ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => First Edition Game => Rules questions from first edition => Topic started by: smckenzie on September 03, 2009, 11:37:37 AM
-
If a player chooses not to add air units into the 1st round of combat, can he add them in later?
Can air units choose not to bomb (to avoid AA Fire)?
So could someone fly defensive air support, but then withold his air units from bombing?
For that matter, could someone withold Offensive air support(without retreating)?
We frequently have a pile of allied fighters bombing a space, and then the german just does not interecept to let them take AA fire. Could the allies choose not to bomb with some/all planes to avoid AA fire?
-
Ok- you need to commit air units to a battle right away.
Air units do not have to bomb even when flying defensive air support. I don't see why you can't withhold offensive air support without retreating. You don't have to expose yourself to AA.
Mark - correct me if I am wrong...
-
Right - units have to be allocated to the air to air combat battleboard - but nothing forces a player to commit planes from the air to air battle board to the ground battle board. Only air units commited to ground support on the ground battle board get shot at by AA.
Let me know if this isn't clear
cheers,
Mark
-
I believe this is clear.
So I allocate 12 fighters to offense and then the defender commits no air, I could just not puut my fighters on the ground board and evade AA fire (but of course my fighters don't fire in the ground combat).
I assume the same if I had 12 bombers, I could simply not use them in the ground combat and so no AA.
Just clarify. Does the same apply to Strategic Warfare.
I have a slew of fighters and my opponent declines air combat, I could then just bomb with some planes and only the bombing planes take AA?
-
yes to everything ;)
-
Thanks.
-
Coupla more questions.
Can someone attack with just one ground unit and lots of air support?
In recent games this has not been happening so much, people have built a lot of AA guns.
Typically the player with air superiority (sometimes vast) attacks with 1 infantry and like 25 air units, and so 24 unsupported air units. based on the rules we saw no reason to say you can't.
neither of these has ever happened, but related:
If you attacked across river with just mech units, and so no ground units in the front line in the first round of combat, does your air/artillery still fire as unsupported units even though you have no ground units?
Similarly:
Suppose all your paras were shot down in air to air, would your ground support still fire?
Suppose the paras were finished of by AA, does the air support still fire?
-
OK -
someone can attack with a lot of planes at "1" - it is good to have AA to prevent this.
If you attack over a river with just mech - then all your support units would be unsupported for the first round shooting at "1"
Take Para casualties prior to determining front line units - so - if nothing is left on your front line air support and artillery would fire at "1" as well.
-
I changed that rule in my games, no front line unit, no shots for unsupported units.
that stops the one infantry and 12 plane attacks
-
I changed that rule in my games, no front line unit, no shots for unsupported units.
that stops the one infantry and 12 plane attacks
Martin in our group is notorious for the "send one land unit, get a shit-load of support shots"- be they air or naval bombardment.
I think that the last time we played, we made sure to limit the air and naval support shots to the number of front line units.
-
Yes this is actually a good rule for the game. Agree with your guys fixes entirely. Actually - for the 'advanced' game that we have been playtesting, we limit both the number of planes and artillery/ships that can support a battle depending on the number of front line units. See this thread:
http://www.ww2wargame.com/forum/index.php?topic=299.0
So - if you have 5 front line units, you can have a max of 3 air units and 3 artillery supporting. . .
-
Thanks.
Don't know that you really need to change the rules. Prior to using this tactic we produced very few AA Guns, except for the GE with their 88's.
I would suggest a new Unit, Wirbelwind's mech AA units that can fire AA in the attack.
-
This issue of large numbers of unsupported air units has become a big problem in our games as well. I think what we're going to try is that each bomber unit can support 1 front line ground unit, but fighters will support on a 1:3 ratio (with a minimum of 1 if no bomber or artillery present). I want to copy the concept in World in Flames where you really need to have the correct aircraft for a given mission. In that game you can sometimes use an aircraft in a role it wasn't designed for, but it usually isn't all that effective.
I think we're also going to say that if you're trying to cross a river and you don't have at least one infantry survive, then you were unsuccessful in forcing the crossing and to continue combat you must fight another round with only half of your infantry and their support. Alternatively, we could also say if you don't succeed in the first round the combat is then over.
-
I like your river rule tweak - have you actaully been using it?
-
I like your river rule tweak - have you actaully been using it?
No we haven't. We have discussed it and it is going to be in the rules re-write we're working on.
As to the "1 infantry & 15 aircraft" kind of attacks, we are probably going to do two things:
1) Bombers can support ground units on a 1:1 basis; fighters on a 1:2 or 1:3 basis.
2) All aircraft will be "single use" per turn as they are in World in Flames. So - you can use 15 aircraft in an attack if you want - but then they will all be "used" until the start of your next turn.
-
I do not support the one use idea for aircraft. It is a 3 month turn afterall. I support the current rules where after the attack phase, the aircraft can support one defensive action.
I prefer the hard and fast rule - no front line unit - no support fire (even at a 1)
ken
-
I do not support the one use idea for aircraft. It is a 3 month turn afterall. I support the current rules where after the attack phase, the aircraft can support one defensive action.
I prefer the hard and fast rule - no front line unit - no support fire (even at a 1)
ken
I think one use each for offense and defense could work, but I'm leaning toward the single use to replicate some of the decision making that you run into in World in Flames. In WiF you have to be more realistic in how you use your aircraft - if you use them all at once you have nothing to counter with later on. Allowing one use for each offense and defense in my opinion doesn't do enough to deter the kind of problems we've been having.
Regarding the length of the turn - yes, it's true that a turn represents three months, but then that same argument could be made about any other unit in the game as well. Why can't infantry be used more than once? Why can't ships move more than once? The answer is the game has been designed with certain arbitrary rules to produce historically possible results. There isn't really a reason for letting any unit make more than one attack (or limiting a unit to one) other than that's just the way the rules have been worked up.
There's no question that letting air units attack with no front line unit is a problem. A bigger problem in our games has been having giant stacks of aircraft (usually Germany) either making a massive airbase attack, or failing that, adding 15-20 dice to a ground attack. Not letting unsupported aircraft attack, as you have done, is part of the answer, but something still needs to be done about the problem of massive stacks of aircraft. We've tried stacking limits and this hasn't worked, so now we're going to try falling back to something I know works in another game and see if that solves our problem.
-
use my other suggestion on air
If aircraft are used for defense or attack they will be taken as casualties if the attacker or defender rolls more hits than there are gound units to take.
example attacker has 4 inf and 4 aircraft, defender has 3 inf and 3 aircraft.
the air to air is a total miss however both bring the air to the battle board.
the attacker scores 2 hits and the defender responds with placing 2 inf on the casualty line, the defender then scores 6 hits, this places all 4 inf on the casualty line and 2 of the aircraft since they were on the battleboard
-
I'm going to say I don't really think it is a problem.
Part of the response to it amongst the players up here in AK is builing more AA, and not pursuing the somewhat unrealistic no aircraft strategy.
Historically allied airpower was fairly awesome.
Even when the opponent does not have AA, it is not always a good tactic/strategy. You spend 8 points on a fighter to roll an extra 1 in some battles. NOt the most efficient use of your production.
When your opponent does have AA it rapidly becomes unproductive, except if you have so many planes you don't care if you lose them.
I made a suggestion somewhere for including Mech AA units. AA units that could fire their AA shots even on the attack.
I think the problem is overblown. There is a counter strategy, build AA. Also, the strategy/tactic of tons of air units is not neccessarily so great in may instances any way.
Somewhat ridiculous that someone is building like no air units throughout much/all of the game anyway.
If you added mech AA units you could counter the problem for defense as well as offense. Possibly even allow existing AA/88's tof ire on tha attack, as 1's let's say.
In big battles with a lot of AA somone has been facing the loss of 1 or 2 planes per round of combat. In general no one can sustain such losses for long except for the western allies, and then even they have limitations, and multiple demands Norther Europe, Souther Europe, strategic bombing, asia...
It depends on how awesome you believe airpower was historically.
If you fire 18 fighters at 1 to get 3 infantry, that's 144 points of production to kill 3 ingantry (9 points) per turn? so 16 turns to brak even on PP, and it probably cost you 16 infantry (48) PP. Not a bad exchange ratio for the Western Allies. Not really doable by anyone else.
I think their should be some reward for gaining massive air superiority. I thinks its OK the way it is, and if I would make a change it would be to allow the attacker to make AA shots.
May be allow the attackers AA to fire from the second round on? Allow ground supporting ships to provide AA cover to invasions...
-
OK- sounds reasonable
-
so you think it is ok to attack with 15 aircraft and 1 inf, when all the defender gets is aa shots, if they have it and the multiple hits on the one infantry. That is why i added the if it attacks or defends it can be a casualty.
ken
-
The advanced game rules addresses this in a few ways:
1) movement is alternating/simultaneous and all combat is resolved after movement - so planes can really only participate in one battle per combat phase (because there is only one per turn), rather than participating in one player's attacks and the defending when the other player attacks.
2) The number of planes that can support a ground battle is limited to the number of front line troops engaged. Additional planes can be thrown into the battle - but instead of ground support, they have to be deployed in interdiction (the reduction of units moving from reserve to front line at the end of every turn).
3) AA is used both for the attacker and the defender
This reduces the power air units have nicely - but still make them very very critical in winning ground battles.
For the basic game - I would perhaps use the second (and perhaps the third) rule if you are concerned with too much airpower - limit the number of them based on the number of front line units. -or- just leave airpower the same and invest in AA or planes yourself per Sean's suggestion.
I don't like the idea of ground units killing air units (other than AA) as it is just not realistic enough for me that an infantry division could kill off a bunch of air units - that is why you have AA in my opinion.
-
Superficially, I'd say the Advanced game sounds OK.
-
I'm going to say I don't really think it is a problem.
Part of the response to it amongst the players up here in AK is builing more AA, and not pursuing the somewhat unrealistic no aircraft strategy.
Historically allied airpower was fairly awesome.
Even when the opponent does not have AA, it is not always a good tactic/strategy. You spend 8 points on a fighter to roll an extra 1 in some battles. NOt the most efficient use of your production.
When your opponent does have AA it rapidly becomes unproductive, except if you have so many planes you don't care if you lose them.
I made a suggestion somewhere for including Mech AA units. AA units that could fire their AA shots even on the attack.
I think the problem is overblown. There is a counter strategy, build AA. Also, the strategy/tactic of tons of air units is not neccessarily so great in may instances any way.
Somewhat ridiculous that someone is building like no air units throughout much/all of the game anyway.
If you added mech AA units you could counter the problem for defense as well as offense. Possibly even allow existing AA/88's tof ire on tha attack, as 1's let's say.
In big battles with a lot of AA somone has been facing the loss of 1 or 2 planes per round of combat. In general no one can sustain such losses for long except for the western allies, and then even they have limitations, and multiple demands Norther Europe, Souther Europe, strategic bombing, asia...
It depends on how awesome you believe airpower was historically.
If you fire 18 fighters at 1 to get 3 infantry, that's 144 points of production to kill 3 ingantry (9 points) per turn? so 16 turns to brak even on PP, and it probably cost you 16 infantry (48) PP. Not a bad exchange ratio for the Western Allies. Not really doable by anyone else.
I think their should be some reward for gaining massive air superiority. I thinks its OK the way it is, and if I would make a change it would be to allow the attacker to make AA shots.
May be allow the attackers AA to fire from the second round on? Allow ground supporting ships to provide AA cover to invasions...
I have not been observing directly smckenzie but are you not the one with Britain that has been doing the massive air attacks?
At least that is what I thought I heard being said Friday.
So of course not borken... :P
Sean
-
I was notorious for using german airpower against the russians.
Forrest/me have been building russian AA guns, and Forrest builds the red air force, and so I have not been doing this for some time.
My feelings have been that the Western Allies have too many fighters..doing too little.
Forrest and I have been building fewer fighters and sending more to asia.
However, in recent games the European Axis had largely given up on really fighting the air war by the time of the invasion of russia, and typically britain by itself had gained air superiority in europe before the US entered the war.
In our current game Britain is under a lot of pressure, and it has been my contention that failing to press england largely dooms the axis. Piles of british ground units/transports force the euro-axis to defend the west and mute the attack on russia.
Right now forrest has been (eropean axis) building fighters both ge/it, he attacked with his ge fleet, built subs...I will probably lose egypt, but with average luck probably hold him in Sinai. We still have not rolled for sweden, much less turkey et al, I feel that he would need both to really win the game. Just 1 I can handle. I see little chance that he can invade russia with much. I reckon he will have approximately the same number of units as the russians. He can not move his air out of the med without losing the med, and I could probably take it anyway, If I am willing to take massive losses to my fleet.
In any case, the allied position in asia will be about the worst it has ever been, and he will probably not be defending western europe strongly in 1942 because most of the british army is in the med, and I will probably be tied up salvaging the med, and fending off the japanese. I am building 2 us carriers pre-war, andthe japanese strategy has been to avoid major losses in china, and so those are my advantages in asia.
The big plus for the allies in this game is russia. I doubt he will get far. I expect russian production to stabilise at like 80+. Getting sweden would just slow my counter offensive, it would take turkey also to really threaten russia. I don't even fear a japanes attack, that would be a mistake...it would just save india/australia et al...which will be very vulnerable because of all the brit units in the med.
I misplayed the french and the axis got somewhat lucky in this game, resulting in the fall of france on T3 with relatively few axis losses, but this cost the axis much of the ge and it fleets. The subs and the resources sent to the med, are ultimately not in Russia. The allies are way short ground units and just keeping up in terms of planes with the euro-axis (which means the japanese will be in good shape), but the allied navy is in great shape...I am wussing out in terms of exposing it unprotected to axis land based air....possibly a mistake...we shall see...
-
This sounds like a really good game. . . you guys should take and post a few pics so we can see some of the action!
-
Pics would be great- I would like to see the "whole picture"!
-
Perhaps not the right place for this post...but...
This may well be the best game we have had for a while.
My contention is the Axis need to do 'something"...or face inevitable defeat when the allies stabilise their line outproducing the axis 3+:2 and eventually crush them.
My opponent and I had been discussing the option of capturing Souther France with the Italians and then getting the GE mech units in their to hold it. He (euro axis) implemented that strategy and I blew it as the allies...did not follow my own advice, which is basically weaken the maginot line defence to avoid this. My expectation in the discussion stage was that the allies would need to weaken their defence of the rhine, and so things would turn out somewhat better for the Axis.
We have been working on not conquering belg/Holl, as this makes the german defense of the west much easier.
I've tried the cross rhine attack on T3 and T2, but other than getting lucky it has not really been good, and even in the games where I got lucky the Axis lost.
We'll need to play another game where someone defends France much better than I did to see what the real merit of all this is.
Even so, I believe the Allies are awesome, and expect I will win, perhaps not easily, if neither Sweden nor Turkey enter the war, and expect I will win if just one does, and still have chance if both do.
Unfortunately, we are we up here in the relentless darkness and freezing cold of Alaska, and so a fairly small group, and so limited strategy innovation taking place, but in so far as I see things..the allies largely stay out of ground combat except for France and China til after US entry. Then they stabilise...then they pick away at the axis fringe and conduct SW and eventually they are overwhelmingly powerful and crush the axis.
We've only played 1 previous game where I got to play all 3 Allied powers and test this out, and I did win. See what happens this time. The axis position is one of the best I have seen, but I just don't think it is enough, and better play on my part in France would have made a big difference.
Much of what I am doing follows advice from here on the site. With the us builing 10 Inf and 4 arm each turn, the euro-axis must divert substantial forces to prevent an invasion in early 43...by mid-43 almost certainly he'll be diverting forces to defend northern germany!!!
In asia...make sure you place inf on all those islands as speed bumps to the japanese...send allied air to keep small japanese forces in check...destroy the It fleet and get the brits into asia...get the US fleet out facing off with the japanese to slow them...with 2 cv built prewar and two more CA and 4 more DD you should be able top more than match the japanese by the end of 42...
How are people winning with the Axis?
Based on what I have seen, the Axis wins have pretty much been due to allied errors.
-
The main way that we have seen for European Axis runaway wins is if the UK stumbles.
There is little room for error when playing as the UK in the early part of the game. If the subs can keep the UK PPs down, in combination with good Axis work in the Med., then the Italians and Germans can break out into the Middle East.
Once that happens, things are out of hand before the US is even in the war.
But if the UK can hang on by doing just enough in the Atlantic and in Egypt, the pendulum will swing back into the Allies hands by 1942.
-
The Axis took Egypt but only got 2 points for Spain. Sweden did not activate. The Axis lost the battle for Sinaia, which at start was a fairly close battle, but he was totally spanked in R1. After that I crunched the IT fleet and with relatively little loss. The Luftwaffe was badly damageg from Air to sea AA, and the Kriegsmarine finished off by the Red Air Force. The Russians did not lose a space on the first turn of invasion. That's where the Ge player decided he had it. Probably could have extended the game for a while, would have been nice to see what the Japanese would have done, this is the 3rd time we put it away without Japan doing much, but I had 2 US pre-war cv built and could no transfer the CW fleet to asia, mop up in NA, and by the time that was done the russians would probably already hold warsaw and the allies would be ready to invade france....oh well, guess we'll try again.