Weapon development is still necessary?

@doomer1940 I agree with you I’m working on fixing it

@Bob77:

Would this be at the beginning of game turn or each players turn?

Each players turn.

Some very excellent ideas here, thanks General for pointing me to this section!

@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.

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.

Sorry for posting in the wrong area…I’m still learning my way around this forum.  :-P

I can’t take full credit for my suggestion. There’s another game that I occasionally play that has a both a technology angle and fits within a historical context. The game is structured so that certain additional capabilities that become available to the opponents are tied to both a continuous investment of resources and a turn-based timeline.

Technological developments had a major impact on the conduct of WWII.  B-29’s, Me-262’s, V-2’s, fast carriers, Tiger tanks, etc. all changed the nature of the battle, but none of them were available in the early years. I’d like to retain the concept of weapons development, but I would also like to see them roll out in a more logical and historical sequence.

Ogre

p.s. If you want to make the game real interesting, create a viable tech pathway that allow the development of a limited number of nukes late in the game! Talk about a game changer….    :evil:

Not bad, but I think that infantry includes all that (officers, snipers etc…) when they roll their regular die.

20 I.P.C.'s (if you have the technology) :D .