AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

Thank You for reply.

Well then technically you shouldn’t get to transport your allies on ships neither but it is a rule in game play. I can see still using allies paratroopers for game play and I would even have a rule where a dice roll blocks it or stops it on that turn based on higher command.

Thanks Marc. Always love your replies !

Do or die?  :-D haha

I guess it’d be rather like Classic then, where you had to save to invade neutrals, except in this case you’d be saving ipcs to have the option to retreat! Might be fun. I could see a way that might be worked in if the players were agreeable.

As for the standard bonus, depending on which board you wanted to try it on, the influx of cash can definitely make purchasing strategy more interesting out of the second round and on. I’ve tried it on Revised, 41, 42.2, AA50 etc as my most basic cash bonus and people seem to enjoy it. Makes the land grab and combats just that much more intense, since you always have the bonus buck in the back of your mind

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

No, but I didn’t make a pig’s arse of the Russian Revolution rules.

yep

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink:

the debate was never settled. i said why i didn’t think it should be liberty ships are no one rebuted. i never thought US DD’s were on the table, it was Essex CVs (cheap because rushed into production and fast) that I thought had the lead spot.

Absolutely! Wouldn’t that be the definition of Defensive Air Support?

GG