A&A 1914 Submarines

So basically a 2 dollar bump for the allies turn1, then 4,6,8 and so on. Sounds pretty interesting. Another way to play the game. The more the merrier. One should never get bored playing A&A (although it might not be bad to take a break once in a while), just bust out a different scenario. :)

@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.

Another way to get a distinctive taste between Fg and TcB on offence is to give attacking Fg a preemptive strike @1, like it is in 1942.2 SBR.

Fg A1 preemptive / D2 regular
TcB A1 / D1
StB A1 /D0, but A1 is like a  1 AAA @1 vs up to 1 plane without preemptive, up to 1 StB or plane whichever is less.

So you kept a progressive scale from D0, to D2.
And every unit get a chance in dogfight phase, no bystander, except for StB on defense.

My play group has just recently, which resulted in a land-slide victory for the Central powers, and the discovery of some rule flaws. Rules changed:

Romania and Arabia now have different mobilisation objectives. (by Flashmans request)

Italy and USA now have much more static entrances.

Colonial mobilisation has been  limited. (Can only mobilise units equal to IPC value of that territory)

Portugal can now be a colony.

Neutral Greece’s entry is now more historic.

Persia no longer has rail-roads. (Flashman)

Given the British dominion a transport capacity of 3. (simple error)

Colonies can only mobilise convoys under the same owner as the territory.

ALL neutrals (including aliened) are now full neutrals. (they can only be mobilised at certain points in the game)

Serbia now has 5 Infantry.

Made it so powers don�t start with ‘convoys’. (Simple error)

Railed in units now attack @ full strength. (players found it more fun this way)

Feel free to suggest rule changes.

well you are right in some points and may be wrong in others. My opinion is that is excellent to develop new ideas, but you are just altering too many points.

Try to make fewer changes and them we can all together develop the game instead of replacing the game.

The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.

Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough.  Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.

What does this have to do with the title?

I never do CAP, mostly because I don’t think about it.  The few times I do I don’t want to risk my fighters.  I’ve never seen it done in any games I’ve played.  I do think it could be useful so I’ve thought about adding it again to my house rules but I am striving for simplicity right now.