AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion

For The Allies to be able - to some degree - to replace the severe losses of ships and transports during the early stages of the War, Landing Crafts are a plausible solution.

Though limited in numbers they still pose a serious threat for example to Axis-occupied Europe.

Landing Crafts are cheap, high value transportation means.

G40 Landing Craft.pdf

@Navalland said in Artillery to defend at 3?:

Just trying to figure out the most balanced unit set up and wondering if +1 defense to artillery would be good idea. Probably better to leave it as it is right now.

Ya I would for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzSPFoFcsSg

I mean how could you not want these in AnA supporting your landing forces?

Regarding the heavy tanks, its the ability to cancel a hit that you’re paying for. Don’t underestimate how powerful this can be; many people insist that tanks in 1914 are broken until they actually buy some and use them to breakthrough the enemy lines.

@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.

yah, so planes should be able to target other planes, tanks and artillery becasue thats what they were devistating against.

If i was defending against only infantry I would rather have the machineguns and autocannons of the aircraft given to my infantry rather than have them used on the planes. Why would u not do this?

by the way, its buggy at the moment

*some units can move in both combat and non-combat

*not landing friendly air units (which you can’t control) would render them destroyed
(eg. Japanese planes in the axis collided “turn”)

*you can SBR victory cities (which is not too bad since in AARHE SBR is not restricted to ICs)

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”