Posts made by Razor

@Baron:

The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.

Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.

We can of course use the rules from hex and counter games like WiF etc, and resolve air to air combat, then resolve air to ground combat, followed by artillery barrage phase, mechanized blitzkrieg phase, and at last the infantry charge phase. But then it will not be A&A any more. Should we let artillery target other artillery in duels, like in the real world ? Or let Tacs target Tanks, like they did in the real world ? Or should each unit have several different combat values, like the counter units that can have up to 4 values depending on what kind of unit it target in a battle. Give the infantry one value against air, and another value against tanks, and another value against other infantry ? Because it is obvious that the infantry is stronger against other infantry, than against Heavy Bombers. But then it will not longer be A&A

@Baron:

It is possible to get both world : fun, historical, and balance.
Fg A3D3C9 all the rest as OOB.
TcB A3D4C11 all the rest as OOB.

I think the game designers missed a great opportunity here. The new Tac should get the old fighters stats, A3D4 C10, just with a new name. Then the new fighter could be a A1D2 C8 unit, that was needed in the Air to air combat in SBR, and for scrambling, and fodder in big battles.

Crime is to Ukraine what Texas is to Mexico. They don’t belong. Crime belong to the local Cossacks and Tartars.

Too bad it was only 10 seconds

In the real world, US and UK did in fact occupied neutral Iceland and Greenland, in order to secure the shipping lanes, and they did in fact occupied neutral Persia and Iraq in order to secure the oilfields. And all this happened in 1940 before USA had declared war to the Axis.

I think it will be difficult to keep track of

@Baron:

Sometimes, defenders are caught off-guard on the airfield but once the interceptors are in the air, they get the advantage:
they are flying over a known homeland territory,
pilots have spent less time in the air, are more concentrated and less tired,
planes have plenty of fuel and less restricted on combat maneuver than attacking escorts fighters,
and defenders can stay longer in the area to patrol against slower or lost attacking planes,
all this can be exemplify by the UK’s pilots experience known via the air Battle of Britain in 1940-41.

This is correct, and since Baron mention the Battle of Britain, that was a special case since the planes had to cross the Channel, giving the German fighters only 10 minutes of operation over Southern UK before they had to return home again. The British fighters could of course stay up in the skies for hours, since their Airfields were close. And since the British defending fighters had plenty of fuel and time, they could fly high and attack from out of the sun. Germany would attack with more than 2000 planes, but because of the long range, they had short time on the target, giving the 700 defending British fighters the advantage.

But with that said, when the range was the same for both escorts and interceptors, the battle value would even out. To house rule this get complicated. You could let a fighter hit on 3 or less in his own territory, and modify one less pip for every space it moves. So a fighter that start in Normandy, lose one pip over the Channel and one more pip in UK, giving it an attack value of A1, while the UK fighter in UK roll a D3. Same when scrambling. If the UK fighter need to scramble into an adjacent seazone, it lose one pip because of the movement, giving it a defend on a D2.

@cyanight:

Interesting Razor… Assuming the axis goes first you would be letting Italy go before UK.  That’s going to change the game for sure.  It would make for an interesting invasion of USA.  If you let both Italy and Germany attack before USA and UK then Italy is going to have a Navy and will take Gib round 1.  With USA still out of the game for 3 rounds I think Germany would have no problem pulling off an attack on USA with Italy poised to intercept any blocks USA or UK try to setup.  The way the game is setup you give whoever starts first a consolidated navy.  If Axis goes first the Italy consolidates their entire navy otherwise UK consolidates their entire navy.  The staggered order of play is designed to allow the opponent a shot at the ships first.

That is correct. The set-up is designed to be balanced when you play with the current turn order. If you want to change the turn order, it is obvious that the set-up need to be slightly changed too. Just remove some Italian and German ships, and strengthen the British navy. And if you fear that the Axis may attack USA, just use the rules from Pacific map, that says if any Japanese ship is closer than 2 seazones to USA mainland, then USA can declare war and mobilize before the Nazis can put their boots on the beach. Maybe even trough in a few extra infantry in the set-up, and the Canadian Shield will not be so easy. It should be harder than the Sea Lion anyway, even if this is just a game, and ideally all options should be equal balanced.

In case you ask me, I think the turn order is the problem. It would be better with an all Axis turn, followed by an all Allies turn, and then an all Neutrals turn. Now that would solve a lot of the issues that I got with the current game rules

@ItIsILeClerc:

But I agree with Razor.

Off course you do  :-D

I am against to let carrier planes scramble into adjacent seazones, for one reason. The islands on the Pacific will lose its strategic value. In the real war this islands were important to protect the supply chain, but in this game the units are not depended on supply and support, making the islands useless. The Airbases gave this islands an strategic value again, so don’t mess this up with house rules, even if a carrier would scramble in the real world

But one rule suggestion I do support, coming from the new 1914 game, is to let planes land in a newly captured or contested territory. So more when imagine a turn is 3 or 4 months. It would be crazy not to protect your attacking army with air patrols. Come to think about it, the current OOB rules do let you protect your army in a newly captured territory with planes, but the planes can not belong to you. If Germany capture Ukraine, you can not land German planes there this turn, but you can land Japanese planes there. Now how crazy is that. The Rulebook need to be re-written ASAP

@ABWorsham:

@SS:

Eisenhower should have listen to old George. :-D

Really? Europe, Russia and the US should be thankful that Patton didn’t get his War. Defeating Russia in 1945 without the Bomb would have a price tag of millions of lives. The West, even with a fully mobilization of France could not push the Red Army back into its own borders.

Patton wanted a continuous war for his own glory, he wanted to play Napoleon with tanks.

Every Nation in Europe would have faced a real possibility of Civil War, similar to Greece and Turkey had a US/ USSR war began in Central Europe.

ABWorsham is correct. The British workers even threatened to strike if UK and USA had attacked the Russians.

@cyanight:

DO you think an Anti-tank should

• Blitz like a tank

• Blitz if supported by a tank

• not blitz at all

No Blitz for the AT, if you want to keep some historical correct touch with the real war.

The true tank was designed as an anti-infantry weapon that would break through the dug-in infantry line as a shock wave, and cut the enemy supply line, forcing the dug-in infantry to surrender. Attached is a pic to understate what I talk about.

The AT-tank was a specialized artillery unit that was designed to target tanks, and as we know artillery don’t blitz. If it should move 1 or 2 depends if it have wheels or not.

About your self propelled artillery unit, I think it should be stronger than the OOB field artillery, because it had bigger guns and more fire power, and because of the greater mobility and maneuverability , it will cover a larger range of action than the field artillery which is stuck at one place and horse depended. So lets give the King of the Battlefield Self propelled artillery an A3 D3 at a cost of 7 or 8. Boost infantry only. Tanks should only be boosted by Tacticals.

I don’t love the sequenced fire phase with preemptive fire, since this is a duel and all actions are supposed to happen simultaneous. The AT were cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack, but very strong in defend. So I figure A1 D3 and target tanks, at a cost of 5 IPC.

@cyanight:

I think it would be interesting if A&A had Coastal Guns in Normandy that could not move but could fire like AA fire for planes but against ships conducting barrages. What do you guys think of this?

No man, not cool. A coastal gun is in a duel with a battleship, and they aim at each other. The AA gun shoot a lot of shells into the air and hope some aircrafts will hit them. Now since a coastal gun is far more lethal than the same type of gun on a ship, the coastal gun don’t sink even when hit, I figure that a coastal gun defend on 4 or less, cost 10 IPC and take two hits.

Since Normandy is mentioned, do remember that the coastal gun at Pont du Hoc was not operational, and if it where, the Rangers would have disabled it long before the landing started, so the only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII, and the other ships retreated out of range before the coastal gun could hit them too. This was one coastal gun. At Gallipoli during WWI the six French and British battleships were sunk by 141 coastal guns, in 22 batteries. So don’t make the coastal gun too strong. I would love to buy a 6 IPC unit that could sink 3 battleships each round, but it wont be good for balance.

As for your other artillery HRs, I think everything on feet move 1, and everything on wheels move 2. Just to make it elegant and smooth

I miss the Canadian player

@ItIsILeClerc:

As for special rules regarding those: balance! It will mostly hamper the allies so don’t forget to equally boost them somewhere if you HR coastal guns.

The allies already got Shore Bombardment, which somebody already claim is too strong. They may even get Marines and Paratroopers too. Then you have the typical axis strategy to vacate coastal territories, and build a counter attack force in a safe place. I figure only UK, Italy and some Japanese islands will ever see the Coastal Gun units, that is if HBG do make them.

@Baron:

During the first round of an Amph. Ass.
Destroyer give +1A boost to any 1 ground unit.
Cruiser give +1A boost to any 1 ground unit, in addition to the shore bombardment.
Battleship give +1A, to any 2 ground units, in addition to the shore bombardment.

I like this, but think that shore bombardment should boost infantry only. Shore bombardment are naval artillery, and it makes no sense to let artillery boost artillery. No matter how heavy barrage or many shells, they shoot holes in the air unless the suppressing barrage are followed up by infantry charge. And only Tacs should be able to boost tanks.

I think all warships should Shore bombard on A2, and boost a inf unit +1.
A naval shell is designed to sink ships and are different from an artillery shell that is designed to kill men. During the attack on Narvik in 1940, HMS Warspite and several destroyers shore bombarded the city of Bjerkvik for hours and only 9 civilians died, and no German defenders. They used the wrong type of shells.

That pic is of the 28 cm gun of KM Gneisenau, that was transferred to Austrått Fort north of Trondheim in Norway, when the ship was damaged in 1942. I am from Norway, mind you, and we still have a lot of this German WWII coastal guns all over our country. They were operational until 1968, but today they are museums

OK, all attacking units minus 1 point, to a minimum of A1, that may work. After all the Royal Marines Armor Support Group did make a successful amphibious assault with Centurion and Sherman tanks during D-day, the famous Hobbarts funnies. And the Americans that attacked with infantry only did take some heavy casualties.

Exactly how weak the Amphibious assault are, and how strong the defense are, depends on a lot of things.

HBG make Paratroopers, Marines and Landing Crafts that may strengthen the landing. But they also make Coastal Guns that may help the defender. Then you have the Shore bombardment, that in this game is far more stronger than in real life. Then you can use the 1914 rule and let aircrafts land in a newly taken territory, representing combat air patrol and air cover, like it were in the real war. Or take with US and land UK fighters next turn, but I prefer the 1914 rule.

It is important to me that the H. rules are simple, smooth, elegant and historical correct. Then, it will be the players decisions if they want to defend a coastline heavy, or vacate it and build up a strong counter attack force in the adjacent and interior territory.

@aequitas:

A rule that states something like:Â

• If a Armour and a Art. has not been moved since the last three rounds,it may be transferred into a Coastal Gun in Normandy etc,etc…the same for the Crimea…
  -If a Armour and a Art. haven’t been moved in such and such it may be transferred in to a Stronghold, or equivalant…

What are your thoughts?

Artillery and tanks are anti infantry weapons, they are not big enough to sink ships. If you google the Atlantic Wall, you will see that the Germans used the big guns from battleships and cruisers to build the Wall. So a better rule will be to transfer a warship into a Coastal Gun, preferably in the Purchase units phase.

As you can see from the attached pics, the coastal guns in the Atlantic Wall are turrets from German Cruisers