Combining A&A Europe with A&A Pacific

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

Opps sorry Missed that one this “morning” your right even having the map right beside me then and thinking it, ya well have a spring 44 scenario without the need for Operation Bagration :-P Belerus should’ve been in that list too. Thanks :-)

@Gargantua:

Also… the research facility cost the same as all the other facilities for simplicity sake (15), not that it’s a huge deal…  and they also operated the same (built in AA, up to 6 damage, operable at 2 or less damage).

I think handing out free research facilities at the beginning of the game may make things very tech heavy, but I understand the need to get some of the smaller nations involved. I suggest a price ladder for multiple facilities…

1st Lab = $5
2nd Lab = $10
3rd Lab = $20
4th Lab = $40
5th Lab = $80
6th Lab = $160

This way, 1st Labs are practically free for UK, Russia, Italy, and India, but there is still a small risk for having one. It also makes nations who want more research rolls, to pay accordingly for them. I would still like to see ANZAC, France, and China ineligible, however, I like your idea of an invading nation choosing to steal a tech by destroying the captured facility, or keeping it for themselves, it solves some issues when capturing.

I could be mistaken… but Purchasing TECH, might actually come BEFORE the repair units phase… in which case, a bombed facility, wouldn’t be able to roll for tech - until AFTER repairs, and a turn where it isn’t damaged again.

Don’t we want players to spend for repairs, roll for research, and purchase developed weapons all in the same turn?

NM found it:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Fuel-Markers-Acrylic-_p_804.html

Commanders (based on d12 system)
Each major power can have one or more military commanders that affect the outcome of battles. Each turn one commander unit is placed in a territory you wish to attack and can affect a +1 modifier on attack or defense for the sum of combat units equal to its leadership value for the duration of combat rounds. Each nation begins with commanders as follows:

Germany:
Hitler          8
Manstein    9
Runstedt    8
Rommel    10
Guderian    6

Italy:
Kesselring    7
Badoglio      4

Finland
Mannerheim    6

U.S.S.R:
Stalin              7
Zhukov          8
Timoshenko  7

United Kingdom:
Montgomery      7
Alexander          5

Japan:
Tojo                  7
Yamamoto*    10
Nagumo*          8
Yamashita        7

U.S.A.
Patton              9
Eisenhower    8
Nimitz*          7
Macarthur      7

Note: The engaged commander remains in the territory till the end of the turn. If enemy forces choose to counterattack and capture the territory  then that commander is considered killed in battle and cannot be replaced. All Leaders can only affect land battles except the leaders with * which can effect battles on the sea.

@dezrtfish:

So, you take a bad odds chance of loosing 12 IPCs worth of equipment for an average of 3IPCs loss to your enemy.

1/61 + 1/62 + 1/63 + 1/64 + 1/65 + 1/66 = 3.5

About the odds! If one uses one fighter to escort the bomber and the enemy has one fighter in the target area, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 8.5 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 12 + 1/6 * 15). On the other hand the enemy has the odds of loosing 11.5 I.P.C.'s (4/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! The question is if the enemy chooses to use his fighter to intercept the escort??

If one chooses to perform a SBR whithout fighter cover, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 10 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 15 + 1/6 * 15), where as the enemy has the odds of loosing 5.5 I.P.C.'s (1/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! :wink:

What we have learned here is that this rule pracrtically reduceses the bombers range to 4! But there is another thing that is very interesting with this rule, and that is when one player has developed Heavy Bombers. Then it’s worth building a stock pile of fighters in all IC territories, except new or captured ones (se rules for ‘New Complexes’)!

B.Andersson, Game Master