Posts made by Narvik

Wait    waitttt forrrrr ittttt     waitttttt forrrrrr ittttttt

Now how is that possible ? Germany is not allowed to stack units there after it is taken ?

@ghr2:

What is the russian incentive to take east poland?  What makes taking it better than letting germany deal with the 4 units there?

In the real world, the Russian incentive to take East Poland, Bessarabia, the Baltic and the Finnish borderland, was for protection. They wanted a buffer zone, where they could stop an attacker.

The same should be true in this game. If Russia don’t take East Poland, then the German tanks are one space closer to Moscow. This could be decisive.

I think this thread should be a poll, and that’s IMHO.

I pick nr 3, an initial air to air combat phase before the regular land combat, inspired by both the A&A 1914 game and the SBR dogfight.

My experience is, that if you want other people to play by your houserules, they cant be too alien and strange to the A&A mechanic.

The initial air to air combat phase to gain air superiority before a ground operation is what I figure match and model the real war in the best way. This is how it was. I think all aircrafts should attack on 1, and only fighters should  be allowed to intercept and defend on a 2 or less. Defending Bombers are supposed to be stuck on the airfields, and sittin ducks. Now people must learn to not park their Bombers close to the frontline, and not in a territory that is soon to be attacked. And the Fighter unit will be more distinctive - as a fighter.

But I am not sure this air-to-air should go before naval battles too ?

Maybe differ land and naval combat ?
The air-to-air combat in a territory goes on until total air destruction of one side, and then the land combat can start.
But naval battles are different from fighting on land, so in this case I go for nr 2, Fighters must target enemy aircrafts inside the regular combat phase. Targeting is not alien to A&A, since the Kamikaze fighters have been allowed to target capital ships a long time. So lets say, the Kamikaze is not a fighter, its a Tac bomber. Now all Tac bombers are allowed to target ships, any ship they want. Then Fighters can target any enemy aircraft. And let Heavy Bombers target subs. This makes sense.

Naval battles will be
Subs roll preemptive surprise dice, only blocked by a matching destroyer. Lets just imagine that a single destroyer blocking 1000 subs would be seen as derogatory in the real world.
Then attacking aircrafts roll dice, and target casualties
Then the ships roll dice, owner choose casualties.

This feels correct

Well, we could imagine that an A&A Bomber unit is 50 real Bombers, and an A&A Fighter unit is 500 real fighters. The combat value of a fighter unit represent so much firepower by machine guns and cannons, and the combat value of a Bomber is so much destruction you got from a bomb load

The same with inf. A real German inf division had 4 times more firepower than a Russian inf division, but the A&A inf have the same cost. So since all A&A inf units have the same combat value, its obvious that the German unit represent 100 000 men, and the Russian 500 000 men. You are paying for the firepower, not the numbers of men or planes

OK, now you got 2 +, is that demand enough ?

@Der:

By making everything able to move across continents, you are pretty much taking tanks out of the game as viable units, right? I mean, why not buy all inf/art combos and move them around by rail?

In that case, Tanks and Mechs should be more efficient in combat and blitzing.

Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1

Before naval and land combat can start, there should be an dogfight phase, that continue until one side retreats his planes or are free of planes, like there is in the A&A 1914 game.

There are two ways to solve this air to air combat phase. The OOB way
Attacking aircrafts roll 1
Intercepting fighters roll 2 or less
in this case defending Tacs and Bombers should not roll, just be sittin ducks and either be taken as casualties or survive to next phase.

The other way is to let all planes keep their set combat values for simplicity, even in the dog fight. In that case, Bombers will be stronger than fighters in dog fight, which is very historical uncorrect.

I love scorched earth,  it should be a OOB rule. I figure it should be like, when a territory is attacked and occupied, all factories and bases should receive max damage, a major IC should even turn into a minor with max damage, and a damage token should cover the IPC value, so nobody could collect income from that territory in that turn. Now that is true scorched earth, man. And that is exactly how it was in the real war too. The exception being the Capital of course, that is booty.

But it will change the game and strategies. If the original owner or the attacker want to collect income from his territories, or use the facilities, he must defend it. This rule will be the death of the classic double dipping strafe attack, where you defend with one inf, and the attacker use two inf and a plane to take it so he can plunder one turn of IPCs, turning a contested territory into a milk cow. In the real war, you could plunder and loot a territory once, after that is was free of stuff. Void. But the A&A Global is designed to favor aggressive and gamey play, turning a poor desert territory like Persia into a gold mine that it is possible to plunder 4 or 5 times in the same turn, and on top of that Ge and It even got NO bonuses worth twice what is even remotely thinkable.

Now I think a scorched earth rule would make play more realistic, more in touch with the real war. And less gamey. But do we want that ?

In that case mr Flashman, why don’t you make your own game, with your own rules, and make everybody happy ?

@ghr2:

Can russia attack pro axis territories while not at war with G and I?

I am not sure what the HBG rules say, but Russia cant do that in A&A. But I am pretty sure an attack on a pro-Axis is considered an attack on a true Axis. But when that is said, Finland should never be considered as a pro-Axis, it should be a true neutral. It was in fact a social democracy and did not love neither Stalin nor Hitler. In the non-aggression pact, Hitler did in fact give Finland away to Stalin, because Finland was part of the Tsar Russia. So since this game start in 1939, Russia should be free to attack Finland without being at war against the Axis. And now we see the flaw in the game mechanic. They gave Finland a special rule, and that is bad. Now, if Norway had not been occupied by Germany in the real world, there is no way Finland would have joined the Axis. Finland joined the Axis because they had been attacked by Russia, and was no longer neutral, and they could not choose to join the western allies since Norway was occupied by Germany and Sweden was pro-Axis.

@Larrie:

Germany attacks Oslo and fails. Oslo and Narvik are now pro-allied? If this is the case, can Russia now move a unit into Narvik and collect the ICP there?

I think that is an intriguing question, since I come from that place and know a lot about the history, and since I want the Global game to play out as close to what was possible in the real war. In the real world, Norway was pro-UK and very anti-Russia. When Russia attacked Finland in 1939, the Norwegian Army was mobilized at the Russian border, ready to fight Stalin. There were no way a Russian unit could move into Narvik in the real world, without starting a fight. Even when the Norwegian Army was fighting the Germans for two months, the bulk of the Norwegian army would still stand by at the Russian border, and during the peace negotiations, the Germans demanded the Norwegian Army to keep defending the border until German soldiers could replace them. We had no problems being occupied by Germany, but if the commies would try to come, we would fight to death.

The problem with most of game rules, is they let Stalin join the allies, technically as Tigerman77 said. That is IMHO a mistake. The commies should be their own block, not allies and not axis, just commies. With their own commie victory conditions.

Great pic, looks like an outstanding game, I will buy it for sure. After all this years IL finally got it together.

BTW, are you the guy at left ?

@Razor:

I miss the Canadian player

Suggestion for sculp for the Canadian player

yes, subs independent retreat, that was the missing link.

OOB you can submerge your subs and retreat the planes, and let the surface warships continue the battle. It should be the other way around too. Retreat the ships, but not the subs, or the planes.

@Herr:

@Narvik:

What if Russia buy a sub in the Black Sea ?

That was my initial thought too, against the airbase variant of this strategy, but if Germany simply buys a destroyer, then the Romania planes will scramble when the sub attacks.

If Ge buy a carrier and two trannis in the Black Sea, next turn Ru buy 3 subs and land 3 aircrafts in an adjacent territory

Now Ge is forced into a naval race, or lose the investment

What if Russia buy a sub in the Black Sea ?

USA aggressive, Japan peaceful, is it a Cold War scenario ?

I spent most of yesterday to read me up on submarine warfare. It looks like most of the subs were sunk by land based fighters and medium bombers using rockets. So its obvious from a historical point of view that planes should be able to sink subs by themselves, without a present destroyer.

I think the A&A Europe 1999 edition was the game that modelled the subs and convoys in the best way, too bad this mechanics were abandoned. Germany should start with lots of subs, and UK should start with lots of unprotected convoy zones. Then UK buy plenty of aircrafts and destroyers that sink the subs, faster than Germany can launch them. That is historical correct. That would work in a game starting in 1942, but not a global game starting in 1940, or 39.

Still not satisfied with the HR suggestions so far, and the rationale being what Toblerone77 says, the people I play with are not experts, and do not easily understand rules that are too complex. The way some of you wright rules is pedantic and great if you are a layer or judge, but not to my beer drinking friends. So I need a better HR than the present suggestions.

My suggestions so far, and with Raid rules where a damage marker are placed on the convoy box during the combat phase, and not during the owners collect income phase.

Sub cost 8, move 2, A2, D2, roll a preemptive first strike and may submerge after any finished round of combat.
Destroyer cost 8, move 3, A2, D2 and is immune to a subs first strike, so it rolls even if taken as casualty. Prevent a matching sub from submerging on a 1 to 1 basis
Tranny cost 8, move 2, D1 against air only. So it still needs escort protection against subs and warships.
Aircrafts and surface warships can attack and defend against subs even if no allied destroyer is present, but they cant prevent a sub from submerging.

Ex
1. Subs can decide to target a convoy box or join a naval combat.
A convoy raid is a one time roll, and the eyes on each dice decide how many damage tokens you put on the convoy box.
In this HR, a defending destroyer can only deny a preemptive shot against himself on a 1 to 1, not all preemptive shots against the whole fleet or convoy box.
History shows that no matter how many escorts and warships protecting the convoy, the sub would always get a hit, so this is historical correct. But since a sub in this HR cost 8, and can only inflict a max of 6 IPC damage, since the dice only got 6 eyes, it would not be considered very clever to sacrifice an 8 IPC sub in trade for an average 3 IPC damage, when the convoy box is protected by a fleet. A clever player would probably not attack. But it should be an option.

So in this case the sub choose to join the naval battle. Lets say 8 attacking subs roll dice, and this should be 8 preemptive first strike rolls. That means, the enemy warships that get taken as casualties, should not be allowed to return fire. But if you got 2 destroyers in that battle, you can choose to take them as casualties, and in that case they will return fire. But if you save them for next round, they can not deny the preemptive roll for the other ships. Now, if your 2 destroyers sank, and you only got planes left, then the planes can hit the subs without a destroyer, but the planes can not deny the subs to submerge after a finished round of combat.

Another example. A lone sub sit in seazone 118. You can attack that sub with an aircraft, and you don’t need a present destroyer. But after one finished round of combat, that aircraft can not deny the sub to submerge. Only destroyers can deny subs to submerge, on a 1 to 1 basis

Since trannies cost 8 and defend against air on a D1, they can now be taken as casualty any time. History has plenty of examples on trannies being used as blockade runners, thrown into minefields or coastal guns before the fleet comes, just to save the expansive capital ships. It should be the players choice what ship is fodder, not the rules

With the current OOB rules, you are not allowed to land your aircrafts in a territory that you newly captured.
But your ally is free to land as many aircrafts there as he wish, in his next turn. This is a gamey rule that makes no sense.

What if you can land your fighter in a newly captured territory ?
You can not land fighters that was used during combat, or bombers. Only fighters that is earmarked to land there in the non combat phase

During the invasion of Normandy, USA made an airfield close to Utha beach at day 1, to be used by fighters. One week later they had seven airfields for fighters. Germany would land their fighters in cornfields the day after they captured it. Since an A&A turn is considered to be 4 months or half a year, it is obvious that you could land your fighters in newly captured territories. In A&A 1914 you can, so why not use that in every A&A games ?