AARHE: Phase 2: Units

@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?

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 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?

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.

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

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.

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.

@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?

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.

So what would be a good price for a 3/3 naval fighter? Is 8 IPC too cheap compared to 10 IPC 3/4 land fighter?

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.

What shall be the cost of a 3/2 dive bombers? 8 IPC too?

It does appear now we have too many planes though.
Fighter, naval figher, dive bomber, bomber…
vs. land only getting infantry, armor and artillery…

If we were to pick between naval fighter and dive bomber to add, you would pick naval figher right?

@Imperious:

++++ 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.

Ok, what we gotta focus on a dive bombers in general (not just German)?

8 IPC fighter seems correct… but a destroyer costs 10 IPC at 2/2, while this plane is at 3/3 costing 8… seems a no brainer to just buy planes…

Its not too bad. I mean the naval fighter could have a range of 2 instead of 4.
And naval fighters is not a no brainer replacement for destroyer as destroyer can stay in the sea while naval fighter is at the mercy of carriers able to survive.

But yeah 3/2 seems good too.

+++++ yes see above.

You sound like considering combing naval fighter with dive bomber or just making them both 3/2?

while the 2 defense makes it closer to its relationship in air combat against land based fighters

Don’t worry about that.
We have dogfighting values.

So only think of its ability in anti-ship combat.
3/2 for anti-ship combat is reasonable, to say defensing naval ships are more sitting duck than attacking naval ships. (Though one would argue this advantage should dimenish after first cycle of combat.)

As for dogfigthing values. Currently…

FTR 2/3
BMR 1/1
JET FTR 4/4

So we’ll add values for…

NAVAL FTR (very difficult to squeeze in between FTR and BMR… :|, but I think attack should same as defense)

DIVE BMR

JET BMR (god…this is spilling everywhere…)

++++  no just two fighter type planes:

1. all purpose fighter
2. torpedo bomber/ divebomber one use for sea, another use for land… same values and costs.

The land fighter (is that all purpose fighter?) can’t land on carrier right?
So we probably shouldn’t call it the all purpose fighter.