Messages

76

General Discussion / Re: Some thinking on Naval Movement

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:34:25 AM »

 

I don't know.  I think you may be missing the bigger picture here.  I have given this a lot of thought since I first saw this post.

"Better simulation of Naval Movement" may not be the best goal. 

This game is basically a hugely improved version of Axis & Allies, with trade offs of longer play times for improved realism and historical simulation.  That is a balancing act.  I would love to play a big game of Europa, but I don't have an empty airplane hanger for the map or 8 friends who can take a month off to play with me.  So, your two games are an excellent alternative.

When I think of WW2 naval engagements, I think of the Bismarck hiding in the thick fog off of the coast of Norway, trying to avoid the high seas fleet.  Or the desperate battles of UBoats vs convoys and escorts, or the dash of the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst up the English Channel.

In the Pacific, it is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  The constant hunting for the enemy, hoping to spot his carriers before he spotted yours, the battles of Midway, or the nighttime raids up the Slot in Guadalcanal.

What you REALLY want to recreate is the excitement of those kind of things.

In the European and Mediterranean theaters, increasing the movement to 4 makes sense.

I would replace the "Snap Fire" rules with an Interception system, instead.  Say, add the number of ships trying to intercept, to the number of ships trying to "slip by", and roll that on a d12 or less to successfully intercept.  It would be easier to slip past a few pursuers with a few ships than to have two Giant Fleets slip past each other.  You could add planes that can exert a ZOC into the interception sea zone to the roll.  You have one or two places that have modifiers, like the North Sea.

In the Pacific, I would almost suggest a Fleet Marker system, with a certain number of "Dummy" fleets available.  You could have search rolls to determine what is or is not inside of a fleet marker.  I would almost suggest specific long-range search planes added to the mix, like Catalinas and Mavis and Emily Flying boats.

Just some random thoughts...

77

Rules Questions & Clarifications / German Infantry

« on: February 05, 2013, 04:29:32 AM »

Two quick questions about German Infantry:

#1 - It does not explicitly state whether German Infantry is ever considered "motorized".  It mentions the US, Russia and Britain, but not Germany.  I assume this means no.  I know the German Army still used a lot of horse-drawn equipment early in the war, but I am unsure of their status later in the war, say 42 or 43 on.

#2 - The Spring 42 Conversion.  In most cases, when a given country has to change the quality of their infantry (Japan, once at war with US) these represent downgrades in training, equipment, etc, and both types get to exist side by side.  Is this true of the German Infantry?  In most other games I have played, the German "Re-organization" of their army structure happened across the map.  By this I mean that not only did newly created Infantry Divisions get the new structure, but existing divisions in the field were re-organized, too.  I do not read any mention of this in the rules, other than what appears on the build chart.

What say you?

78

General Discussion / Re: Some thinking on Naval Movement

« on: January 20, 2013, 05:17:50 PM »

Okay Guys,

I rather think I like the new rules.  I have been giving some thought to this, ever since I first saw this post.

However, your example raises a question / contradiction:

In principle:
ALL pieces that do not move strategically get one offensive action per combat phase (i.e., fight in a multi-round battle, , strat warfare, deliver amphib attacks or do a single snapfire).You get as many defensive actions (ASW, AA) as your opponent dictates by his attacks against you.

Your example is about a German Fleet that rushes out (moves strategically) to raid a convoy.  However, that contradicts your basic rule (simply put: move tactically to attack something, strategically if you are not going to).  You specifically list Strategic Warfare as one of the offensive actions you get to take, IF YOU DO NOT MOVE STRATEGICALLY

In the Pacific game I have been messing about with, I have been using Strategic Movement to reposition fleets, to set them up for the next turns offensive actions.

The having to return to port at the end of NCM is a good addition.  It keeps fleets from lurking about for 6-9 months at a time.  It also nips in the bud my cute little tactic of building 5 or 6 Japanese Submarines and parking them off the coast of California. (Dang!)

A suggestion:  It you implement the tender rules for the Germans, add a special unit to the German Build List: The "Milsch Cow".  The German purpose built resupply and refueling submarines.

Just a thought.

79

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Submarines and ZOC's

« on: September 29, 2012, 06:48:49 AM »

 

Just a quick clarification:  I THINK I know how this works, but I want to make sure.

Surface warships control the Sea Zone they are in.  In addition, Cruisers and Aircraft control Adjacent Sea Zones (their Zone of Control).

Submarines:

Submarines may freely move (both tactically and strategically) through enemy occupied sea zones as well as enemy ZOCs without initiating combat. Likewise, enemy naval units may move freely through enemy submarine occupied sea zones (both tactically and strategically) without initiating combat.

Reading from this, Submarines do not actually control the Sea Zone they are in.  They may attack units that move through (Movement Interdiction Combat), but they do not control the sea zone.

Supply -

You may not trace supply through Sea Zones that are controlled by the enemy.  The rules repeatedly state "Surface Naval Units" as blocking supply, over and over again.

So, my read is that Submarines, by themselves, DO NOT BLOCK SUPPLY.

Is this correct?

80

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Advanced Pacific Game

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:19:58 AM »

I would agree with Mark, I think.

Since Japanese DD's could only carry 1 Inf, you would actually need 2 for anything useful (1 for Inf, 1 for Landing Craft).

One less Single Country Only rule might be nice.

Besides, I have not yet done a longer game, but I am thinking my Destroyers are all going to be busy trying to keep those pesky US subs out of my convoy boxes...

Since I have opined about Single Country Only rules...

What about Mark 14 torpedoes?  I myself am torn about this issue.  They were horrible during the early part of the war, missing or not detonating, or detonating too early.  Reading up on the issue a little, it seems they did not get this corrected until Winter 43-44, which is long enough for it to actually have an effect on the war.

A -1 on their to hit rolls, and 1d3 instead of 1d6 Economic Warfare would seem to cover it, but is it really worth it?  I mean, one more temporary, One Country Only rule...

Like I said, I am torn.

81

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Advanced Pacific Game

« on: September 24, 2012, 06:53:51 AM »

In any Games where Japanese Destroyers can transport troops, it is always at a lower capacity, and Infantry only.

So, if I were to guess, it would be 1 Inf.

And, the Japanese have such pathetic AA anyway, I imagine it would be still at its (1 AA) value.

82

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Front Line Unit Types

« on: September 22, 2012, 03:51:07 PM »

 

Very Clear and Concise.

83

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Front Line Unit Types

« on: September 21, 2012, 01:10:39 PM »

 

This is going to sound really stupid, but I have read through the rules pretty thoroughly, and do not see this information anywhere: 

What constitutes a "Front Line" unit?

I realize I have played nearly 2 years of a nasty war in China running on assumptions, and I think I did a pretty good job, but there are some "fuzzy" bits.  Here is my "interpretation", for lack of a better word:

All Infantry types are considered Front Line, remembering the special rules around Paratroops the first round they are dropped.

All Mechanized Infantry and Panzer Grenadier units are Front Line units.

All Armor Types are Front Line units.  - Except, here is the first "fuzzy" area.   What about StuG's?  Assault Guns?  Are the Front Line (they are listed as having Armor Effects, so my assumption is yes.  They were used a Tank Destroyers more often that Support Guns, and Support Guns were used up close and personal like, anyway).  Do they have an option?  Could they be deployed as Support Units?

My assumption is that SP artillery would be considered Support Units, but again, I just a little unclear on this.

AA Guns and German 88's get a Special Mention:

Resolve Anti-Aircraft Combat
If the attacker or defender has anti-aircraft guns or '88's with an AA value, they may elect to deploy them in front line or in support anti-aircraft mode. An unlimited number of AA units may be deployed as support units.
<break>
AA guns and 88’s may fire at ground units in the normal ground combat phase as front line ground units instead of deployed to fire during the anti-aircraft phase.  AA guns have a defense value of “3” and 88’s defend in ground combat with a value of “6* or less” (and 88’s are considered AT guns when inflicting casualties.

And that leads me to believe that AT guns are Front Line Units, as well.

All Artillery are Support Units (with the confusion about StuG's).  Does that count Katusha's as well?

It is my suggestion that you put together a small chart, in the Ground Combat area of the rules, laying out which units fall into what category, and listing any "either/or" units you wish.

PS: I want to state how much I REALLY like this combat system.  It solves a number of problems with the A&A "Dogpile" combat, and incorporates several really nifty combat options from the Europa style of combat, without going to the 3:1 combat charts.

84

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Weather effects in the Pacific

« on: September 17, 2012, 05:42:47 PM »

 

Ha!  I just noticed it says pretty much this right on the first page of the Pacific rules!  No wonder I could not find it further in...

85

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Air vs Naval Combat (i.e.: Pearl Harbor)

« on: September 17, 2012, 05:40:54 PM »

So,

I feel very comfortable with the Combat system, for the most part.  It is fun and fast, and leads to a lot of "nail biting".

I understand how aircraft are used in combination with ground combat, with a round of Air-to-Air combat prior to arranging units on the Ground Battle Chart.

I feel pretty confidant about naval battles, as well.

What I am NOT 100% about is Carrier Battle, where a raid is launched from an adjacent sea zone, like the Pearl Harbor raid.

Is it limited to a single attack round, instead of the normal 4?  I read where as long as there are combat ships still in contact with each other, nothing REQUIRES someone to retreat from the battle.  But that is just it.  This is NOT a battle.  It is an Air Raid.  There are NO ships in contact.

At this point, I would interpret the rules to state that only a single round of Air Raid is permitted, but I would like your interpretation of this, as well.

86

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Weather effects in the Pacific

« on: September 13, 2012, 08:14:02 AM »

 

I added this to my local Pacific Rules:

Weather
Winter effects are limited to Russia, Korea, Japan, Canada, Alaska, the non-jungle areas of China, and the mountains of India. No other area of the Pacific map is affected by Winter.

The Canada and Alaska references are a little silly, but I was trying to be thorough.  It is however, very relevant for fighting in Southern China, near Shanghai, and on down through French Indo-China and into Burma.

87

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Timing in Battles

« on: September 12, 2012, 04:07:32 PM »

 

Enjoying this a lot.

I understand that forces that enter a battle on different chit draws fight at different times.  The first troops to engage in battle are "Front Line" with later "reinforcements" starting in the reserves.  No problem there.  Clean system, works well.

What about forces that enter on the SAME chit draw, but from different directions?  Are they all "Front Line"?  This is particularly relevant to breaking out of encirclements, when the escaping force is being aided by a relieving force (or, in the case I am looking at, 3 relieving forces)

?

88

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Re: Advanced Pacific Game

« on: September 11, 2012, 10:52:32 AM »

Thanks Mark,

I am having a lot of fun playing with this.  I have been reading this forums, and applying answers you have posted to other people's questions, but I do have some follow ups.  I understand that this is a "Work in Progress" and some elements may be left over from earlier drafts.

Counter Errata:

I understand from the rules and posts here that Japanese Carriers (both Light and Fleet) have only 1 hit, due to poor damage control and wooden flight decks, and such stuff.  The "(2 Hits)" marked on the Fleet Carriers is a mistake.

In that vein - Some Destroyers have "ASW 5" written on them (some do not).  I am assuming this is a "left over".  The ASW Defense tables are only concerned with how many destroyers.  Values for ASW Hunter/Killer attacks are listed with 2 values, one for early war, and one for '43 and later.

Also, at no point anywhere does it mention that Japanese Destroyers may transport Infantry.  Is this deliberate?  Or an oversight?

 

89

Rules Questions & Clarifications / Advanced Pacific Game

« on: September 10, 2012, 07:25:38 AM »

 

When trying new games, I will sometimes break them down into more “bite-sized” pieces, to help me understand the rules.

With that in mind, I have started playing a 1939 game of Japan vs. China.  I am striving to keep it inside the larger context of Japan's total war effort.  I make sure I advance the Fleet Carrier that is in production, and build Elite Zero and Naval Bomber pieces to adorn its flight decks once it launches.  But, I am putting a majority of my finances into bringing the “Mainland Problem” under control.

There may be only 1 VP up for grabs in China (Chunking) but there is 10PP worth of territories that can be claimed, even ignoring Hong Kong for the moment. (That is a 40% increase in my basic economy.  Oh yeah I am going for that!)

BTW – I really Love/Hate the addition of Terrain to the map.  I love it because it really adds to the difficulty of dealing with the Chinese up in the mountains, and jungles and such, which, as the Japanese Player, is also why I hate it...

Some Questions / Clarifications to the rules:

Communist China
Communist China operates differently from other nations in the game.  They do not count up production points like other nations, instead, Communist China receives one 2-3 infantry unit every in turn in any controlled territory.  Chinese units are always in supply.  Communist Chinese units may never voluntarily retreat from a territory (but may voluntarily retreat after the first round of combat if attacked). In addition to the one 2-3 infantry Communist China receives during the place builds phase every turn, any vacant territory in mainland China (not Hong Kong or Manchuria) also receives one extra infantry unit for free.

Now, I am reading the bit that says
“Communist Chinese units may never voluntarily retreat from a territory (but may voluntarily retreat after the first round of combat if attacked).”
as REALLY meaning
“The Communist Chinese Player may not push all of his units up front, so as to grow new, free units in his rear areas.” 

Am I right about that?

Also, a clarification about the Commonwealth:

If playing the Pacific theater only, British & Commonwealth production starts both the 1939 and 1941 game with 20PP.  However, these PP may not be spent once the Western Allies are at war with Japan. The build units phase after Britain/CW are at war with Japan, the British AP player may spend the 20PP and the collect income for those on-board and off-board production points that are in supply as per the normal collect income rules.

I am guessing that it should read “However, these PP may not be spent UNTIL the Western Allies are at war with Japan."

I am further assuming that means no Lend-Lease to the Chinese until War with Japan.

90

Game Design / Question about German Builds

« on: September 02, 2012, 08:51:43 AM »

I have been poking around these forums for awhile now, reading after action reports, and looking at a lot of the great design and thought that went into this game.

So, I have a question about the German builds:

Why no Light Armor?  Say, 3+3, 5*/4, representing Panzer III's?

I realize the German chart is already Armor heavy, with Panzers, Hvy Panzers, SS Panzers, Stug's, etc et al ad nauseum...

Was the decision made to represent the "Shock and Awe" of the early Blitzkrieg?  Or did you just not want to deal with swapping out Panzer IV's for Panzer III's?

As a History buff and game designer myself, I am genuinely curious.

Wolf