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.
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
Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
Italy 1 cruiser
Germany 1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIVSoviets 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:Â CA “can’t”
Germany:Â PARA at Germany, 2 MECH at ??, 2 FBÂ 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?
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…
oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs
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.
“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:
we add a piece
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)
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?
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 questionand 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…
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)
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.
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
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)
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.
I think this is correct, those fighters are maybe to most important pieces in the game (normal Revised)
Lets just add the 4 total pieces to the game like cruisers. It will really make alot of new strategy. Germany really needs her full fighter strength and the Soviets for the previous reasons.
unlike naval units
new air and land unit placements changes things a bit more
so how about
FB are new placements, only Germany and USSR gets FB
at Karelia or Russia?
But isn’t that the idea, that we make more strategies possible without effecting the balance to much? If powers receive extra pieces, balance isn’t effected that much if those pieces are placed in the same area on the map. But you do get more strategic options. More diversity in attack and defence… Conclusion, I don’t think you should worry to much on the balance, as long as we choose good placement territories.
like the unit placement due to new map
I prefer not too many changes
balance is so complicated because the players have different income and setup
proportions are not kept easily
giving Germany and USSR new FB is fair enough
but USSR already has a hard time defending Far East, so I think get rid of Japan FB
and UK FB doesn’t really open up new strategies neither
since its new placement we can move it back to Caucasus
Germany: 1 FB (Ukraine)
USSR: 1 FB (Caucasus)
thats what I am thinking
I see, but will for example Japan use it’s FB against Russia in AARHE? The VC system drives Japan more towards the Pacific then Russia… Maybe we could say that the new unit placements should only be used when the individual winning conditions are used.
