heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to
_No, medium, bombers move at 6. When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage. The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.
Yes but not before 1943.
So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons._
heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to
That’s a defensive issue and it’s already at 1. Medium bombers had guns too and you really can’t go lower than that and zero is not an option. Personally I would give heavy bombers a Def-2.
i would to
_No, medium, bombers move at 6. When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage. The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.
Yes but not before 1943.
So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons.That’s not true. Americans had the B-25, German the Junker-88 and the Japanese the Betty’s as an example. When you consider stats for a unit type, you need to combine the units from all the nations and then base it off the average performance of that type. Yes, you can always find exceptions. But unless these exception were produced in great numbers, then it really doesn’t effect the strategic equation. A&A is a strategic game but people sometime tend to forget that when trying to create new units. They get too focused on the tactical abilities of a few units rather than looking at the overall picture. On top of that you also have to consider game playability. Some capabilities have been fudge to make for a balance game play. Aircraft not being able to attack sub unless there is a friendly destroyer is an example.
Through out the war, everyone’s unit’s became better and better. In general though, these improvements increased fairly equally on all side. However, there were some improvements that were exceptional and these are usually represented in the Tech Rolls._
They get too focused on the tactical abilities of a few units rather than looking at the overall picture. On top of that you also have to consider game playability. Some capabilities have been fudge to make for a balance game play. Aircraft not being able to attack sub unless there is a friendly destroyer is an example.
And that’s the problem… too many peolple try to balance the game and that’s a mistake. (of cource It doesn’t matter if you don’t care about historical military forces)
There’s no challenge if you focus too much to balance the game.
But I understand the reason why people wants to fudge units beacause they don’t want to play a 15 hours games.
There’s no challenge if you focus too much to balance the game.
You are absolutely right. A game that is too balanced is no fun. What I meant to say is that you want a balance between the game pieces in a sense that when you do add new pieces, it enhances the game but at the same time it doesn’t diminish another units usefulness or make it obsolete.
You are absolutely right. A game that is too balanced is no fun. What I meant to say is that you want a balance between the game pieces in a sense that when you do add new pieces, it enhances the game but at the same time it doesn’t diminish another units usefulness or make it obsolete.
Well you got a point there. During WWII, After a year or so, planes tanks and even riffle became obselete when ennemy brings new weapons.
For example, if you have a game starting in 1939 you have to think about cavalry, light armoered VH and non performant fighters.
Now if you start your game at the end of 1942…you can used heavy tank and heavy bombers.
All depend what you want to represent on the gameboard.
Anyway more you have pieces more you need spaces.
In fact that’s why I used a 4 x 8 gameboard because I think I have more than 1000 pieces!
Geez…I love that game but I believe I lost my mind somewhere on the battlefield:evil: :-D
The weapons always change the war the STD-44 would of changed it for the germans if russia hadnt already stomped on Berlin
The russian AK-47 made in 1946 and manufactured in the very next year and there are still using it, heck i even think were using it :wink:
My point is if you are gonna make the torpedo bombers youre gonna only have them availible for certain countries simply because quite a few countries did not manufacture torpedos for instince russia did not china acordding to the its impossible to and japan didnt intill late 1940
However dive bombers have always been around i think we even used them in WWI
My point is if you are gonna make the torpedo bombers youre gonna only have them availible for certain countries simply
Yes of course. Only UK and USA can get torpedo bomber.
Same thing for the dive bomber. Only Germany, USSR, Japan and USA may built this kind fo unit.
Japan has both at the beginning of War II.
My point is if you are gonna make the torpedo bombers youre gonna only have them availible for certain countries simply
Yes of course. Only UK and USA can get torpedo bomber.
Same thing for the dive bomber. Only Germany, USSR, Japan and USA may built this kind fo unit.
Japan has both at the beginning of War II.
It’s why I decided group them as tactical bombers. That way everyone has a use for them.
