AARHE setup issues

[Imperious Leader]

so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?

[Micoom]

@Imperious:

so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?

I think yes, no more changes. But only because it seems to be decided that no extra units are inserted into the setup, even though there’s more territory to defend…  So. if no more units, then is OK IMO.

Like you said, Norway needs that fighter, and Western Aus doesn’t need a garisson… Vichy was still really Vichy in June 1942, so no German troops necessary. (also the allies can’t invade it, and germany does need Western protected)

[Imperious Leader]

OK good. less work for me to do.

I dont want extra units and i dont like to change the set up either.

[tekkyy]

yeah should be fine to leave Western Australia and Vichy France empty

[tekkyy]

so we started discussion of setup of optional units when they are used
note it is replacement, rather then more units during setup

NAV (naval fighter)
DIV (dive bomber)
CA (cruiser)
PARA (paratrooper)
MECH (mechanized infantry)

@Imperious:

Japan 2 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
Italy 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech
Germany 1 cruiser, 2 para, 3 mech

Soviets 1 para, 3 mech
UK 3 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech

this would be basically balanced and historical

I am thinking less, like scale it down
basic balance is not an issue if we are minimalists

like
only Germany and USSR gets MECH
only Japan and UK gets CA

placement of NAV and PARA is a simple one

NAV (naval fighter): all on CV (aircraft carrier), replacing FTR (fighter)
PARA (paratrooper): all at Capital, replacing INF (infantry)

[Imperious Leader]

NAV (naval fighter)
DIV (dive bomber)
CA (cruiser)
PARA (paratrooper)
MECH (mechanized infantry)

Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
Italy  1 cruiser
Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

all carrier based fighters are replaced with naval fighters.

[Imperious Leader]

I also feel that Divebomber should be replaced with “fighter-bomber” because it symbolizes the unit better.

A divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is. The problem is divebombers describe specific naval fighters that existed, while in other parts the divebomber was something used to bomb cities and military targets. We allready have naval fighters so its a bit of a conflict. A fighter-bomber describes all classes of planes that drop a targeted payload , while divebomber can be at least two completely different types of planes one naval and another land based.

You may even allow limited SBR by these units (at 1/2 values)

for example:  1-2 = 1 ipc lost, 3-4= 2 ipc lost, 5-6=3 ipc lost on SBR

[tekkyy]

Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
Italy  1 cruiser
Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

PARA (paratrooper) and NAV (naval fighter) is done
now we place CA (cruiser), MECH (mechanized infantry), and FB (fighter bomber) on the map

some of these we have no choice and is written below
options are noted
?? means many options

Japan: CA Caroline Islands, PARA at Japan, FB at Japan/Manchuria
Italy:  CA “can’t”
Germany:  PARA at Germany, 2 MECH at ??, 2 FB  at ??

USSR: PARA at Russia, 2 MECH at ??, FB at Moscow/Karelia
UK: CA at India, FB at UK/Egypt
USA: CA at W.US, PARA at W.US, FB at E.US/W.US

divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is.

yeah sounds about right
what short form for fighter bomber be? FB?

About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?

[Micoom]

Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1DIV(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, and Egypt), 1 FB (Egypt)

US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)

I Was thinking of something like this…

[tekkyy]

oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs

[Micoom]

Well, I was not thinking about replacing anything with the CA’s… For MECH another story, those could replace existing infantry. But I hope that CA’s could be placed extra for more naval power…

And maybe place the Japan CA with that lonely Kwantung AP instead of with the East Indies fleet.

[Imperious Leader]

“About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?”

Yea that NA will have to go.

Another thing… then the idea is to replace in some cases the OOB setup with these new pieces?

“oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs”

what parameters do we decide when:

1. we add a piece

2. we replace a piece with the new piece

generally i dont like to remove any pieces or replace them with any new ones. Id rather add a small ‘seed’

Micoom’s idea is fine… but i post some small change in bold.

Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1FB(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, off greenland), 1 FB (Egypt)

US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)

[tekkyy]

hm…CA addition change the game start too much IMO

most importantly…

Italy CA: Med Sea now belongs to Italy

also…

India CA + EastIndices CA: Instead of running, UK now has a stand off with Japan
WesternUS CA: Meanwhile US is stronger, Pacific push out of question

generally i dont like to remove any pieces or replace them with any new ones. Id rather add a small ‘seed’

what do you mean by ‘seed’ ?

and should Italy really get a PARA?

[Micoom]

@tekkyy:

hm…CA addition change the game start too much IMO

most importantly…

Italy CA: Med Sea now belongs to Italy

also…

India CA + EastIndices CA: Instead of running, UK now has a stand off with Japan
WesternUS CA: Meanwhile US is stronger, Pacific push out of question

and should Italy really get a PARA?

India CA is moved to Greenland, so still running for the Japs.

Italy had a big fleet, and UK gets a CA at Egypt with the DD. So the balance in the Med stays even…

Yes, Italy had  several Airborne (Folglore) divisions who had been prepared for the invasion of Malta…

Japan also receives it’s CA and FB in the pacific, so i don’t see that the Western US CA will be a problem…

[tekkyy]

oh I see

East Indices CA <===> Westen US CA.
Egypt CA <===> Italy CA
Greenland CA <===> Germany CA

sort of balanced

however, I hope the other units are replacements
(I mean we can argue the additional naval units as part of “cheaper naval units” scheme)
but air and land units probably upset balance a bit more

could we change

Japan: FB (Japan)
Germany: FB (Ukraine), FB (Western Europe)
USSR: FB (Caucasus)
UK: FB (Egypt)

to

Japan: FB (Japan)
Germany: FB (Ukraine)
USSR: FB (Karelia)
UK: FB (Egypt)

[Micoom]

Yes, I think that’s fine.

For MECH also Replace an INF for a MECH

But i would like the PARA’s to be added. So we  have CA and PARA added, and FB and MECH replacing units.

[tekkyy]

yeah, I guess one PARA at Capital can be too bad
you need to buy TP (transport plane) before you can them as air assault anyway

[tekkyy]

so is it all good, Imperious Leader?

PARA (paraptrooper): new placement
MECH (mechanized infantry): replace INF
FB (fighter bomber): replace FTR
NAV (naval fighter): replace FTR
CA (cruiser): new placement

Japan: 1 CA (East Indies), 1 FB (Japan) 1 PARA (Japan)

Germany: 1 CA (Baltic), 1 FB (Ukraine), 2 MECH (Western Europe, West Russia), 1 PARA (Germany)

Italy: 1 CA (Italy), 1 PARA (Italy)

UK: 2 CA (Egypt, Greenland ), 1 FB (Egypt)

US: 1 CA (Western US), 1 MECH (Eastern US), 1 PARA (Eastern US)

USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1 FB (Karelia), 1 PARA (Russia)

[Imperious Leader]

One thing:

THe Soviets have only 2 planes and one of them is reduced to FB… THese are critical units for them… everything else is perfect.  But perhaps FB should be an extra rather than replacement… then the Soviets at least get a 3rd plane and they have more strategy because it can do limited SBR… something they never get to do.

[Micoom]

I think this is correct, those fighters are maybe to most important pieces in the game (normal Revised)