Posts made by B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Squash:

Hmmm, have you considered giving Japan jet fighters instead of Germany, just to make it a little easier on Russia without unbalancing the teams?

Well, one could also give the Russians Heavy Artillery technology, they attack on a 3!

I have now updated my house rules!  :-D

Once again there is no need for more units, make nation specific instead!

Super Submarines
The reason why aircraft cannot attack alone submarines – It was the aircraft that proved the greatest nuisance to surfaced submarines. Night-running on the surface even to charge batteries, became prohibitively dangerous and the submarines developed the snort. The snort made the submarines slow since the submarine needed to stay submerged and on station high surface speeds could not be used. Efficiency fell off rapidly. Desperately some submarines carried enhanced AA armament, electing to fight it out on the surface. This suited the aircraft very well, which discourage the practice.

Ultimately the type XXI and XXIII submarine was introduced by Germany. These types of submarines travelled faster underwater than surfaced. The former had a 16-kt submerged speed, underwater fire control and acoustic torpedoes, tuned to home on the fast running propellers. A combination of active and passive sonar enabled them to attack without raising a tell-tale periscope. Fortunately for the Allies the war ended before the type became fully operational.

The heavy superfortresses overkill

The Superfortresses advantage imbalances the game. US need only spend 30 IPC’s on average in the very first game turn to gain the Heavy Bombers technology. US can then bomb Germany back to stone age within a few turns with unstoppable SBR’s, by using superfortresses. Not to mention that US also may develop Long Range Aircraft technology to gain Japans attention. Unlike subs, there is definite incentive to come up with heavy bombers, and you better come up with them before your opponent does. And it’s about the only way the German and Japanese player can counter the Superfortresses advantage.

The combination of Superfortresses advantage and the Heavy Bombers technology is just overkill, since IPC loss from SBR is limited to the territory’s income value per bomber. In plain english it means that 3 US bombers can inflict, per turn, up to 30 IPC’s damage on Germany, and there is nothing that Germany can do it about it.

The sitting duck sub

A submarine is a sitting duck no matter where it goes, unless its in the company of a other naval units. A sub can’t operate autonomously. What good are supersubs, wolfpacks and U-boat Interdiction if any fighter can sink them 50% of the time, or a bomber 66% of the time, without taking a risk. There is no incentive in the game to have submarines. And the Super Submarine technology is not as good as Heavy Bombers technology, neither are Jet fighters!

How to counterbalance?

A technolgy vs. technology approach is the easiest and most balanced approach.

**  Super Submarines (revised)**
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy destroyer is present.

**  Jet Fighters (revised)**
Your fighters are now jet fighters. Their defense increases to 5, and they may intercept bombers (including superfortresses) in a SBR.

Bomber Interception: This battle last for one cycle of combat only. The defender declares intercepting fighters before any defending AA guns fire. Intercepting fighters attack on a 3 were as the bomber defend on a 1 (2 if superfortresses), after any AA fire. Any fighters used in a interceptor role may not also defend in a regular land attack against that same territory on the same turn.

@Axel:

I still think the heavy bombers are too destructive…
if you don’t have jet fighters, you may as well resign once a country has heavy bombers and a few bombers…
:mrgreen:

combined bombardement is too weak…
Maybe I didn’t play with the right person to see, but he had this and never used it :-D
LOL
nonetheless, I always think there is a good use for it, but I should try this once too see how things turn out…

I think heavy bombers aren’t overpowered at all, they cost a lot. Some 30 IPCs to develop and another 45-60 IPCs to build a pile of bombers! I think the counter tactic with Jet Fighters is a cheap buy! Most players already got some fighters, so the cost will simply be some 30 IPCs to develop the tech!

When it comes to Combined Bombardment I partly agree, that it is week. We always play by the rules that all destroyers may conduct shore bombardment on a 2, just like in A&A:E or A&A:P! Hence no need for the tech Combined Bombardment!

Lets make it easy! All players get 10 extra IPCs due to more kind of units or just skip it! Or:

Mass Production
This rule imply that increased production allow reduced cost, except for infantry and industrial complexes. The unit’s basic price is reduced for every unit purchased after the first two units (first unit for battleships) of the same type in the same turn. The basic price is reduced by; 1 IPC for antiaircraft guns, artillery and tanks; 2 IPCs for fighters, submarines and transports; 4 IPCs for bombers and destroyers; 8 IPCs for aircraft carriers; 10 IPCs for every battleship purchased after the first unit. This rule also imply that any IPCs that remain after the players Purchase Units phase are lost to the bank, hence no player may save IPCs.

I think the opening fire variant for artillery will work out historically for Katyusha Rockets instead of an increased attack on a 3, for the first cycle of combat! Any comment???

5.  Katyusha Rockets
The Soviets were able to supplement the artillery with massed batteries of rocket launchers. The sheer volume of fire more than compensated for individual lack of accuracy.
Your artillery have a first-strike ability at an attack factor of 2. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. This first-strike ability is for the first cycle of combat only. The artillery unit fire as a regular artillery after the first cycle of combat.

@Imperious:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

can you elaborate this rule in a combat example?

how they work?

In any combat fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat! AA-guns and fighters fire at the same time, but attacker rolls first. Any casualties do not counter attack! This opening fire ability is for the whole battle and only if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat. If enemy fighters are not present in the beginning of a cycle of combat this rule apply! Anything you find unclear? Think logic and act logic!

@keen2215:

I’m just curious…
for the #7 and #8

how would you roll for the development??

thx… by the way I like heavy bombers too XD

Well this is not about that Q, it is about which of the techs one would not like to have in a list of six techs! So the Q is simply: Find the two techs you find most inferior and unbalanced?

But for those who want to use all of the mentioned techs, I would recomand a D8 or simply choose what tech one want to develop!

Anyone who has not voted yet?

@DasReich:

Yeah , well, I think having HB in R1 is a little drastic… Let’s say that each tech is available from a certain point in the game. example: HB are available to USA in turn 3 for 25 IPC, UK on turn 4. On the other hand, jet power becomes available tu Germany on R2 for 15 IPC and fighters w-jet tech CAN intercept bombing runs according to some future rules we shall discuss…later. I think the rolls should be completely eliminated. It would be more accurate IMO and would reflect the importance of tech in the war. (I never play with tech)

I belive in general techs like the ones in the boxrules, with a little twist! NA will be there fore more nation specific features, one can call them minor techs! Let all NAs cost, lets say 10 IPCs each than all can spend their money as they like!

@tekkyy:

What I mean is the contrast. The “Enahanced” varient was not about historic accuracy but a goal of gameplay balance.
Just a useless piece of information. Its not important.

I thought Enhanced Realism Rules were designed for a more historic accuracy! How ever I would like to know if you find the opening fire variant in “Enhanced” balanced? As far as I know it was for Heavy Artillery - a technology?

@Imperious:

… I like your ideas as NA’s but just want to add like 3-4 new units:

naval fighters ( planes that only are carrier based/ not mixed with land fighters)
SS panzers
Mech infantry
Cruiser

… what do you think?

I think that naval fighters are not needed, not even SS panzers or cruisers! Mech infantry could be a tech or a NA for US!

The biggest reason for this is playability! The best would be to make the CA and naval fighters one unit. I know I have wrote an idea about it before. But since gamers are too familiar with CA and fighters as it is today I don’t think they will accept a rule change like this one. However I wrote another idea that will make many things more realistic and more balanced and at the same time make air units more desirable!

This issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.

Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

Massproduction bonus for T 34:

Your tanks basic price is reduced to 4 IPCs for every unit purchased after the first two tank units.

@Imperious:

… If each tank was placed into some kind of gladiator combat thing. The germans would come out on top 100 out of 100 events. The t-34 shots would never really harm a German tiger 1-2 . if a Sherman vs t-34 duel was possible id say the T-34 would win, but it would be close.

Yep, Impy I agree with you here! German machines are and still (BMW, Porsche aso) are the best when it comes to performance! However the seamy side of the outstanding performance is the high cost of production! So theduke is also right! If a T-34 tank should be used in A&A:R I would say it should be a price advantage due to massproductionn A&A:E it is better off to raise defense to 3, due to the IPM effect that is a evident shortcoming for Russia in all A&A games! By the way, another important thing for tanks was radio communication. Russian tanks lacked radiocommunication (mostly), hence were not as effective as their combat capabillity allowed them to be!

Why have Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers at the same time as Blitzkrieg! They are pretty much the same to me and by historical reasons!

@tekkyy:

For your information there is this other AAR varient “Enhanced” popular on AH forum.
(The variant is about balance and was pretty much created in an unstable and ad-hoc style.)
They found the opening fire didn’t save them that many return hits.

Well, I dont really get your message here “The varient is about balance and was pretty much created in an unstable and ad-hoc style”???

@3d6:

In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

I think the 3 in defense for infantry is better than your idea. Why do you think the opposite?

Some of these ideas are mine and some are not! The German 88’s are not mine and I do think that Fortress Europe prety much involves the 88’s! The 88’s in the NAs mentioned in this topic is imbalanced! It is a game braker! Any German player that would get that NA will most likely win the game, since a pile of such artillery with opening fire will kill anything, since casualties can not counter attack!  :mrgreen:

I dont like the T-34 NA due to historical reasons, it was not better than a Sherman! But worse than a Panther or upgraded Panzer IV! German tanks cost 7 IPCs and  have a combat capabillity of 4/4 were as an allied tank has a combat capability of 3/3 and cost 5 IPCs! What do you think?