So yes - air units from a Nation allied to the owner of the Heavy Aircraft Carrier unit can land on and take off from the Heavy Aircraft Carrier unit.
The rules for Tank Buster & Ground Attack Air Unit are not yet fully play tested - we expect to be able to release these rules no later than 16th December this year.AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)
-
Was planning to playtest these ideas before posting them, but maybe you have some impressions right away. This is strictly historical stuff, so Japanese have much less than Germany but this is due to the historical facts of Japanese types being inferior to American. Kamikazes and the like rules could be added to give the Japs a boost.
Note that air combat values is for one round air-air combat in both SBR and ordinary combat, normally fighters hit on a 2 and bombers on a 1. Night bombing in SBR reduces these values by 1 and also 1 less IPC damage. Subs attack convoy zones, causing one die of IPC damage. My house rules also uses the following base costs:
Battleships: 20 IPCs. Destroyers: 10 IPCs. Submarines: 7 IPCs.
Bombers: 12 IPCs. Fighters: 8 IPCs. ICs: 12 IPCs./Lynxes
Tech rules:
*The original rules for technologies are replaced by the following rules.
*To play with these rules, you need the units from an earlier Axis&Allies edition. Each side has 7 high-tech units that are built as separate units of the same kind, below are listed the values that differ from the original values, the unit sculpt used to represent the unit and the turn that the unit first may be built. The type of unit not listed below is represented by units from the other edition (i.e. ordinary Soviet tanks are represented by earlier A&A ed. tanks). Each side starts with 3 high-tech units, choose standard units of the unit type to be replaced at start, starting with Allied side. If bidding for sides, extra high-tech unit replacements may be bought for 2 IPCs each. Note that only units available turn 1 may be chosen in this way. For internet play, use control markers next to high-tech units (except: Me-262s and Type XXIs).Soviet Union:
T-34 tank: cost 6 IPCs, combat 4/4, rev. ed., turn 1.
Sturmovik fighter: cost 7 IPCs, if enemy has tanks: attacks on a ‘4’, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev. ed., turn 1.Germany:
Ju87 Stuka fighter: attacks on a ‘5’ first round of land combat, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev.ed., turn 1.
Ju88 bomber: may function as a fighter when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions and then fire on a ‘2’, subtract one from IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
Panther tank: cost 7 IPCs, combat 4/5, rev.ed., turn 3.
Me262 jet fighter: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘5’, fires on a ‘3’ in air combat (on a ‘2’ at Night), mark w. control marker under earlier edition fighter (internet: use “destroyer†sculpt), turn 5.
Type XXI submarine: cost 9 IPCs, attack: ‘3’, add one to IPC damage caused, cancels the first enemy hit to a sub-only force, mark w. control marker under sub (internet: use “bomber†sculpt), turn 5.UK:
Lancaster bomber: cost 14 IPCs, attack: ‘5’, add one to IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
Mosquito fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, fires on a ‘2’ when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions, may not land on carriers, early ed., turn 2.Japan:
Zero fighter: cost 10 IPCs, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat and attacks on a ‘4’ first round, rev.ed., turn 1.
Yamato battleship: cost 22 IPCs, combat 5/5, fires first fire if enemy has no air units, rev.ed., turn 1.USA:
Lightning fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat, may not land on carriers, rev.ed., turn 1.
Flying fortress bomber: cost 15 IPCs, fires on a ‘2’ in air combat (can’t hit at night), rev.ed., turn 2.
Escort carrier: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘2’, carries one fighter, negates sub special abilities like destroyer if carrying a fighter, early edition, turn 3. -
National Units:
Russia= Once per turn Russia may purchase 2 armor units and place them in Moscow for a total of 8 IPCs.
Germany= For every IC where no surface naval units are built in a given turn, 1 sub may be built there for 6 IPCs.
(From Wikipedia: Having no hope of defeating the vastly superior Royal Navy decisively in a surface battle, the German High Command immediately stopped all construction on capital surface ships save the nearly completed Bismarck class battleships and two cruisers and switched the resources to submarines, which could be built more quickly. Though it took most of 1940 to expand the production facilities and get the mass production started, more than a thousand submarines were built by the end of the war.)UK= All fighters purchased and placed in London cost 8 IPCs. All UK fighters get +1 defense in London.
Japan= Once per turn Japan may purchase 3 infantry units and place them in Tokyo for a total of 7 IPCs. For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
(This is to represent all of the following: Japanese Warrior Code, Banzai attacks (ironically used on defense), dug-in defenders and Japanese jungle warfare.)US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
(Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)This is pretty balanced…
Russian, UK, US advantages worth about 1.5+2.5+1.5 (per turn, respectively) = 5.5
German and Japanese advantages worth about 3+2.5 = 5.5+++++++this is more like it! add this to the draft.
-
Lynxes:
thanks for posting that. You got some good ideas. I like the nation specific units BTW and i think something along the lines of what you have can be looked at in phase two.
-
in Moscow…in London…in Tokyo
Nice. I like restricting National Units to locations when appropriate for even more realism.
But only Japan has infantry power now? I thought we wanted Russia and Germany to have it.
For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
Wait are we mixing up between National Unit and National Advantage?
Are we still doing the Banzai attack?
I actually like the +1 attack but no retreat. I think no retreat is important to model the spirit!
I even think give them have +1 defense too.
Again for modelling the situation I think Japan can’t use it unless they are outnumbered.US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
(Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)I know they are fast. But I am not sure they are “faster” at 33 knots.
Strangely, googling “fast carriers” I actually saw reference to Japanese. -
“For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.”
+++ i think on this Japan should instead get : once per turn the Japanese player can elect a banzai attack and commit his infantry to attack with a +1 combat modifier, but must continue attacking untill he is destroyed or the attack suceeds. Secondly his infantry defending in his own territories on any islands (including Japan) gets a +1 defense modifier on the first round of combat.
-
i think the main point of this national unit thing is to have a cheap type of unit. so japan inf should be cheaper, at least some of them.
banzai attacks were actually a form of defense, I think. I know it sounds funny because of the name. I don’t think banzai attacks were used to take new ground but a last desparate attempt to save the ground they were already on (i.e. they were on defense).
-
So Banzai for both attack and defense it is :-D
Still seeing what you have to say about Essex and fast :-P
-
I think the Point is that their were more US Escort Carriers out there and used with incredible effectiveness in both theatres…
-
I agree with this however this idea is very entrenched in players minds as the “japanese style attack” Perhaps instead of infantry we could go back to special Japanese fighters with a modifier +1 on attack and cheaper to allow the initial Japanese advantage of the “lance” torpedo which the US had no equilevant too.
so:
Japanese fighters cost 6 IP and get a +1 attack on naval ships in the opening combat roundOK now back to some other ideas:
German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
UK home defense: British fighters defending in home territories get a +1 defense modifier
Soviet Shock armies: Soviet armor units in the opening round of combat get premtive attack in the first round of combat
Japanese: allready covered
USA: “blood and guts” all armored units ( and mech infantry) can attack one territory and if they take it can continue onto a second attack in an adjacent enemy controlled territory .
Or you can install some US marines type of deal…
-
@Guerrilla:
I think the Point is that their were more US Escort Carriers out there and used with incredible effectiveness in both theatres…
Cool. So we can go without the move of 3 then. :lol:
@Imperious:
German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.
Good to see national unit and national attack are represented clearly again.
-
German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.
Good to see national unit and national attack are represented clearly again.
Whell, I guess it’s clear, but not realistic. What does blitzkreig have to do with attack modifier? The OOB blitz rules were more realisitc in that if you atack for 1 round only, then you can attack again with armor. I think if we just include fighters to that also, we’d have a simple, realistic advantage.
-
I guess he is saying the German tactic also meant better fighting or less prepared defense by enemy.
-
If the argument is worse defense by the enemy, than the defense modifier should be -1, instead of +1 for the attacker. Besides, it’s the speed of the assault that is the advantage, not the strength of the assault.
-
But we don’t let bombers attack again do we?
-
bomber units represent medium bombers (or heavy bombers with the tech). fighter units represent fighters and ‘small’ bombers.
If the argument is worse defense by the enemy, than the defense modifier should be -1, instead of +1 for the attacker. Besides, it’s the speed of the assault that is the advantage, not the strength of the assault.
-
so what are you saying?
bombers attack again like fighters like tanks in OOB’s panzerbltiz?
-
I’m saying I don’t know what bombers you are referring to… the bomber unit on the game board or the dive bombers that were used in blitzkrieg tactics.
-
I meant the bomber piece on the game board
I see now, only dive bombers take part in blitzkrieg
-
German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.
Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.
OK ill explain how it could work… under the land combat system… air fights air and land fights land… once one side has “cleared the sky” after any combat round… they ( lets use the germans in our example) get this advantage as a matter of course due to the revolutionary concept of Blitzkreig. Specialized planes (dive bombers… skuka) worked well with advancing armor columns and took out the enemy armor and other strong points to allow the classic breakthru. This was clearly a german concept for war with the mind set of quick victories and a method of getting them. Armor gets a +1 because the divebombers are destroying and assisting the armor to accomplish this task. The benifit has to be rewarded with this bonus… so the germans will commit their armor ( a risk that they acknowledge fully)… i dont want to reward germany to use infantry… we allready have this with artillery giving the bonus to infantry, now planes give the bonus to armor… does this make any sense?
Duke writes:
“Well, I guess it’s clear, but not realistic. What does blitzkreig have to do with attack modifier? The OOB blitz rules were more realisitc in that if you atack for 1 round only, then you can attack again with armor. I think if we just include fighters to that also, we’d have a simple, realistic advantage.”
IN OOB your armor does not attack and attack again…But i do favor something like this in my games ( which have many more territories) in our project something like a “Breakthrough and exploitation” phase would not work because their are too few territories IMO.
-
Trust Imperious Leader to come up with solutions.
He has many games behind him.Its probably true that our territories are too big for that.
Suggested Topics
