Posts made by tekkyy

Neutrals should become soft constraits to game strategy rather than the current hard constraits.

Some should have different income values too under the control of the 2 sides.

Russia

Non-aggression Treaty
Its obviously unrealistic to have 4 units suddenly appear on the border when one side breaks the treaty. The whole idea is that when you make a surprise attack the other side is not ready to defend.
I think it should be modelled by an IPC fee of say 12. This could model fighting internal resistance of breaking the treaty? Or the slightly reduced morale as civilian feel ashamed?

T34
I think T34 were not strong. They were just mass produced and became cheap and cost effective.
From turn 3 onwards for every purchase of 4 tanks together you get 1 free tank.

Germany

Atlantic Wall
Yes “Norway to Spain” please. Not all gray territories.

Tiger Tank Battalions
Limit of 3 would be good to model the lack of reliability of Tigers. Although I would put it at 4-6. They had much better range than enemy tanks and I reckon we can try opening-fire in first round. Yes definitely no blitz for Tigers.

Fortress Europe
Again lets put it on its historic regions not all gray territories.

Wolf Pack
I am thinking just 2 is bit low. Whats the reason for reducing it from 3?

UK

Radar
Of course radar will be changed accordingly after Antiaircraft changes.

Joint Strike
Of course Joint Strike will be removed accordingly after the round sequeunce changes.

Japan

Kamikaze
I can assure you Kamikaze are not isolated events. The main wave consisted of thousands of attacks. I urge you to not limit Kamikaze attacks to 6 per game. :-(
We should not limit it to 2 SZ within Japan neither. One of the first uses in the war were near Philippines.
And even more different problem is to fit it correctly into the combat sequence. Logically it shouldnt be restricted to opening-fire.
Why we don’t want to make the attack too strong, it has to be cost effective. (compared to enemy naval and compared to if the fighter was in conventional attack)

Dug-In Defenses
I think they need not defend on 3. To model tunnels for example they would be immnue to not only shore bombardment but also air units.

Banzai Attack
Should require overwleming numbers.
Lets say 3 or more infantry. At least 1 more infantry than number of defending land units.

Naval Advantage
lol

US

Liberty Ship Program
I like this one. Its much needed. I hope it fits history though

Pacific Division
This one seems a bit weird. Why?

Just read this on About.

“Though superficially it appeared to work, postwar figures showed that German production actually increased during the peak of the bombings. Was strategic bombing a flop?”

How come Battleship can’t take 2-hits anymore?

Was there actually Fast Carriers? If so did they carry less than fleet carriers?

Destroyer
Attack: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Defense: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)

Wouldn’t it be strange when “3 destroyers” attack “3 destroyers and 1 submarine”?

Naval fighters’s preemptive attack seems more logical if they were built-in on Aircraft carriers. But I actually don’t like them built-in as it abstracts logistics of the pacific war.

We don’t have to use Antiaircraft gun as Heavy Artillery or Costal Defense or whatever :lol:
You’ve created many new units and require new pieces anyway.

I still think antiaircraft density needs to be modelled. (Hence it should remain as a unit, albeit non-mobile once deployed to the territory).
And historically military bases also had flak guns not only production areas no?

roll one  d6 if you roll a 1 , then you roll again if you roll a 1 the plane is destroyed, if you roll a two the plane has to return to base ( damaged and cant drop its payload) results of 3-6 no effect.

By the way I love this idea of damaged planes. Quite logical.

This is going to be a huge mod.
Is it going to be released under GNU :-D?

Can I sugguest we give it a formal name. “Historical Edition”?

Can I suggest we start a thread for different aspects.
This is becoming difficult to read. I for example are mainly interested in discussing Income and Combat. Much more passive in terms of things like map.

Threads to be something like…?
*AARHE: Phase1: Units
*AARHE: Phase1: Combat
*AARHE: Phase1: Income and Convoy

Things to be left out in Phase1…?
*Research
*Map
*Victory Condition

Since we have a historical framework it shouldn’t matter too much that we leave some aspects out for now.
They will likely be cross reference between aspects but its still better than one messy thread right?

This is a project on its own.

To be realised in a ultra-high-res file so we print it on A4 and photocopy it to A0 or A-1 at the shops.

Now you got me worried.
So what do you think of it?

I also think nuclear bomb shouldn’t be added to the game.
You’ll never model it properly.
It costs so much to research and produce. 60 IPCs?
Nukes are not primarily for destruction of military. We’ve mentioned permanent IPC loss but historic it was more for shock, destruction of civilian and morale.

In the end I think the war is over when nukes were made.
If Japan didn’t get hammered down US wouldn’t have the time and resource to do it.
Otherwise continental America would have fallen to Japan’s conventional forces for a double KO as Japan retaled for American civilian.

Oh yeah this relates to Imperious Leader’s idea of “connected IPCs”. And I also think we need to model the fact that you don’t get total freedom is WHERE to spend your IPCs.

If we start to model escort fighters, it would tie down our fighters. One could only reasonably use it in conjunction with a normal attack.

This is weird. Maybe we can look at what actually happened in the war? Maybe the bombers flew really high and bombed at night so fighters don’t get to intercept? Thats why the whole city turned off lights at nights? Or maybe the damage isn’t modelled properly in the game (should be much greater?)

I reckon its the latter.

*production capacity is reduced temporarily after an SBR
*unused income needs to be lay on the map as chips
*stockpile IPCs can be attacked not only the territories income value

Eh, no.
If you get one roll for every 3 planes then thats is back to the old “chance of hits is proportional to number of planes” of OOB which gives AA unlimited damage.

I am saying up to 3 rolls for every AA. It doesn’t matter how many rolls. What matters is that every AA can only target up to 3 planes.

The rate isn’t really a problem. We can adjust it easily.  :lol:

At the moment if you attack with 5 or more planes its 10% chance or less. (Against 1 AA)
If its a problem we just use a D12 dice or something.

The 3 rolls too can be adjusted. NOT to fit a target rate, but according to targetting ability of WWII flak.

My position is just to model saturation and antiaircraft density.

@Imperious:

I also like the idea of a nation being able to spend money to build up defenses against SBR (e.g. If my opponents are buying a lot of bombers and putting them in UK then as Germany I can counter this by building more of the defense units and/or teching for radar)

Yeah so antiaircraft guns and costal batteries should be stackable.
They shouldn’t be able to move though.

back to Antiaircraft guns…

Artifical limit of 1 AA/territory should be removed, antiair density should be modelled —> allow up to 3

Abstract firepower of AA should be removed, overwhelming air power should be modelled —> allow up to 3 targets per AA

AA shouldn’t shuffle around —> can’t shoot before deployment, can’t move after deployment

hows that?