Post by Michael Miller on Oct 15, 2014 16:14:35 GMT
After getting another close look at the numbers in [50.2] Ammunition Consumption, I've been thinking about this some more, and looked up some info on AA fire. Does anyone think that cost of 2 for any and all AA fire is something of a compromise and kludge? We differentiate between light and heavy infantry weapon ammo costs (with good reason), so why then are a 20 mm and 90 mm AA gun equivalent in ammo requirements? This makes light AA even less useful when it already has a pretty low success rate.
I would suggest that we consider going to a usage of "1" for Light AA, which I would define as ≤ 40 mm guns. Either that, or if it is using all that extra ammunition, maybe it should be slightly more effective against low level attacks such as Strafing or Dive Bombing missions.
Obviously changes to this table are something that should be considered very carefully. However, as is it seems to me that Light AA is disadvantaged by both the logistics of the game as designed, and in actual use, where it probably had more deterrent value, particularly against low level attacks, than actual kill results.
This is not a major issue, just something to consider.
I not only echoed the sentiment to see how it goes (option: leave it alone anyway) but I actually take this opportunity to extend that to all corners of the game now.
Lack of personnel and focusing in on the detail too much will (is) killing the chance of getting around to playing. It’s the big issue that I intended to raise at the forthcoming (?) conference. We really need to avoid even discussion of anything that is not absolutely critical at this stage and move on to set up and playing. The critical stuff as I’ve just said in the previous sentence, has to be an exception to the policy of full speed ahead and never mind the… (what was the rest of the quotation again?). Oh, that was it, the “torpedoes”. Hopefully that’s right.
We should place all known queries (sounds like a Rumsfeld quotation coming on but it’s not) into one of three categories, say: red amber and green. Red is a blocker that has to be dealt with. Amber has current attention as we start to play. Green can be sorted out later. The last two categories could be handled by temporary accommodations and the red category should have very, very little in it.
Yes, you’re right, all that should have been its own thread!
I have been going all the rules and things and the work you have all done. Amazing quality work well done all. Some questions on air. The changes I saw in the air are all to the good in my view. I know how it will change things. Clearly you are aware of the Italian air issues at game start. Questions 1) where did the airforce plane list come from in 60.3 and where is some discussion on it. No issues - just want to understand. 2) Where did the wave concept come from? Any discussion? 3) Where did the changes to the air bombardment table come from? This by itself really helps the game.
Post by Michael Miller on Nov 21, 2014 3:31:50 GMT
Hi Sloth. Regarding the changes to the air rules you ask about, those were mainly implemented by Tony Dinsdale in the wake of lengthy discussions carried on in forums such as BoardGameGeek, and conversation with Richard Berg, if I recall correctly. He would presumably have more detailed information on the provenance of the changes. The Wave rules are a reflection of the documented problems experienced in coordination of large air formations over often largely featureless terrain. Nearly everyone knowledgeable regarding the original rules agreed that the air system was the most in need of rectification. I certainly hope to put the revised version to the test, sooner than later! I've been working with the air game quite a bit myself as you might infer from the recent posts on the forum, working on further automation via spreadsheets.