The rules concerning Air Fleet Commander has been clarified & updated with the following:
“An Air Fleet can only attack from or defend in a territory or an island.”
G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.
-
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
Regardless you want to increase costs of air and naval units across the board, while leaving land units alone.
This will create many new problems.
Would require a complete rebalancing of the game.
I’m not buying it.
You must adjust land units to match.
And it is so much simpler to jut fine tune them where they are (BB to 18 cruiser to 11)Most would argue that if anything, air and naval should be reduced.
I feel the balance between the 3 is near perfect now, and fine tuning is what we need, not a complete overhaul .And yes baron, many of your ideas/posts are quite messy lol
Sometimes I wonder how much you actually play the game.“One of the consequence of a cost increase will have much more impact on Allies.
Allies need to purchase costlier units instead of Axis which can keep a steady flow of cheaper units to protect their numerous higher valued units.”Great point Baron, this is true
-
@Uncrustable:
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
For whatever this information might be worth:
-
During WWII, one B-29 Superfortress cost roughly the same as one US Navy destroyer.
-
Airplanes – even bombers as big and complex as the B-29 – can be mass-produced. Major warships – fleet carriers, battleships and cruisers – can’t be mass-produced in the conventional sense because of their sheer size and enormous complexity. The B-29 had an empty weight of 33.8 tonnes, while an Essex-class carrier (for example) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons, which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than a B-29. It took 15 months to build the Essex, plus another five months to complete and commission her. By contrast, the US managed to produce an overall average of about 80 Superforts per month from 1943 to 1946, despite the difficulties of the building process for this highly advanced aircraft.
-
-
@CWO:
@Uncrustable:
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
For whatever this information might be worth:
-
During WWII, one B-29 Superfortress cost roughly the same as one US Navy destroyer.
-
Airplanes – even bombers as big and complex as the B-29 – can be mass-produced. Major warships – fleet carriers, battleships and cruisers – can’t be mass-produced in the conventional sense because of their sheer size and enormous complexity. The B-29 had an empty weight of 33.8 tonnes, while an Essex-class carrier (for example) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons, which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than a B-29. It took 15 months to build the Essex, plus another five months to complete and commission her. By contrast, the US managed to produce an overall average of about 80 Superforts per month from 1943 to 1946, despite the difficulties of the building process for this highly advanced aircraft.
Informative post,
At the end of the day however, it doesn’t matter what we think the game prices represent.
One bomber is one bomber and one cruiser is one cruiser.
And the game must be balanced as is.Baron and I have come to the following regarding naval costs:
SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
BB 18
TRN 6
CV (14 or 15) undecidedStart shooting holes ;)
-
-
I am happy with that.
I leave the Carrier price up to others to decide, although I would probably leave at 16. Sorry! -
@Uncrustable:
At the end of the day however, it doesn’t matter what we think the game prices represent.
One bomber is one bomber and one cruiser is one cruiser.
And the game must be balanced as is.Baron and I have come to the following regarding naval costs:
SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
BB 18
TRN 6
CV (14 or 15) undecidedStart shooting holes ;)
Looks good to me - I do think CV’s are extremely awesome and as a capital ship that can be repaired for free, really don’t think it should be cheaper than 15 in this price scheme.
And I do not think 16 would be overpriced, as wittman said -
So I think 15 or 16 either one is probably good -
CV cost will probably depend on which direction we take for air.
Right now we are at 2 options:
Option 1
Fighters-no change
Tac bombers-cost reduce to 10, no other change
Strat bombers-no change
(This is obviously almost no change to OOBOption 2
(This is in large part Barons idea, and a good one)
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other change -
@Uncrustable:
CV cost will probably depend on which direction we take for air.
Option 2
(This is in large part Barons idea, and a good one)
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and at least 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other changeI wouldn’t have that idea without our previous discussion here and on the one thread in spring 2013.
It was you who wanted a more historically accurate TcB and Fg units.It is a very interesting way of using AB.
Maybe it is still unbalancing to give all Fgs D3, maybe limit it to up to 3 fighters for all the attack.Or D3 all fighters just for the first round.
Other version: I’m still thinking about a preemptive strike (immediate casualty) (D2, D3?) for up to 3 Fighters on defense to act like scramble before attacker reach the AB territory… (Fg on alert, some on patrol, fwd observer, radar)
-
@Uncrustable:
Option 2
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other changeI really like this.
Fighters- cheap, aircraft killers, good defense with AB
Tacbombers- best fighting air unit, needs fighters
Stratbombers- long range, good offense, SBR, poor defenseOne needs fighters to both screen for their own bombers and attack enemy planes
Fighters have a clear advantage on defense with an AB (see: Battle of Britain)
Tacs are potentially deadly vs ground units (when their is no enemy air)
Strategic bombers for long range and SBRThis rule set combines historical realism and simplicity.
Aircraft are balanced amongst themselves, as well as with the other units -
Why wouldn’t you go:
Fighter 8 2/2/4
Defends at 3 when at a friendly operational air base or has an available landing spot on a carrier.
Tactical Bomber 9 3/3/4
Attacks at 4 when paired with a friendly fighter, defends at 4 when no enemy air units are present.
Strategic Bomber 10 2/1/6
Attacks at +2 when launched from a friendly operational air base
+2 to strategic attack die when launched from a friendly operational air baseNight bombing and day bombing raids
When launching a strategic attack the attacker may choose to launch the air raid during the day, or during the night.- Night Bombing, the interceptors rule is suspended but bombers suffer a -2 penalty to their roll representing decreased accuracy; AA fires at bombers normally
- Day Bombing, rolls of ‘1’ may be rerolled when damaging the facility
-
All changes will be in Red
1.a) Expanded ANZAC (The Commonwealth Dominions). Includes ANZAC, South Africa and all of Canada. Capital remains Sydney. The IC on Sydney is changed to a Major IC.
1.b) A ‘united’ United Kingdom, UK income is no longer split between India and London. The IC on India is changed from major to minor. Capital is London.Not clear what or how this makes the game better. It certainly makes or gives UK many new options and favors old school ideas like ignoring one front completely which is glitching the game and is not Historical. Mostly dislike.
2. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains at 5. See # 5 for more.
Making the AA gun like 1942 2nd edition is a good idea, and using these pieces.
3. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
c)Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-All air units have an air combat value of 1, except fighters on defense (2)
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBRDislike any changes in costs as a general rule. The prices already got reduced from Milton Bradley edition. Most folks dont want these types of changes.
However, when planes and land units fight, a plane hit should go against another plane and no land units should be able to hit planes…only aa guns. Keep the aerial combat values.Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:
Quote
Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense, escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, strongest on offense when supported (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, poor defense4. Enhanced air combat (land combat only). New scramble option, a defender may scramble fighters only into a 1 round air defense battle vs incoming air units, the scrambling air units must be in the territory being attacked. (cannot scramble from adjacent territory). The territory must have an operational friendly airbase. Bombers may not scramble. All air units roll simultaneously. All air units roll 1 dice hitting on a 1, except fighters on defense hit on a 2 or less. AAA units also fire during this round. AAA roll AA dice on defense only as per current OOB rules. (AA dice DOES NOT change from current OOB rules) Remove casualties before continuing to normal combat.
Oh boy, don’t get why this idea is proposed at all. Why restrict scrambling? Leave it alone.5. Enhance naval units a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4.
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
e) Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver, and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.6. Enhanced Armor. 3 tanks, when purchased together (from the same IC), cost 15 IPCs total (5 each).
Dislike these rules even more. It will kill balance ( AP moving 3 spaces?…they are the slowest naval units at 12 knots. If anything give subs a 3 space Non combat move to give them the benefit of their stealth.
7. Scorched Earth. At the beginning of a powers turn, that power may damage any facility he or she sees fit up to the maximum damage that facility may take per OOB rules. Any damaged facilities in this new phase are treated as if they were damaged before said players turn, and all rules regarding damaged facilities apply OOB. So you cannot ‘have your cake and eat it too’. That it you cannot damage your naval base and then repair a battleship.
I think this might work, but stated in a different way. Basically you can damage your own factories/facilities, which also means BB/CV can’t repair. The damage is done in the turn sequence before these naval units are repaired to avoid confusion.
8. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1 or 2, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 3 or 4. On a roll 5 or 6 the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.
This is an old idea, and is really more complicated than it needs to be. I would simplify the idea and have it where USA can loan 1-2D6 to Russia/UK if X is controlled by Soviets. ( thinking Persia, Archangel, and the land area where Vladivostok is.
9. Enhanced Air/Naval bases. Cost reduced to 12 for both.
10. Nuetral blocks. If the axis attack a neutral territory, all the neutrals in its block immediately become allied friendly. Same if reversed.
Mongolian block (all mongolian territories) Replace OOB mongolia rules with: Japan or Russia recieves 12 IPCs if the other declares war on it.
South American + European block Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Rio de oro, Portuguese guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
Middle-eastern block Turkey, Saudi Arabia, AfghanistanI think this could work except with different ideas here. Just make a list of strict neutrals that don’t fall either way if the OOB rules are enforced. I would make it a 2-3 space away rule where you would roll and or pay IPC to convert to your side.
11. Dice bonuses. On a dice roll of 1 (attack and defense) observe the following for the listed units:
-Fighters may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Tactical bombers may choose a ground unit as a casualty (land or sea)
-Cruisers may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Battleships may choose a surface vessel as a casualty (includes transports)
-Tanks may choose a ground target as a casualty
-Strategic bombers, (offense only) defender must choose 2 casualtiesSee no need for these rules. They change the game too much.
1. What you need is a replacement of the Technology Tree to something more realistic and dynamic. For example, tanks could start at 2-2-2, then 3-2-2, then 3-3-2. Perhaps just one change or two during the game not more. Planes could be the same thing. So all the ideas proposed could just go under Tech, which is optional anyway.
2. Adding elite armor ( either specialized trained units Waffen SS, Shock Armies, etc)
3. Adding Generals/Admirals ( one per front, not 50 of them) you would draw one per turn or something
4. Possibly a combined arms bonus ( for having air, mech, and infantry in the same battle)
5. Making submarines more stealth by giving them a special movement that makes their effect more unpredictable.
6. Dynamic neutral armies ( something more than X infantry)…Spain for example had air and naval units, but OOB just puts them as Infantry. -
6. Dynamic neutral armies ( something more than X infantry)…Spain for example had air and naval units, but OOB just puts them as Infantry.
This is definitely needed.
-
Updated OP:
-edited enhanced air units and naval units
-removed enhanced air combat
-removed enhanced armor
-removed dice bonuses3. Enhanced air units.
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice) No other change
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR5. Enhance naval units
Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 15 IPCs.
Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive
maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not
unload units until its next turn. -
I agree, a technology progression would rock, failing that, technologies that are worth getting would be better than what we have, even if we go from 12 back to 6.
Level 0)
Normal Mechanized Units- Mechanized infantry: Cost 5 IPC, Attack 1, Defend 2, can pair with artillery like infantry, can pair with armor and blitz…basically identical to now, but cost 5 IPC
- Armor: Cost 6 IPC, Attack 2, Defend 2, Move 2
Level 1)
Improved Mechanized Units:- Mechanized Infantry can blitz like tanks
- Tanks defend at 3
Level 2)
Improved Armored Units:- Tanks attack at 3
- Mechanized Infantry cost 4 IPC
Level 3)
Blitzkrieg- Mechanized Infantry attack at 2 but may not pair with artillery anymore
- Tanks cost 5 IPC
Each level would inherit the levels before it. So if you had level 3, your tanks would cost 5, attack at 3, defend at 3 and your mechanized infantry would cost 4, attack 2, defend 2 and blitz like tanks.
Just an example, I’m not married to the example, but just something I was thinking of when IL said progression.
-
Are you wholeheartedly opposed to bombers getting back their +2 damage when launched from an air base?
And even making bombers 2/2/6, and giving them +2 attack when launched from an air base.
These planes were big and needed lots of support to do the hard hitting.
-
Are you wholeheartedly opposed to bombers getting back their +2 damage when launched from an air base?
And even making bombers 2/2/6, and giving them +2 attack when launched from an air base.
These planes were big and needed lots of support to do the hard hitting.
I like this from a historical realism standpoint.
It would both nerf bombers a little bit and give more reason to purchase/use airbases.
Would also give more reasons to SBR air bases.
This could involve keeping fighters at airbases being used by Bombers for added protection from SBR.
Now that bases cost 12 IPCs, this could add a lot of interesting dynamics.I do not like D2 however, should stay at D1.
But I am starting to like it.
It is definatly an enhancement, without being over complicated or drastic.What do others think?
-
Well then make bombers 3/1/6 - 10
+1 to attack power when launched from air base
+1 to damage roll when launched from air baseYou can lower the cost to 10 if you lower the attack and tie in the need for a base to bring them back to 4. The lower cost makes up for the need to be buying air bases more often.
-
Cost 12 A3D1 range 6
Giving +2 to SBR while only +1 to attack I feel would add unnesicary confusion
AB gives +1 to attack, SBR and range (this is simple)
So their not too hindered without AB, but…I think I almost prefer your original. Just D1.
A2D1, AB gives +2 to both Attack and SBRThe 2nd one makes airbases much more vital, but the first is less drastic
Idk…either way your idea is a really good one -
Well then weigh the following:
Option A:
Bomber - 2/1/6 - 10 IPCs
Special rules:
Ground Crews - Bombers that begin their turn in a territory with an operational friendly air base benefit from +2 to their combat value, and add +2 to their die roll when calculating damage during a strategic attackOption B:
Bomber - 3/1/6 - 12 IPCs
Special rules:
Ground Crews - Bombers that begin their turn in a territory with an operational friendly air base benefit from +1 to their combat value, and add +1 to their die roll when calculating damage during a strategic attackBoth options limit the potent firepower of the bomber to turns only when it starts at an airbase. Indeed making them vital.
Honestly, I prefer option B, and a rule for “night bombing” should be looked into.
Escorts/Interceptors rule suspended during attack, AA fires normally, bombers suffer -2 penalty to roll
(I had mentioned this to Larry before and he seemed interested) -
Well then weigh the following:
Option B:
Bomber - 3/1/6 - 12 IPCs
Special rules:
Ground Crews - Bombers that begin their turn in a territory with an operational friendly air base benefit from +1 to their combat value, and add +1 to their die roll when calculating damage during a strategic attack
Both options limit the potent firepower of the bomber to turns only when it starts at an airbase. Indeed making them vital.Honestly, I prefer option B, and a rule for “night bombing” should be looked into.
Escorts/Interceptors rule suspended during attack, AA fires normally, bombers suffer -2 penalty to roll
(I had mentioned this to Larry before and he seemed interested)I prefer B also because it doesn’t affect too much the StB capacity. And still create an incentive to buy AB to get SBR and better offensive punch.
For the discussion about night, I’m open on it.
Maybe just -2, minimum 1. Become -1 when launch from an Airbase.
Why don’t let StB SBR IC at D6+1 damage, as regular?
And 6D+2 with AB bonus? -
Night/day operations seems a bit much.
I like both options(except price for both needs to be 12)
Option B is less drastic and a tad simpler.
Il post option B when I get a chance.
This to go along with where we are at with fighters and tacs really pushes a nation to have all 3 units, and would almost eliminate spamming of any or unit
Suggested Topics
