Posts made by Narvik

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 ?

@Baron:

In addition, Planes cannot hit submarines without Destroyers, makes the Carriers very vulnerable against Submarines.
While, historically, Escort carriers were specifically used in submarine warfare.

I don’t think the carriers went on sub hunting alone. I believe they were accompanied by some destroyers too.

But, to your case.
I think the sub should roll a preemptive first strike against the carrier.
Then the planes should roll against the sub, and the carrier if it survived should roll too.
With OOB rules only a surviving carrier is allowed to roll against the sub, the planes are not.

The problem with your house rule is that 2 fighters that defend on 4 or less are likely to kill that sub, and that will probably prevent the sub from attacking, and making destroyers obsolete. A combo with 1 battleship, 1 carrier and 2 fighters, which is all allowed to kill that sub, will turn it into a suicide mission for the sub. And of course, who wants to buy destroyers anymore ?

Imagine the sub move 1 space, and is always submerged. And there is no way your destroyer can find and sink that sub as long as it is submerged. When submerged, it don’t block your moves, even a lone tranny can sail over it, embark or debark. The sub moves slow through the ocean, but survive as long it is submerged. But when the sub break the surface and attack a convoy box or a fleet, then you see him. The sub fire a preemptive sneak attack shot, and if a hit, the convoy box take damage, or a ship sink without returning fire. Then all surviving ships and planes in that seazone fire against the sub. If misses, then the sub have a free choice to submerge again. But after it submerged, all present destroyers in that zone get a one time free anti-sub-weapon roll against that sub. If misses, then the sub stay submerged and invisible until next time.

Since a sub only got a movement of 1 space, it can not retreat to another seazone, only submerge where it is.
A sub is not allowed to attack other subs or aircrafts. Hits from subs can not be allocated to enemy subs or aircrafts.

To avoid subs being fodder in big naval battles, I suggest
-Trannies only defend on 1 against aircrafts.
-Subs can only hit surface ships
-Aircrafts should be able to target specific ships. If a kamikaze can target capital ships, why not every aircraft ?
-Let subs be very strong in convoy raiding, stronger than Bombers in SBR. When a sub attack a convoy box, let it roll a dice and the number is IPC lost. If one sub can inflict as much as 6 IPC damage to the enemy economy at less risk than a Bomber, you don’t use it as fodder

@SS:

I also think you should have search planes to find ships.
Small searchplane C10 A0 D2 M4  1d6 roll of 3 or less finds ships.
Big searchplane  C12 A0 D2 M6     1d6 rol of 3 or less finds ships.

What part of #Simplifying# is it you don’t understand ?

Besides of that, I love your idea  8-)

Yes, Builder got some valid points. When you attack a seazone with a convoy box in it, and it is protected by a fleet or planes, then maybe the Subs should be able to make a choice if they want to target the convoy or the fleet ? The intercepting destroyers will of course be able to sink them, much like the AA guns hit planes even if the planes don’t shoot at them, but in this case the sub inflict damage before they are sunk, and not before as is the case with AA fire

I don’t think you can make rules that is both simple and historical correct. The hex and counter games have search rolls and sequenced fire, which make the games complex, not simple and fast to play. Xenon World at war have search rolls, and that makes sense. The ocean is a vast place, and the enemy is moving around behind that foggy horizon, so you need to roll a search roll before you find him, but then the enemy too can roll a search roll to avoid you. But if you find each other, then roll for combat. Land combat is different, you know the enemy is dug in behind that hill or city. So maybe a search roll will difference naval combat from land combat. Aircrafts will of course make for automatic find. But it will be a game in the game.

Another and more simple way is to differ the movement values.

Subs move 1, and can submerge from combat, but not retreat to another seazone.
Tranny move 2, and can not retreat to another seazone. If the escort retreats, the trannies are sittin ducks
Surface warships move 3, and can retreat to another seazone.

This model the importance of speed and range in naval operations.

To avoid trannies being fodder, let them cost 10 and defend on 1 against air.

And do you really want to use a sub as fodder when it move 1 space only in a turn, and a Destroyer move 3 spaces ? I know I wouldn’t.

@Baron:

Thanks for the picture and the Convoy PQ17.

As I far as I understand the story, German’s Submarines were able to attack the same targets as their planes.
It increases my confidence about my Sub Casualty rule which lets Submarine units being used as fodder in a combined attack with aircrafts.

Now if you had googlet that battle you would have noticed that the Germans lost many planes but no subs. It looks like the trannies had aa guns but no anti sub weapons

…or you can google Convoy PQ 17.

Germany would attack the convoy with battleship Tirpitz, lots of Subs, land based Dive-Bombers and Heavy Bombers. UK would defend close with destroyers and frigates, and a fleet of battleships, carriers, cruisers and destroyers.

attached is a pic of the naval battle

With all due respect, I don’t think you will get anyone to play a game where Destroyers roll preemptive against subs.

And since the topic is to simplify the interaction, I don’t think a unit should have several different combat values against different enemies or situations. Lets just keep the current value system.

You know that in the real war subs would never cooperate together with surface warships in joint operations because they had short range and low speed. A cruiser could sail at 30 knots, and a submerged sub at 7 knots, forcing the Sub to only do independent operations, alone or with other subs. But in A&A games both Subs and warships have the same range of 2 spaces, and speed during the battle is not an issue. Perhaps if Subs could only move 1 space and warships move 3 spaces, but that is not going to happen.