Thats not too hard to model.
Just let fighters defend SBRs.
We’ll already made production capacity more realistic but limiting IPCs spent at an IC rather than no. of units.
So maybe SBR should destroy IPCs as well as reduce production capacitiy.
Actually, what if we purchase at the END of your turn, and pick which ICs to build them with. At the beginning of your turn some of the units may be destroyed while building and you never got to use them. :-D Thats pretty cool on the timeline.
Yeah that would be better. I don’t actually like Radar behing UK only.
I recall at least Germany had radar too.
To start with the biggest thing would be the much discussed heavy bombers in all many rules/varients.
Why are heavy bombers of WWII? Carried more bombs? Thicker plating?
I think it shouldn’t have stronger defence than normal bombers.
Sounds like heavy bombers would have increased size and reduced speed.
@Guerrilla:
That is interesting but since we cannot represent their true scale of operation I don’t think it is a wise idea to try to add something that never was achieved… I have never heard of Airborne attacking IC installations…
You’re right. I pulled that out of my ass. Paratroopers attacking factories lacks a little realism. :lol:
12 IPCs lend-lease. 10 free IPCs for lend-lease only.
That its only a cost of 2 IPC to American military.
That might be a bit low.
Historically what did UK and Russia wanted from US?
Were it things US had surplus of anyway?
If not, then maybe lower 12limit-10free to 12limit-6free?
Thats right! Level bombers shouldn’t be able to pick targets even if we let fighters dive bomb.
The three rounds plane limit thing should help model the fact that tanks carried 30 shells while fighters carried like 2-4 bombs. And both units can’t really rearm in the middle of battle unlike troops.
This is looking cool.
We can finally launch air strikes on poor little infantries.
I don’t see how 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs would really make Russia that much stronger, but we’ll never know for sure until playtesting.
Thats just a 2 IPC bonus. It’ll be fine.
This then brings me to why I don’t think unlimited armor at 4 IPCs each would work… If armor costs the same as rtl, then the mass production of armor would cut into the production of rtl.
Yeah it would be weird. Tanks should cost more than artillery even when mass produced.
So there is something wrong with our model.
We need to model mass production. The overall cost should still be more than artillery.
Maybe 1 free tank when you purchase 5 tanks?
With 25 IPC Russia can buy 6 tanks, or 6 artillery with 1 IPC left.
We get strange situations when don’t modelling it properly. “Tank at 4 IPC” is much stronger than “1 free tank every 4 tank”. More logically it should be called “5 tanks for 20 IPCs” instead. It would model how the other factories (eg. artillery factories) can’t produce tanks!
Also this mass production advantage I believe wasn’t there until 1943. Something about the older T34 (vs. T34-85) wasn’t “right on the money” and they didn’t mass it.
“You can’t say, for every 3 fighters UK buys in a turn, UK gets 1 fighter free. UK would have to save up a lot of IPCs and then buy 4 fighters in 1 turn. That’s not a good realistic purchasing strategy.”
My sugguest was specific to Russian tanks. I haven’t done research to this whether this mass production thing can be justified for UK planes.
If we were to do it anyway it could be “2 fighters for 18 IPCs”.
I actually rather not a totally remake of cost charts. We work with such small numbers you can’t fine tune.
I don’t understand.
With direction of the project, historic details and accurate modelling…why would you abstract the antiaircraft guns?
We are introducing more than 1 new units anyway so we need not recycle. We need new or specially marked pieces either way.
I think not only production regions had flak guns.
I think Germany deployed more antiaircraft guns in certain areas as Allies performed more bombing runs.
I think it is more dangerous to bomb fortified areas.
If you insist on abstracting on into IC then let put heavy flak (88mm-120mm) into ICs and leave the original piece to represent mobile flak divisions. In which case the heavy flak could hit with (1 on D6) 16.6% while light flak could hit with (1 on D6 followed by 3onD6) 8.3%.
(And then we’ve still got your idea of damaging but not killing planes…)
The light flak could cost 3 IPCs.
The heavy flak should still be purchasable. It is shown as chips under the IC. Cost 5 IPCs. Up to 3.
I just think its overly abstract if antiaircraft density is left out.
If we were to model small scale paradrops it would be a cost not a whole unit (division/corp).
These small scale drops are not battles but missions like reinforcement or economic attacks.
How about paartroops inflitrating and attacking ICs so production capacity is reduced next turn lol…
And I am patiently waiting for comments on my earlier post. :-)
I think its weird for destroyers to attack stronger when enemy forces consists of one or more submarines.
I think AA should hit on a 1 followed by 4. Thats 11.1%. Actually the 10% figure has been said a lot, do we have any references?
As with land combat, if planes can’t be shot down except by AA on crusier/carrier then I we should make planes need to land every few cycles.
And then as with land combat, planes attack in opening-fire.
Should retreats in naval combat be easier or harder then land combat?
In fact it is not unreasonable to include the unusual case where USSR breaks off from Allies, or a Japan/Germany conflict.
It just has to be modelled correctly. eg…
Russia attack Japan, 10 IPC
Japan attack Russia, 12 IPC
UK attack Russia, 18 IPC
Japan/Germany, 0 IPC
Yeah the pre-4th-edition rule of playing fee is actually realistic representation for some situations.
Wait a minute, that doesn’t model mass production which has historic importance IMO.
so who else is on the team?
@Imperious:
The very most important idea is Japan not having to invade russia to win.
Yeah I think Japan just wanted resources. Eastern regions of USSR had nothing :-D
The game should really be called the western allies, the Soviets, Gernamy and Italy and Japan all fight it out for themselves…
We definitely need that rule about US/UK not able to roam freely in USSR.
I don’t know how much I’ll be able to respond to all those topics on account of my work load is picking up for the next couple months and I want to try to get this phase 1 thing done quickly. I’ll probably just end up concentrating all my forum time on the phase 1 stuff and then pick up on the other phases in a couple months.
No worries. We’ve broken up into threads when one is busy just focus on what you are most keen about.
Paratroops preemptive strike?
I think of it the other way around.
Many are dead before they land.
I reckon they can’t attack in the first round.
But thats gonna be weird.
I like the idea of some countries joining allies if attacked by axis.
Duno about making allies can’t attack “neutrals”.
There are no “good” guys.
All “neutrals” can be attacked by force by either side it should just a matter of its effect on other neutrals and loss/gain of IPC due to diplomacy, morale, and sentiments.
If we were to model land units not able to attack air, we would have to either let antiaircraft gun participate in normal combat….and/or model the fact that planes can’t fight forever!
Attacking planes must retreat after 3 cycles. Defending planes must land. Defending planes cannot land if no defending land units left and must retreat. :-D
Post your ideas so far.
Something about UK not wanting USSR taking Western Europe?
