About AAA and Transports

@jacobg I think that makes airplanes too vulnerable. You would need to make them cheaper.

Cheaper airplanes and more effective AA might well be more realistic, but be careful about shifting the balance.

Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.

@SS-GEN Yes you did. That helped me come up with a good balance for the anniversary map. Thanks for the feedback on the V1s didn’t see that typo.

@Kreuzfeld:

@Baron:

You answered a different question.
You are questionning Destroyer’s blocker ability.
Maybe, if a more accurate naval is needed, DD can only be used as blocker against Sub ; to block surface vessels you can house rule that Cruiser or bigger is needed.
That way, some Carriers will be needed to do so.

I would disagree. I think I talked about how subs and DDs are way to effective (compared to CVs) when building a combat fleet. If you wanted to make the game historically correct in composing a combat fleet, you would simply count the number of carriers and their planes, and then almost completely disregard the other ships. A fair version of this would be to make it so that ships had AA only, and planes where the only thing that was allowed to fire at enemy ships in a fleet battle. It is difficult to grasp how dominant they where.  Remember that UK sank half of the italian fleet using 20 gladiators in a nightraid.

Blocker ability cannot be a fruitful tactics if you have to commit costly units.
The OOB cost structure is made in a way that destroyer is first fodder/blocker.
12 IPCs Cruiser is a high cost and 10 IPCs Fg can be fodder but not blocker.
Commit Carrier as blocker, you need an additional unit such as Escort Carrier, CVE, around 10 IPCs.

As usual knp great minds think alike. I allow 1 capacity for airborne assault and 2 capacity for ncm.

I just skimmed over this topic so I haven’t super analyzed costs. But fwiw, I’m not for limiting special units when I set out my HRs generally I just adjust for cost or abilities.  So let’s say someone wants to attempt a massive airborne assault they’re going to need money.

For my part, anything that can follow these principles is welcome:

No combat unit destroyed by a weak non-warship transport unit, Naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule:

No auto-die, a roll is needed to destroy any unit, no exception at all

and no combat unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round (AAA still an exception).

In addition, a roll is needed to provide escape for the weak, no predictable result.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. Lots of great ideas. I am implementing the idea of having to take off from AB but do not like the idea of having to land back at one (too restictive). A lot of the ideas discussed IMO are to restrictive. Here’s what my group will use moving forward.
Heavy transport $10, move 6 no attack or defend value (last unit removed - NEW) (must take off from AB-NEW) (limit 3 per major power) (can transport 3 Inf or 3 Special forces)
Special forces (paratroops) $5 Att3 Def1 (limit 5 per major power but can be replaced when destroyed).

You need to do the Axis Italian fasces symbol

Canada maple is post war

Dutch roundel was an orange triangle from 1940

Hungarian cross should be a square

Chinese star should be yellow

Full roster of WWII roundels are featured on my WIP card designs:

WorldA&ACards.PNG
PowersA&ACards.PNG
EuropeA&ACards.PNG