Separate carrier aircraft

@The-Captain

Exciting!

Welcome to the forums, DarkHand! I think you’re on the right track with some of these ideas- have you done a few searches for the existing A/C and other re-balance threads? There are a bunch of them, some absolutely massive, many still active, so calling yours “official” might be a bit of an overreach, but who knows? For example, here’s a thread with literally 1500+ posts that might steady you a bit or give you some inspiration: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions

As for making your own suggestions, playtesting with a dedicated group (enough to figure out the ‘meta’ of a particular HR) is key, so this right here:

@DarkHand said in Official Aircraft Rework Discussion:

I have yet to play test this (or even play regularly really :white_frowning_face: ).

is probably going to be the only limit on what you’re able to come up with. Good luck!

@Argothair:

My question is more about what do you do when you only have enough sculpts or enough attention span to play with one type of fighter. Is there a way to keep island bases vs. carrier bases balanced with only one type of fighter?

Or to put it another way: introducing a special extra unit simply for the sake of creating more unit variety is one thing, but introducing a special unit in order to fix a perceived problem with the game map or with the game rules is something else.  It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but perhaps an adjustment to the rules would be a more direct approach.

Please, I need everyone opinion.
And more specifically, I’m asking people which have a lot of experience with G40 games.

Because I’m still trying to keep the OOB Carrier and develop a real Fighter unit (able to hit directly planes) within the OOB combat values of G40 Full Carrier (A6 D10 / A7 D9 / A6 D8), I’m locked within some borders. Here they are.

Do you think this can still be a viable Fighter unit?
Or is this already and ultimately doomed because it remains too powerful with a Defense @3 which hit directly enemy’s planes?

Does a reduced cost for planes, such as minus 2 IPCs, (ex.: Fg at 8 IPCs, TcB at 9 IPCs, StB at 10 IPCs) can change something about balancing this Fighter unit?
(Here, I thought about a reduced cost as a way to compensate for high attrition rates amongst planes.)

This also rise the issue about such high SBR values, does an increased risk to loose valuable 12 IPCs Strategic Bombers still worth doing SBR? Or such revamped Fighter unit imply to revised SBR, anyway?

Details below are provided to understand what I’m talking about.
I’m not really trying to promote this new unit but rather asking people about obvious flaws which can be seen from experienced players POV get used to play with a lot of units and IPCs coming along with any G40 games.

Down below are the three aircraft units combat values and cost:

FIGHTER
Attack 2 can rise to 3
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.
This last point is an entirely new feature:
it is provided to ensure that Fighters on Carrier can still have a high defense against any Strategic Bombers Spam, such as Darkened Skies strategy.

Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack / Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

SBR escort mission: Attack @2
Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 11
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
+1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

No Carrier Operation

Now in SBR situations, aircrafts will be fighting each others with more logical values:
Fighters: Attack 2 Defense 3
Tactical Bombers: Attack 2 Defense 0
Strategic Bombers: Attack 1 Defense 0

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

Many suggestions that have made on this forum were mainly a work in progress or a “spaghetti on the wall” as some says.
Here is a new topic I just posted to discuss one important and evolutionary House Rule about sub naval warfare which I think worth the time to read:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

Since this topic is really not actually in the game, i consider it a house rule discussion.

@Yoshi:

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

no, jet ftrs can intercept Rockets AND bombers…. unless the bombers are shielded via more escorts than jet ftrs.

@Yoshi:

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

More protected with less defending jet power?  I don’t think so. 
Jets can intercept both rockets AND SBRs.

Your example negated the bomber interception since you had escorts (LRA).
By allowing the attacker to choose the casualties, the attacker is rewarded for having rockets AND LRA.

@Yoshi:

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

You are welcome.  And it’s not a problem, I will support Enhanced when ever I can.