-
3 Votes3 Posts1k Views
-
4 Votes8 Posts4k Views
-
0 Votes3 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes4 Posts850 Views
-
11 Votes303 Posts348k Views
-
3 Votes7 Posts2k Views
-
3 Votes4 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes15 Posts4k Views
-
2 Votes18 Posts4k Views
-
1 Votes1 Posts565 Views
-
0 Votes6 Posts2k Views
-
1 Votes4 Posts1k Views
-
0 Votes6 Posts1k Views
-
2 Votes76 Posts34k Views
-
2 Votes49 Posts20k Views
-
1 Votes2 Posts770 Views
-
0 Votes7 Posts1k Views
-
2 Votes32 Posts11k Views
-
4 Votes32 Posts15k Views
-
0 Votes19 Posts3k Views
Recent Posts
-
@Cernel I think you overthinking this. Remember that an air battle in TripleA is supposed to be the sum of numerous encounters, not a single sortie.
-
Why have you chosen to have it this way instead of having a specific starting time?
Well, the War of the Ring is the obvious candidate, but there was no Arnor or Angmar at that time, so all of Eriador would be practically empty. And that's not all, Dáin's Halls and Framsburg, for example, were also abandoned by that time, along with the surrounding areas. The dragons are also all but gone, Smaug being the last truly relevant one. The orcs in the north were also decimated in the Battle of Five Armies and the aftermath, to the point of irrelevance. So a War of the Ring map would be missing too much for my liking.
Sounds like having a secondary game for the map depicting the War of the Ring (maybe with a much over-powered Evil and a non-military victory condition for Good) would be very good as that would be the scenario which most people are interested in and would also provide an easier-to-learn reduced game. I guess doing that after having finished the main "all-times" game would only add a few percetage points of additional work beside the play-testing part for balance. Unfortunately, I cannot do or help with making that because my knowledge of Middle Earth is almost at average Joe level.
-
Okay. Claude is making a major change to this map now. It involves air combat.
What I like about air combat currently: it gives different roles to different aircraft types. Instead of "attack on a 4, defend on a 2" it is like this.
Dogfight stage: both sides' fighters fight each other, using their dogfight values.
Interception stage: surviving fighters attack enemy bombers. Fighters fire at their interception value, bombers fire at their air defense value.
AA guns fire
Bombers attack their targets. That could be strafing an army, attacking a naval target, or a strategic bombing raid.
Interesting, but I don't think it was actually quite working this way. If I understand correctly that dogfight (which was really more of a WW1 thing and much less of a WW2 thing) is something preliminary which involves every fighter, so the fighters surviving the dogfight are the only ones then also intercepting the bombers (Is there a limited combat round or can only the fighters of one side survive?), I think this is not much simulating WW2 aerial warfare. WW2 aerial warfare was much more linear and mostly consisted in intercepting fighters attacking the bombers while bomber-escorting fighters were attacking the fighters attacking the bombers (often in a punishing role rather than a pre-emptive one) and interceptor-escorting fighters were attacking the fighters attacking the fighters attacking the bombers, this going on then having fighters attacking the fighters attacking the fighters attacking the fighters attacking the bombers, and so on.
Practically, the typical fighter would not engage in dogfight but rather go directly for attacking the bomber (with a number of other fighters behind him and behind one another in a sort of a train) while hoping not to be shot down by the escorting fighters while doing so. After attacking the bomber, the fighter would dive (and make evasive manoeuvrers but mostly just relying on speeding up and getting the hell out in a mostly straight trajectory rather than going in circles like in WW1 dogfights) to try to survive the fighters attacking him while expecting friendly fighters following (escorting) him to attack from behind the fighters which are attacking him from behind.
(I'm not an expert, and this is just based on my general knowledge of WW2, so do not ask me to provide references to prove what I'm saying. Also, if an expert of WW2 aerial warfare comes here and says otherwise, I'm not going to say that I'm necessarily right.)
I would have it working more like this:
Let's assume a normal battle with the attacker having fighters and bombers and the defender also having fighters and bombers. To keep it simple, let's assume for now that there are fighters and bombers and no aircraft which can operate as either.
The attacker decides how many attacking fighters are intercepting (non-modifiable auto-selection to none of them or all of them respectively if the defender has only fighters or if the defender has only bombers). (The non-selected ones are escorting/dogfighting.) The defender decides how many defending fighters are intercepting (non-modifiable auto-selection to none of them or all of them respectively if the attacker has only fighters or if the defender has only bombers). (The non-selected ones are escorting/dogfighting.) The attacking intercepting fighters roll dice and one defending bomber is taken as casualty (not removed) for every hit. The defending intercepting fighters roll dice and one attacking bomber is taken as casualty (not removed) for every hit. The attacking bombers (comprising the ones taken as casualties) roll dice and one defending intercepting fighter is removed for every hit. Then the attacking bombers taken as casualties are removed. The defending bombers (comprising the ones taken as casualties) roll dice and one attacking intercepting fighter is removed for every hit. Then the defending bombers taken as casualties are removed. The attacking non-intercepting fighters roll dice and one defending fighter (either intercepting or not: it does not matter) is removed if it is an intercepting one or taken as casualty (not removed) if it is not an intercepting one for every hit. The defending non-intercepting fighters (comprising the ones taken as casualties) roll dice and one attacking fighter (either intercepting or not: it does not matter) is removed for every hit. Then the defending fighters taken as casualties are removed.Every fighter has an "anti-bomber" and "anti-fighter" strength. The former is used for fighters chosen or auto-selected as intercepting and the latter for the rest.
Of course, this is ignoring the jabos, and this is quite unacceptable, but I'm trying to keep it simple. Let's just not forget that rules for allowing fighters to load some bombs or rockets on their wings and/or belly are quite a necessary addition to what I just detailed. The added complexity about that is that such a fighter is able to go back being a fighter any time it wants by just dropping the bombs (though there are limits to this: it will not be as good as a pure fighter) and will most likely do so as soon as it is about to be attacked by other fighters or even as soon as it can see them coming. To some extent, also bombers can get rid of their bombs to defend themselves better and/or avoid going down after being damaged. Of course, you cannot add rules for everything: it will always be a trade-off between complexity and coverage.
This system is completely removing from the table the ability of fighters to prevent interceptors from attacking bombers, and I believe this is fine as such ability is minor. If wanted also to cover cases in which the air superiority of a side is so overwhelming that the other side cannot even get to attack the bombers because its fighters are shot down before reaching them, it would be possible to add an other layer by which you can select fighters as either intercepting or sweeping (The non-selected ones are escorting/dogfighting.). Sweeping fighters attack or defend before any other aircraft and their casualties are removed before starting the interception steps (so that they do not get to fire at bombers at all) but do so at "sweep" strength (which should be set lower - arguably much lower - than the "anti-fighter" strength and the "anti-fighter" strength renamed to "escort" because both "sweep" and "escort" is "anti-fighter").
The other even more minor element is that one may want the bomber fire not to be merely punishing but to have a pre-emptive element, meaning an ability to shot down the fighter before the fighter can have a chance to shot down the bomber or an ability to disrupt the fighter fire so that its chances to shot down the bomber are lower the more effectively the bomber can shot at it. I did not provide for this, and I don't think it's too important to do so. This can be partially done by having the air combat going on for multiple rounds, so that the fighters shot down a round before will not be able to fire at the bomber again or more consistently by splitting the bomber fire between pre-emptive and non-pre-emptive or having a negative support from bomber to fighter, the higher the support the more the bomber is powerful at firing. However, this would also open all the matter that some bombers are much more vulnerable than others because of passive (armour) defence too (for example, a British Avro Lancaster being enormously inferior to a B-17 both as a matter of fire-power and as a matter of armour so much so that having the Avro Lancaster doing the bombers-only day-time bombings which the B-17 performed would have been suicidal).
-
I meant for Mordor. I guess they were all winged there?
I could add them for Mordor, I just don't want to. I think it's important that each faction should have a somewhat limited roster with it's own strengths and weaknesses. Mordor's stength here is that the Winged Nazgul is a superior leader unit, probably the best on the map. Their weakness is the lack of a leader that is affordable.