Oh yea BB gets preemtive shot on warships each round . losses are allocated before the defender can shoot back with surviving ships. BB had way longer range guns than any other ship and its next to impossible to have small ships have a go at a Battleship because they would get picked off before they ever got in range. You need numbers. Look at what happened to Bismarck.
so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?
and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3
so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?
++++ clarify not clear… if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3
Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!
Ill go with that.
@Imperious:
++++ clarify not clear…
it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ
if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrong
Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!
Ill go with that.
CAP?
it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ
++++yes right!!
Quote
if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrong
++++++ yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.
Quote
Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!
Ill go with that.
CAP?
Combat air patrol ( air support performed over fleet movements)
yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.
We’ll have to check its effect along the sugguested rule of 2 movement points to more between SZs .
Wake Island -> Japan -> Wake Island - 12 points
Okinawa -> Japan -> Okinawa - 8 points
say make planes taking off from carrier has 1 less movement points?
in OOB it takes one movement point to move from island to its SZ
but no movement point to move from carrier to its SZ
So the new AA as discussed.
Antiaircraft (AA)
AA costs 5 IPC, may have more than one AA per territory.
AA fires in opening-fire step of every cycle of combat. But it may not taken as casualty.
Each AA selects an enemy air unit independently. After all selections are made, each AA rolls a “search” dice detecting its target on 1.
Each AA then selects an enemy air unit independently among the detected units. After all selections are made, each AA rolls an “attack” dice hitting its target on 1, forcing the target to retreat on 2.
Place AA on its side when first built. It may not fire in combat but may move in non-combat. Turn it upright in any mobilisation phase including the the one it is initially mobilised in. It may now fire in combat but may not move again.
I thought we were going with a built in defense in factories and victory cities. everything else seems fine.
I thought we settled on doing both built-in and not!
So we have built-ins as well as explicit deployment.
In phase 1
IC has 2 AAs built-in.
VCs didn’t have AAs built-in.
How about 1 AA for VCs?
yes one aa for VC looks correct.
ICs has 2 AAs built-in.
I just checked again. In phase 1 final draft we have that at 3 not 2 AAs.
But I am fine with 2 AAs.
Ok please post the official ideas on this? Its hard to keep track with so many ideas flowing
the “offiical” idea is at
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0
but I think IC with 2 AA and VC with 1 AA is ok
Oh yea righto! keep it three. I like what you did with that post very succinct!
With this land fighter and naval fighter distinction, to stop land fighters from landng on carriers casually…
New values and new costs?
Otherwise player’ll just buy all naval fighters and no land fighters.
OK:
Fighters stay the same…
naval fighters: attack 2 defend 3 cost 8 move 2 ( from carrier)
The carrier can move before the planes to increase movement.
not sure about this…
Duno which point are you unsure about.
Move 2, and carrier can move before launching planes
That comes to another point.
Historically did they often leave carriers behind and sent rest of the fleet with fighters to attack?
We are talking about leaving a carrier a whole SZ behind…
Attack 2 Defend 3
Attack 2 is quite weak. I sugguest attack 3 defend 3.
And I don’t see why a CF (carrier fighter?) should defend better than attack…espeically when we implement the rule disallowing carrier fighters to keep fighting without a carrier…
Its not like land FTR where defender should be more well resourced/supported.
Move 2, and carrier can move before launching planes
That comes to another point.
Historically did they often leave carriers behind and sent rest of the fleet with fighters to attack?
We are talking about leaving a carrier a whole SZ behind…
++++ Carriers constantly moved, while naval based planes only move 2 spaces… thus its necessary for it to be clear that the carrier can move both before or after planes are launched… ( carrier movement points permitting) the idea that a carrier must stop movement for the turn and then launch fighters is far less realistic.
Attack 2 Defend 3
Attack 2 is quite weak. I sugguest attack 3 defend 3.
And I don’t see why a CF (carrier fighter?) should defend better than attack…espeically when we implement the rule disallowing carrier fighters to keep fighting without a carrier…
Its not like land FTR where defender should be more well resourced/supported.
_++++++ yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2. The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combat , while the naval plane would have impact against naval targets … possibly +1 thing
@Imperious:
the idea that a carrier must stop movement for the turn and then launch fighters is far less realistic.
Yeah I would be more realistic if we remove that seemingly artificial/arbitrary restriction on carrier.
yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2.
Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?
Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combat
I think we don’t need to give divebomber extra strength in non-dogfighting land combat.
I recall in another variant where LHTR’s Germany Luffwaffe divebomber 's extra strength was modified to be limited to land combat.
Yet I recall reading a story about Germany divebombers attacking US a ship. Great circular formation. Precise execution. Sailors watched in awe. Do you recall?
Quote
yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2.
Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?
+++++ thats fine as long as the price and cost don’t misalign it with respect to value vs. other unit buys.
Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
++++ yes that was the idea.
Quote
The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combat
I think we don’t need to give divebomber extra strength in non-dogfighting land combat.
I recall in another variant where LHTR’s Germany Luftwaffe divebomber 's extra strength was modified to be limited to land combat.
Yet I recall reading a story about Germany divebombers attacking US a ship. Great circular formation. Precise execution. Sailors watched in awe. Do you recall?
++++ What i remember is the total domination they enjoyed in Poland and France…due in part to the Blitzkrieg concept and entirely new vision of mobile warfare. The Germans hardly used planes against ships due in large part to Goering and his motto: “whatever flys is under my dominion”
That is why the German Carrier could not be completed for service because Goering would not release any planes for training in maritime combat drills other than simple strafing at beaches and harbors.
