A&A Generals

Hello,

I have Revised and a friend of me has the Spring42 Version. We prefer the newer Rules of Spring42 with the additional cruisers, “better” transporter rules and so on. But the board of Revised seems to be better, bigger and with more detail.

Now we plan to play on the Revised board (with Revised setup) with the Spring42 rules.

Has anyone of you did this before or has any ideas if this is feasible and playable?

Thank you very much!

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

I was wrong about the Japanese fleet placement – they do start with a transport and destroyer off the coast of China already, so I don’t feel the need to add more boats there. Instead I would say put the extra DD and transport in the Caroline Islands, where they will be nicely placed to help facilitate earlier attacks on Hawaii, Australia, or Alaska.

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

NM found it:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Fuel-Markers-Acrylic-_p_804.html

So where we at on these markers?

[u][b]Rail Station:[/b][/u]

Cost: 12-15 Attack: - Defense: - Move: -

These can only be build in controlled areas that contain a factory and only one per territory. If placed in an area that contains a major factory they can move 10 units, and 3 if placed in a minor factory, and they must start from Rail Station. If the factory is damaged the  rail movement is equal to placement value.

Rail Stations have a fixed AA defense of 1 roll like AB or NB.

In order to move units you must also build Rail Markers to indicate direction of travel.

[u][b]Rail Markers:[/b][/u]

These markers cost 6 IPC each and allow land units to move from rail station along whatever path of Rail Markers have been built. They can be damaged by SBR up to six points. the first points reduce the number of land units that may move to a total of 6. ( if the Rail Station starts with a major factory you may still move 4 units) The distance is unlimited as long as you built a connected line of Rail Markers. Rail markers have no fixed AA gun defense. If the enemy captures the area where a Rail Marker is present, it is destroyed.

Probably quite a bit, since heavy stacks of infantry can be nuked out of existance instead of slowely killed through attrition.

like Eastern Europe isn’t adjacent to Turkey nor Black Sea
but your title mentions “revised”