Show Posts
1
Game Design / Re: Optional Naval Rules
« on: July 04, 2007, 03:59:28 PM »
Hi, I am one of the core Play Testers of the game!
This Naval ZOC idea was at one time the rules we were using in the game. We also played with Battleships having ZOC's on and off in games.
We ran into 3 problems! 1: Having a hard time in blocking naval strategic movement of enemy fleets moving into what would be historically your sides strategically controlled sea area and getting behined your fleet and trapping it.
2: There are 2 chock points for supply one off of Africa and one in the Pacific east of Austraila that once it is learened with a heavy Africa commitment by the Axis will put most of the Pacific map out of supply for the Allies. This was the straw that broke the camels back that cauesed the ZOC rules to be dropped last time and was replaced with the control counter (marker) way. 3: With so few ships having ZOC's tracing supply can end up funcky like the Philipines, American units all of a sudden being in supply by tracing a supply path through the Sea of Japan to Alaska. This did happen in our play test games! We also at this time had Japan building 3 Fighters instead of 2. 3: Having 1 enemy Aircraft or Cruiser keeping a Land Area out of supply no matter how powerfull of fleet is next to the ZOC supply blocked sea zone.
Note: When all get used to the current ZOC rules you will all see the above problems.
In the current game control marker way all combat ships trail control markers behind them when they tactically move! Why should not all combat ships have ZOC's ? Except Carriers without Aircraft - No ZOC !
There should be 2 types of ZOC's, Strategic Movment Interdiction and Supply Interdiction. All combat ships should have ZOC's ! Any time strategically moveing ships enter a enemy Strategic Interdiction ZOC it ends strategic naval movement. {Hard ZOC !} When checking supply if both side's have Supply Interdiction ZOC's in a empty or with only Transports or Subs in a sea zone then they cancel each others Supply Interdiction and both sides can trace supply through the sea zone. {Soft ZOC !} Also when tracing supply through sea zones the maximum leangth that can be traced through sea zones is half of the strategic movment of the side of the map you are on, to a in supply land area or a convoy sea zone. (Atlantic side 5 sea zones and Pacific 4 sea zones.)
Note: There has been a long debate in are play test group when using ZOC's as how to look at a Sea Zone when tracing supply! 1: When tracing supply through a sea zone to look at it as though you are trying to get supply tactically through the Solomon Slot etc... Thus needing a Hard ZOC! {Not my view!} 2: When tracing supply through sea zones to look at it strategically that the sea zone is a large area of the earth and if you contol only say 20% of it you are shipping supply through a area larger than Britian if not France plus.
When both sides have Supply Interdiction Zone of Control over a empty sea zone the Supply ZOC's are cancelled, it is contested with each side in control of say 20% to 80% of the empty sea zone. {Soft ZOC !} Note: Also you can not Strategically move through a contested sea zone.
We for over half of the time we have been play testing the game had 3 tactical sea zone moves through the Pacific! I have always believed it to be the best! Remember your screening and blocking squadron tactics! 1 Cruiser or Destroyer equals a squadron! One of the reason we have 4 tactical sea zone move on the Atlantic side was to make sure that a Torch Invasion could be launched from America, but that almost is now irelavent in the game. We were also showing on the tactical side the diffrent sizes of Sea Zone areas of both sides of the map. With so few combat ships in the game you can not realy split your fleets up to cover everything you could in history so being able to move the 4 sea zones lets you to still have the same ability to cover what you could in history.
* Note: I have designed a D12 version of the game that John and I have been play testing and the above type ZOC rules that I have talked about are being play tested so far working OK, but needs more play testing to be sure.
You will fined that you very much may need a 4 tactical sea zone move for Torch in the D12 version. You also have larger Fleets based on historical fleets using a diffrent conversion!
Spliting up your Fighters in Naval Combats sounds good to play test. The biggest problem I see is one side has 2 Fighters and the other side has 10 Fighters with both sides always being able to attack ships. This may be ok or not ? Should we allow Aircraft designated to be in Air to Air combat of the side that is larger after matching up 1 for 1 to the smaller side, then to attack the smaller sides ship attacking Fighters with there extra Air to Air Fighters? Would this just always set up the smaller side in fighter strength to always have its Fighter strength to be smashed? Let us see what play testing will show us!
Per: General Joe
This Naval ZOC idea was at one time the rules we were using in the game. We also played with Battleships having ZOC's on and off in games.
We ran into 3 problems! 1: Having a hard time in blocking naval strategic movement of enemy fleets moving into what would be historically your sides strategically controlled sea area and getting behined your fleet and trapping it.
2: There are 2 chock points for supply one off of Africa and one in the Pacific east of Austraila that once it is learened with a heavy Africa commitment by the Axis will put most of the Pacific map out of supply for the Allies. This was the straw that broke the camels back that cauesed the ZOC rules to be dropped last time and was replaced with the control counter (marker) way. 3: With so few ships having ZOC's tracing supply can end up funcky like the Philipines, American units all of a sudden being in supply by tracing a supply path through the Sea of Japan to Alaska. This did happen in our play test games! We also at this time had Japan building 3 Fighters instead of 2. 3: Having 1 enemy Aircraft or Cruiser keeping a Land Area out of supply no matter how powerfull of fleet is next to the ZOC supply blocked sea zone.
Note: When all get used to the current ZOC rules you will all see the above problems.
In the current game control marker way all combat ships trail control markers behind them when they tactically move! Why should not all combat ships have ZOC's ? Except Carriers without Aircraft - No ZOC !
There should be 2 types of ZOC's, Strategic Movment Interdiction and Supply Interdiction. All combat ships should have ZOC's ! Any time strategically moveing ships enter a enemy Strategic Interdiction ZOC it ends strategic naval movement. {Hard ZOC !} When checking supply if both side's have Supply Interdiction ZOC's in a empty or with only Transports or Subs in a sea zone then they cancel each others Supply Interdiction and both sides can trace supply through the sea zone. {Soft ZOC !} Also when tracing supply through sea zones the maximum leangth that can be traced through sea zones is half of the strategic movment of the side of the map you are on, to a in supply land area or a convoy sea zone. (Atlantic side 5 sea zones and Pacific 4 sea zones.)
Note: There has been a long debate in are play test group when using ZOC's as how to look at a Sea Zone when tracing supply! 1: When tracing supply through a sea zone to look at it as though you are trying to get supply tactically through the Solomon Slot etc... Thus needing a Hard ZOC! {Not my view!} 2: When tracing supply through sea zones to look at it strategically that the sea zone is a large area of the earth and if you contol only say 20% of it you are shipping supply through a area larger than Britian if not France plus.
When both sides have Supply Interdiction Zone of Control over a empty sea zone the Supply ZOC's are cancelled, it is contested with each side in control of say 20% to 80% of the empty sea zone. {Soft ZOC !} Note: Also you can not Strategically move through a contested sea zone.
We for over half of the time we have been play testing the game had 3 tactical sea zone moves through the Pacific! I have always believed it to be the best! Remember your screening and blocking squadron tactics! 1 Cruiser or Destroyer equals a squadron! One of the reason we have 4 tactical sea zone move on the Atlantic side was to make sure that a Torch Invasion could be launched from America, but that almost is now irelavent in the game. We were also showing on the tactical side the diffrent sizes of Sea Zone areas of both sides of the map. With so few combat ships in the game you can not realy split your fleets up to cover everything you could in history so being able to move the 4 sea zones lets you to still have the same ability to cover what you could in history.
* Note: I have designed a D12 version of the game that John and I have been play testing and the above type ZOC rules that I have talked about are being play tested so far working OK, but needs more play testing to be sure.
You will fined that you very much may need a 4 tactical sea zone move for Torch in the D12 version. You also have larger Fleets based on historical fleets using a diffrent conversion!
Spliting up your Fighters in Naval Combats sounds good to play test. The biggest problem I see is one side has 2 Fighters and the other side has 10 Fighters with both sides always being able to attack ships. This may be ok or not ? Should we allow Aircraft designated to be in Air to Air combat of the side that is larger after matching up 1 for 1 to the smaller side, then to attack the smaller sides ship attacking Fighters with there extra Air to Air Fighters? Would this just always set up the smaller side in fighter strength to always have its Fighter strength to be smashed? Let us see what play testing will show us!
Per: General Joe