AARHE: Phase 2: Units

[Adonai]

But it still is a new system. Every change I’ve read so far builds off of A&A Revised. This seems to be a new entity.

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

@Imperious:

What is a Battlecarrier? you neam BBAV? The Hyuaga and Ise? those hybrid battleship carriers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecarrier

Ise, Hyuga, and even Iowa can be considered a battlecarrier

[Imperious Leader]

This is what i thought

“Battleship Ise and Hyuga were converted to Battlecarrier in 1943. They both could carry 22 dive-bombers.”

Iowa was not such a ship. Thats in the game only. Those conversions were made on older Jap BB due to the 4 carriers lost at Midway.

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

Okay thanks for that info. Anyway let’s get back on track. First off–what’s our current list of new units? And who’s currently working on this. As you know I’m a pro-New Units guy and I’d like to share my ideas. But first I wanna see the current list of units

[Imperious Leader]

This is the starting point:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6378.0

some of this will be covered under the NA’s or this proposed card system from GG.

[tekkyy]

At the moment no change to land units in place yet. We do have ideas of heavy tanks and mech infantry.
Note DD and BB has been made cheaper.

IPC Combat Dogfighting
FTR 10 3/4 2/3
FTR(Jet) 10 4/5 4/4
BMR 15 4/1 0/1
BMR(Jet) 15 3/3 0/2
NAV 8 3/2 2/2
DIV 8 3/2 1/2
Antiair
SS 8 2/2 0/0
DD 10 2/2 2/2
CA 15 3/3 3/3
BB 20 4/4 2/2
CV 16 1/1-3 1/1
AP 8 0/1 0/0

FTR Fighter
BMR Bomber
NAV Naval Fighter
DIV Dive Bomber
DD Destroyer
CA Cruiser
BB Battleship
CV Aircraft Carrier
SS Submarine
AP Transport

[tekkyy]

Are we going ahead with the 3 sea movement?

Destroyers and Crusiers move at 3. Everything else move at 2.

SS   2
DD   3
CA   3
BB   2
CV   2
AP   2

Although I am worry whether it’ll destroy the map.

[Imperious Leader]

No only carriers and cruisers move 3… rest move 3

[tekkyy]

at a glance

DD 36 knots
CA 32 knots
BB 20 knots
CV 30 knots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_destroyers
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_fleet.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN26-BritishShipsCruisers.htm

so I what thinking more like

DD, CA        3
the rest        2

of course we have to thinking about what the game pieces represent…
and supply ships? refuel depots?

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

so I what thinking more like

DD, CA         3
the rest        2

I thought cruisers were fast that’s why they’re called “cruisers.” So they should have a movement of 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser

*Wait no, CA stands for cruiser… I thought it was “carrier.” My bad

[Imperious Leader]

That destroyer thing needs correction… looked up the speeds of different nations destroyers

source ww2 data book:

Soviets 36-38
Germany 38-30
UK 35-36
Japan 39-27.7
USA  36.5-38
italy 32-33

cruisers were basically about 5-6 knots slower along with carriers

Battleships lagged farther at 24-30 knots… mostly at 27-28 knot range.

I also now feel that destroyers and carriers should be at 3 and the rest is at 2.

Gen Patch says carriers are not to be included in group… lets look at numbers:

UK  30.7-32.0
USA 34-33
Japan  28.3-34.5

I used the primary front line carriers for the numbers… not those jeep carriers which were built latter in the war… those were slower.

what you guys think?

[tekkyy]

I also now feel that destroyers and carriers should be at 3 and the rest is at 2.

eh I was sugguesting destroyer and cruiser move at 3 not destroyer and carrier…

your numbers hasn’t explained why it should be “destroyer and carrier” rather than “destroyer and cruiser” moving at 3 and the rest at 2

I used the primary front line carriers for the numbers… not those jeep carriers which were built latter in the war… those were slower.

yes we only consider fleet carriers here
not the slow and small capacity escort carriers and stuff

[Imperious Leader]

your numbers hasn’t explained why it should be “destroyer and carrier” rather than “destroyer and cruiser” moving at 3 and the rest at 2

+++++ i am not advocating this anymore…based on these numbers…

Its allmost like the difference is not enough to make any change… what good would it do to marginalize the slower ships.

My original idea was this:

looking at the situation at in the pacific (e.g. midway and the attack on hawaii) we saw that the Carriers traveled either alone or in a really small group with other ships that could keep up with them. Nagumos first carrier strike force consisted of only carriers and destroyers with the cruisers and battleships like 300 miles farther away. To make a specific operation using carriers found they allways traveled with only small ship escorts… Perhaps its too much tactical ideas to attempt to model and we should stick to more basic approach.

The second idea was to bring value to the faster ships but its been demonstrated that they have more than enough “value” as a surface ship ( refering to carriers and destroyers)

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

My idea now is that carriers, cruisers, and destroyers should have a move of 3, the rest 2.

I thought cruisers are called “cruisers” because they’re fast
Carriers are also fast because they had longer range than battleships
And destroyers because they had to keep up with subs

Is this correct?

*Just to clear things up: does CA stand for carrier?

[Imperious Leader]

BB = battleship
CA=cruiser
CV=carrier
DD=destroyer
SS=submarine
LST= Transport

if we do that then the bb is totally left in the dust as like an old relic… if we go with that idea then at least BB gets preemtive hits and may even get something else. The point is to make each unit have value on its own. each unit has its own utility. IMO that may detract from a BB purchase… ideas?

[tekkyy]

Ok lets have Battleship Transport and Submarine move at 2.
Destroyer, Carrier, and Cruiser move at 3.

Battleship has opening-fire and Submarine has selective opening-fire so I don’t actually think its a problem.

Nothing wrong with faster ships running away from a Battleship.

@Imperious:

LST= Transport

I actually put Transport as “AP” in the draft. I was thinking landing crafts might be tactical level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

LHA Amphibious Assault Ship
LST Landing Ship, Tank
AP Transport
APA Attack Transport

[tekkyy]

By the way, we once considererd giving air units extra range in “Non-combat Move” phase.

It could be “move twice” (to model refuel)
It could be extra 2 spaces (to model external fuel tank in ferry-mode not combat-mode)

[Imperious Leader]

It could be extra 2 spaces (to model external fuel tank in ferry-mode not combat-mode)

I think this is better… the planes done have bombs to carry hence they have longer range 2 extra is perfect

AP is good vs. LST

Thats keeping with proper military terms…

[tekkyy]

ok

[tekkyy]

1. just found a problem
DIVE (dive bombers) is useless!
NAV (naval fighter) is better

               IPC    Combat    Dogfight
FTR         10      3/4         2/3
NAV         8       3/2          2/2
DIV          8       3/2          1/2

2. FTR gives ARM +1 on 1-to-1 basis under air superiority, what about NAV and DIV?