must roll a d6 and surrender on a 1…

Irreconciliable differences?

Perhaps, if a Victory Point system is in play it could provide the incentive: “I can quit now with more VPs or keep on fighting until every last territory glows in the dark”

So in effect you win (amongst the losers) if you don’t drag out the inevitable.