Author Topic: Miscellaneous rules ideas  (Read 3445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

derdiktator

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Miscellaneous rules ideas
« on: April 14, 2006, 06:25:14 AM »
The following are my replies to some design ideas Mark was floating around and which I thought might interest folks.  Marks stuff is lower case and mine is in caps.  Note that Mark's comments are actually from two emails I merged together.

dd


At 07:08 PM 4/5/2006, mark melenovsky wrote:
It really does not matter if China can build planes and artillery...

AGREED.


We can continue to let Stukas and Sturmoviks pick their targets - I guess this adds a little flair to the game after all.

DOUBLY AGREED.  EVEN THOUGH STUKAS UNDER MY COMMAND ALWAYS DIE PREMATURE AND HORRIBLE DEATHS, I STILL LIKE THE EFFECT (IGNORING JOHN'S TECHNIQUE OF BUILDING 2 MILLION OF THEM, NOT WITHSTANDING)


Surrounded units are all -1 including infantry: morale of the story: don't get surrounded - which is the whole reason we made the supply rules to begin with.

TRIPLY AGREED!


Two hit carriers. . . still thinking this one over. . . How about this: 
Brit, German,Italian carriers cost 4,4,4,4 carry one plane, but take two hits to sink.  Jap carriers cost 4,4,4,4 carry 2 planes but only one hit to sink.  US carriers cost 5,5,5,5 carry two planes and take two hits to sink. 
light carriers cost 4,4,4 carry one plane and take one hit.  I think I may like this - let me know what you think.

I SORT OF LIKE THIS ONE, BUT HAVE TO QUESTION IF THE EXTRA COMPLICATION IS REALLY WORTH IT (REMEMBERING WHICH CARRIERS ARE ONE-HIT VERSUS TWO-HIT).


OK, new item on the table for debate:   James said something long ago which has had me thinking lately.  Something about the Pacific theater is still not quite right. 

I AGREE THE PACIFIC IS STILL NOT QUITE RIGHT, BUT IT IS MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN IT WAS.  IN FACT, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO STRETCH A POINT OR TWO, THE LAST TWO BANG-UPS BETWEEN MARK AND ME IN THE PACIFIC REALLY WERE "ISLAND HOPPING CAMPAIGNS", BUT JUST WITHOUT ANY DECISVE KNOCK-DOWN-DRAG-OUT BATTLES.  AS THE JAP PLAYER, I KEPT "GRACEFULLY" STEPPING BACK OUT OF HARM'S WAY AS MARK BULLIED HIS WAY FORWARD, ISLAND BY ISLAND, IN MID-TO-LATE 1943.  OF COURSE, HE WASN'T SUFFICIENT A BULLY TO QUICKLY ENOUGH SAVE THE ALLIES FROM LOSING ANYWAY... :))

What if we did something like this:
territory worth 0PP: can only airfield 1 plane
territory worth 1PP: can airfield 3 planes
territory worth 2PP: can airfiled 6 planes
Territory worth 3PP: can airfield 8 planes, etc.
Territory worth 4pp+ unlimitted.
Additionally, anyone can build an airfield for the cost of like 2pp which increases the airfield capacity of a territory by 2 planes.

Would this capture the war in the Pacific better?  Make carriers a bt more important too?  What does this do to battles in the European theater.  At first thought, I kind of like this idea - but I don't know.

I ALSO SORT OF LIKE THE IDEA OF LIMITING PLANE BASING, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY LOTS OF UNINTNEDED ISSUES AND DIFFICULTIES.  HOW ABOUT SAYING THAT ISLANDS LOCATED BETWEEN SEA ZONE BOUNDARIES AND WITH ZERO PP CAN ONLY BASE ONE PLANE, AND EACH FORT INCREASES CAPACITY BY TWO ADDITIONAL PLANES?  HOWEVER, I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT PLACING PLANE BASING LIMITS ON ANYTHING AS I EXPECT IT IS GAURANTEED TO SCREW THE JAPS, WHO I THINK HAVE AN INNATE LOSING POSITION TO BEGIN WITH.  HOWEVER, LIMITS IN SOME FORM MIGHT KEEP THAT HUNDRED THOUSAND FIGHTER PLANE JAP AIR FORCE THAT I BUILD PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR FROM CAUSING THE WEIRDNESSES THAT IT DOES.


OK, forget my airbase idea for now. . . .

I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME MERIT TO SOME FORM OF AIR BASE LIMITATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE PACIFIC.  IN THINKING A BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT SEEMS TO BE MAKING THINGS NOT QUITE RIGHT IN THE PACIFIC, I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO COST TO CONCENTRATING EVERYTHING IN ONE PLACE AND NO COST IN MASSIVE STRATEGIC MOVEMENT OF 100% OF EVERYTHING FREELY AROUND THE PACIFIC.  SINCE THERE ARE NO COSTS, THERE IS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO CONCENTRATE EVERYTHING IN ONE PLACE BY WHICH EVER SIDE IS THE STRONGER SO AS TO GUARANTEE BEING ABLE TO OVERWHELM THE OPPONENT AT THE DECISVE PIECE OF GEOGRAPHY ON ANY PARTICULAR TURN.  IT IS THIS CHEAP CONCENTRATION IN ONE PLACE WHICH IS THE REAL CULPRIT MAKING THINGS NOT QUITE RIGHT IN THE PACIFIC, OR SO I SUSPECT.  PLACING BASING LIMITS ON SMALL ISLANDS (I.E., ONE'S WITHOUT PP), MIGHT FORCE AT LEAST THE PLANES TO BE SPREAD OUT MORE.  THIS SHOULD SERVE TO MAKE ATTACKING AN ISOLATED ISLAND LESS POTENTIALLY LETHAL TO DOUBLE-HIT CARRIERS.  JAP CARRIERS COMING IN DEFENSE OF AMERICAN ASSAULTS WOULD ALSO BE CRITICAL FOR COUNTER-BALANCE (AND WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IF ONE CAN SIMPLY FLY IN AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OF DEFENDING JAP FIGHTERS TO KEEP THE AMERICANS IN CHECK). 

I FOR ONE WOULDN'T MIND SEEING THE USA AND JAP PLAYER TRYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THIS COMING WEEKEND (I.E., ISLANDS WITH NO PP CAN HOLD ONE (TWO?) PLANE(S), AND FORTS INCREASE BASING CAPACITY).  I DO WORRY THAT THIS MIGHT MAKE THE PACIFIC COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE FOR THE JAPS, BUT WHO KNOWS?


But these two I think I would like to try:

Paratroopers can paradrop on the Mech phase provided they and the bomber that convey them do not move during the regular movement phase (don't know why I did not think of this earlier).

MAKING PARATROOPERS MORE INTERESTING IS A WORTHY GOAL, I THINK.  HOWEVER, ALLOWING MECH PARA DROPS COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE HOW THINGS WORK ON THE EASTERN FRONT.  THEN AGAIN, AS I THINK THROUGH VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN MY MIND, YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES MIGHT NOT INHERENTLY AFFECT ANYTHING AND CERTAINLY MIGHT SERVE TO OPEN UP SOME ASPECTS OF THE GAME (SUCH AS MECH ATTACKS).  AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, MECH MOVEMENT IS USED FAR MORE OFTEN TO MECH FRIENDLY THAN IT IS TO MECH ATTACK BECAUSE MECH ATTACKING IS USUALLY TOO RISKY, PARTICULARLY FOR GERMANS.


Another one I think would improve the overall role of paratroopers in the game is this: They only hit on a "2 or less" on the turn they are dropped. 
But, on a "4 or less" they still secure bridges and their objectives, doing away with the river and amphib penalty.

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.


I like both of these - and maybe willing to try them on Saturday.

Also, I think we should stick with the last carrier rules.

I DON'T THINK THE CARRIER RULES CHANGES YOU'VE PROPOSED MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  I THINK DOUBLE-HIT CARRIERS SIMPLY MEAN THAT (A PROPERLY PLAYED) USA MIGHT BE WILLING TO BE A TAD MORE AGRESSIVE WITH CARRIERS, BUT THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS NOT.  I THINK THE AIR BASE LIMITATION IDEA IS A BETTER BET.


boersma8

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Miscellaneous rules ideas
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2006, 11:34:14 PM »
How about:

infantry ALWAYS kill infantry ( unless no enemy infantry present) ( then other land-units, if no land units then planes or arguably, nothing....)

Other land-units that attack on 2+ get to choose which enemy LAND  unit is eliminated on rolls of 1.

Planes attacking land-units get to choose which one to eliminate on rules of 1. 

These are basically the rules from " A&A enhanced realism rules" to refelect more historical combat losses......

RandR

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Miscellaneous rules ideas
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2006, 05:05:00 PM »
I think 2 hits on a fleet carrier is appropriate as they were large enough tp absorb 1 torpedo hit or 1 shell hit, or 1 dive bomber hit & still float but they were usually crippled in speed or the ability to support aircraft or both. The escort carrier should disappear with 1 hit as they were smaller. Maybe something should be said for what caused the hit. Example: a battleship shot would cause much more damage than a destroyer shell. However, you want to keep the game on the simpler side so more what ifs(RULES) is not the way to go.  As for infantry only killing infantry until the enemy infantry is gone sounds like FORTRESS AMERICA rules which can be appropriate but infantry units, even in the squad or platoon size had some ability to tackle armor and even artillery if they were close enough. Maybe something like: the infantry will only fight infantry and which ever side has excess infantry, those excess units can then go after the non-infantry land units. As for airbases on small islands, the key word is small island. If there is a victory or production point there then maybe the limitation should match that # of victory points or production points. The point to remember here is that 1 aircraft represents a much larger number of aircraft. The 2 planes for a fleet carrier is representing roughly 75-100 aircraft of mixed types. Lots of variations available but to keep this game fun and not have it bog down is to keep it simple.

boersma8

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Miscellaneous rules ideas
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2007, 12:48:26 AM »
I agree with what you said about infantry being able to kill tanks and artillery: on the other hand, considering the scale of this and other games, it's unlikely that an infantry division would destroy a tank division........we're not talking about single tanks or a handful here......

And...infantry CAN kill other units when the enemy does not HAVE any infantry of his own. In other words: make sure you have infantry support for your tanks etc.

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Miscellaneous rules ideas
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2007, 12:41:45 PM »
Right  ;D

Certainly the defender would take his off of infantry first if he had infantry and if not - well then I guess you don't have any infantry helping support your tanks.

I think, for a game of this scale, the rules with armor effects and support units help promote the idea of combined arms pretty well.  Every piece is valuable depending on the situation you are in.

. . .well, I guess I don't see the US building that many AA guns or AT guns - but just about everything else has a place and a time. . .  ;D