Weapon development is still necessary?

@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.

@Pitt79 please elaborate the usa russia scenario thanx

thanks for responding…

Actually the Research and Development phase is an optional game element that all players participating must agree to include, or exclude before the game begins.

@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.

I prefer simplicity. I prefer to have them operate like minor ICs except their bonus is one research die per turn instead of producing units. (when not damaged). I’m okay with a cap of 1 tech per turn. I’ll pass on the captured technology raid rule. I think having your enemy capture your research facility (and the free roll each turn after that) is reward enough.

Having them operate like minor ICs let’s you build them on 2 iPc territories, which is necessary if someone like Anzac hopes to ever acquire any technology.

Overall it’s a great concept.

The chem/bio unit would be a very powerful weapon of mass destruction and the cool thing is that it would create a real THREAT.  How many IPCs would it cost to build one?  Would you lose a war crime point just for mobilizing it?  How many war crime points would you lose for actually using it?  I like the part where your own guys get gassed.

I’m thinking about a system where all rolls are free, and based on your country’s income.  This is because, obviously, the choice wasn’t “develop technology or put those scientists in shermans and liberate europe”.