AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@FranceNeedsMorePower France only needs a infantry in Normandy.

@Bob77:

I would try a5 for tac bomber

I like it too.
Fighter A4 D5 vs TcB A5 D4 would be like mirror.
One is better for defense the other for offense.
Also, it keeps StB superior with A6.
My personnal taste would keep D1 for StB.
StB will still remain OP and an issue with Dark Sky.

All this is really about what you are aiming at and what is considered an issue in OOB roster.
Cruiser is slightly buffed considering how it is currently underpowered.

@WILD:

@Imperious:

Well if you allow BB and CV to take 2 turns to build and pay half each turn, it makes alot of sense to buy cruisers. The 3 move is great, but not sure to give it a 4 MOVE if from a naval port.

I’m also experimenting with many more convoy zones (UK convoy routes) mostly in the Atlantic, around Africa, and the Med. I’m hoping that giving the cruiser 3 moves (4 from nb) allows the axis to use it as a convoy raider at times because it can out run (or keep pace) with the allies ships. Adding more convoy zones is also making German subs more viable as commerce raiders.

To Baron Munchhausen, yea escort or light carrier would probably be a better terms then support carrier. I’ve been using A0, D1, M2-3, C12-carries 1 plane.  You bring up a good point about many of these light carriers were built on cruiser hulls though. Being this is a new ship for me at a relatively low cost (12 IPCs) I think I will keep it with the standard move of 2-3 for now (to warrant the cruiser at 12 IPC as the only fast ship), but will probably take a 3-4 move light carrier for a spin at some point.

PS: I’m really liking the 2 turn capital ship builds, and it is making ship building pretty interesting.

I’m also thinking about limiting 2 turn capital ship builds to major ICs (exception of USA who’s minors will be majors at some point). You can drop a capital ship at one of your minor ICs, but it takes an extra turn for delivery (3 turns to build). This is basically to stop the US or Japan from building capital ships in remote places. I would allow the UK Pac, Anz, Canada etc to build capital ships at their minor ICs, but theoretically they pay for the ship, it is built in England and delivered to the minor IC over 3 turns (same concept for the other powers building at their minor ICs). I realize that you could make a point that any ship built at a minor IC should be +1 turn because most ship yards would be at in the home territory where the major IC is (looking at that too lol).

Adding CVL to Cruiser, both at M3-4, makes a way to depict the historical US Fast Task Force fleet in PTO.
I made a house rule for Convoy Raid. It works well with 1942.2 and AA50.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1467061#msg1467061

Germany should have a reasonable chance to stop them or just have Germany cough up 16 ipc as soon as the Allies take NW Europe.  The way you have it set up Germany runs the risk of losing the fighter (10 ipc) just trying to stop it.  It adds up to alot of cash.  Maybe reduce the ipc amount lost 5-8 ipc.  I know that doesn’t seem like much but the amount of money Clint Eastwood & Telly Salvalus (sp  :-() were after was alot for a relatively small bunch of guys but would be maybe 10 ipc at most.  The money represents millions of working man hours not gold reserves.

I’m not trashing your idea, nothing wrong with it.  You could expand this thought to a Commando rule or Commando unit, drop them by bomber or transport to sabotage an enemy factory kinda like a SBR.  Enemy infantry could be the security for the factory and would have a chance to stop the Commando raid, if security fails its roll then Commandos do their sabotage & then retreat.  The Brits did alot of commando raids after Dunkirk just so they could hit back at the Nazis.

No way am I opening that can of worms again!!!  :-)

I am very happy as is, just wanted a clarification.

If they saw the latest files i feel we would have won easily. They are that good.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8670.0

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

When you post something and realize it doesn’t belong delete it if you are a registered user!

THANKS!