OK so after skimming a number of threads I see a lot of similarities in house rule, can we get a quick run down of all the most popular features to be added to the map?
Not pieces or border changes but stuff like…
1. ports
2. barracks (or other infantry-generating locations)
what else?
@Cmdr:
B) I agree your house rules are a bit on the lengthy/confusing side.
:-D then you must have REAL issues with some of the rule sets I see posted here… I’m thinking there must be a supplement from WOTC that comes with an A&A accountant and 1000 chips!
@Cmdr:
Here is just a case where science upgraded vehicles to transport more men.
Still…. I’m thinking it shouldn’t even be in the same league as the guys coming up with rockets, radar and jet engines?
Seems its a question of production & doctrine far more than R&D and if I’m romping around accumulating IPCs shouldn’t I just be able to buy them without the research dice rolls to invent them?
Anyway, even if you’re for keeping it as a breakthru, the other half of my original post still stands: do you have one breakthru you’d like to see added to the charts?
I think air is the key to winning the war.
I’m thinking any rule(s) that makes it that decisive needs serious revision. Douhet was wrong.
personally I’m hoping the new game breathes some new life into these fora.
Yes I am an FNG but still - looking around and just reading some threads more or less at random - this place seems to be stagnant with something wavering between indifference and dogma.
COOL!!! My first Karma point! Negative naturally…
@Imperious:
…. resolves the issues that your allied AA gun does not protect your factories…
:? where does it say that in the rules? Given that Allies jointly defend a space, this seems a little out of sync, eh? :|
@Imperious:
All enemy captured AA flak batteries should be considered destroyed.
Well I definitely agree with that.
Always seemed a little puzzling. And I’ve tried to rationalize that the piece represents infrastructure as well as armament and maybe that’s why it survives… but not all the voices in my head are falling for it.
@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.
:?
It makes sense for any ol’ 10 IPC fighter - without a rare and random tech breakthru - to have a 33% lethality against the invincible V2 but granting jet fighters a 17% lethality goes against the spirit of the game?
Anyway, IMO one can argue that the jet fighter does not give you an effective AD against the rocket tech on the grounds of how the Meteor historically performed in WW2 (although it raises the issue are we just repeating WW2 instead of re-playing / exploring what-might-have-beens).
But - again IMO - to play the heresy card and say that LH didn’t intend for any tech to give an edge against another tech… well in that case then radar should not work to shoot down jet fighters, long range AC, heavy bombers or paratroop-laden bombers.
And there definitely is no room in any rule set for ASW breakthrus that diminish the advantages of the super sub breakthru… well, the list goes on and seems out of place.
@Imperious:
Each technology can always make a original unit better, It does not deflate the abilities of another.
Well then IF that were the case, there is serious need for a house rule or two since in real life technology does not fall into nice neat improvements that do not effect other technologies… much like how long range AC enhances the paratrooper technology.
And we’re not discussing “deflating” rockets but countering them where in the OOB there is no counter-measure or defence.
And you can discuss which rocket we’re countering all you want but there may be no right answer and I think it all comes down to should there be a 1:6 chance of defending?
But then again it’s just thrown out there for general discussion and consideration eh?
Good thing we’re in the house rule section otherwise I’d be wondering how that radar should permit interceptors in Normandy to protect Berlin from Russian SBR…. LOL
As for the Meteor, IMFO its limited kills reflect (a) limited numbers and (b) recurring gun problems, the latter not inherent in this tech breakthru.
Missile interception requires speed… and ain’t that what jet engines provide?
The Dardanelles question?
Problem is that this always opens up the can o’ worms marked “Neutrals”… :evil:
hmmm IMO creating a range of AD expenses seems a odd way to take the game… At some point the defender must say “hey, I’m blowing IPCs on AA to protect my IPCs from SBR.”
(OK he may not say it five times fast but still…)
If we’re bombing Germany, for instance, well the Russian would be giggling in his vodka watching chips go back and forth under that AA gun instead of under the panzer stack.
@Imperious:
It displays increased costs for placement at captured VC, vs originally held VC and allows for both….
Of course in some situations it may not be possible for Japan to find many willing soldiers to fight her enemies if she should be able to occupy Canada, but if Japan ever took out eastern Canada, the game would be over anyway.
Well I wasn’t envisioning anything as farflung as the Japanese recruiting in BC. IMO thinking not many Chinese in Shanghai would be enlisting.
So is Shanghai treated as captured VC or an originally-held VC?
@Imperious:
Piston fighters can shoot down V-1’s
Not all piston fighters could and I believe the RAF found the jet fighters to be even more effective than piston fighters in this role… to the point that perhaps a house rule should allow one to act as an AA gun does against SBR.
@Imperious:
Nothing can shoot down a V-2
Well I would think rocket technology would embrace the range of weapons and not just the more advanced ones.
@Imperious:
Techs should not invalidate other techs. To me thats not the intent of the design.
Well given that the tug-of-war between attack and defense has been driven by technology since somebody first put a handle on a cutting tool and somebody else picked up a crude shield, that seems to be the point of weapon development….
OK so then radar shouldn’t give any bonus to shoot down or invalidate long range AC?
How do you see heavy bombers and increased industrial production working without one invalidating the other?
Thinking of the British Meteor and the V1s… what about jet fighters located in the target IC’s territory getting a 1:6 chance to nullify the rocket strike?
@Imperious:
In the game the AA gun IS not ‘planes’….
Each piece is what it is and not a hybrid of different types of units.Only the artillery could also include tanks in terms of self propelled artillery.
Well, actually all of the land units are hybrids or combined arms formations. :-)
But hey, I’m a big fan of interceptors so I’ll leave it to Flashy to support his take on AA
@Imperious:
All of these ideas are located in AARHE. You might as well copy and paste those ideas here to save you the trouble.
In every respect this is exactly what AARHE is about.
So AARHE says that the British can generate inf from Ottawa but the Japanese cannot from Shanghai?
Germany would buy so many Mechanized Infantry units it would be stupifying. 30 IPCS for lets say, 2 tanks and 5 Mech infantry. Resulting in a one trick pony charge at russia. once it fails,if it does, germany is left with very few traditonal infantry units inbetween moscow and berlin.
Which is why I’d advocate sticking with the 1:1 requirement for mech inf to blitz… after all you don’t just have a bunch of shot up trucks racing straight into battle, Garands firing over the tailgate.
So then you’d have 3 tanks and 3 mech inf with some IPCs left over.
And this hinges on the criteria for a Victory City… some were chosen for strategic impact (value if captured) and may not reflect infrastructure or population.
@Imperious:
Doesn’t AA gun damage vs SBR actually represent a combination of flak AND fighter defence?
no just the flak guns. The 10% is just ground based defenses.
hmmm I’m thinking you speaking about two different things. :-D
Flashy is speaking about the game mechanic.
And IL, I think you’re speaking about the historical stat.
An “Armor” unit represents an armoured company or regement, with a large supply of tanks, and a compliement of infantry, likely in trucks or halftracks.
An “Infantry” unit represents an infantry company or regement, mostly made up of men on foot, with a few heavy guns and tanks sprinkled in.
A mechinzed infantry game unit is ahistorical. There were not vast legions of mobile infantry. The ones that had trucks or halftracks, were attached to armoured companies, and the ones that hoofed it, well….they hoofed it.
The breakthrough either represents the revalation to allow vast ammounts of men to ride into battle on the tanks, or to provide excess transport capacity to the armored regiments so that infantry regements could quickly attach to them.
Actually I believe that each game piece represents a much larger combined arms formation than the sub-units you seem to have in mind, and the designation of armoured, infantry and mechanized infantry is just reflective of how the mix favours the different arms… which of course changes from nation to nation.
As for historicity of motorized or mechanized infantry, again I believe that you’re mistaken and the game piece would reflect not the adoption of Cold War APCs but WW2 usage of deuce and a halfs & half-tracks to the point that in A&As charming vagueness elevates their mobility to something on par with the game’s representation of how mobile an armoured brigade plays for example… like Panzer Grenadiers who enjoyed a significantly increased amount of vehicles in their TOET.
I think you’re overlooking something here:
Doesn’t AA gun damage vs SBR actually represent a combination of flak AND fighter defence?
Limiting AA damage this way only makes sense if you allow defending fighters into SBR combat in their own right.
I can’t speak to whether or not it was written to include some inherent element of fighter interception BUT if the players aren’t using the intercept rules for SBR I’d say they shouldn’t tinker with the 1:6 AA in isolation and call it more historical or whatever…
but that’s me.