• Well, I was not thinking about replacing anything with the CA’s… For MECH another story, those could replace existing infantry. But I hope that CA’s could be placed extra for more naval power…

    And maybe place the Japan CA with that lonely Kwantung AP instead of with the East Indies fleet.


  • “About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?”

    Yea that NA will have to go.

    Another thing… then the idea is to replace in some cases the OOB setup with these new pieces?

    “oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
    so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs”

    what parameters do we decide when:

    1. we add a piece

    2. we replace a piece with the new piece

    generally i dont like to remove any pieces or replace them with any new ones. Id rather add a small ‘seed’

    Micoom’s idea is fine… but i post some small change in bold.

    Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1FB(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

    Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

    Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

    UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, off greenland), 1 FB (Egypt)

    US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

    USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)


  • hm…CA addition change the game start too much IMO

    most importantly…

    Italy CA: Med Sea now belongs to Italy

    also…

    India CA + EastIndices CA: Instead of running, UK now has a stand off with Japan
    WesternUS CA: Meanwhile US is stronger, Pacific push out of question

    generally i dont like to remove any pieces or replace them with any new ones. Id rather add a small ‘seed’

    what do you mean by ‘seed’ ?

    and should Italy really get a PARA?


  • @tekkyy:

    hm…CA addition change the game start too much IMO

    most importantly…

    Italy CA: Med Sea now belongs to Italy

    also…

    India CA + EastIndices CA: Instead of running, UK now has a stand off with Japan
    WesternUS CA: Meanwhile US is stronger, Pacific push out of question

    and should Italy really get a PARA?

    India CA is moved to Greenland, so still running for the Japs.

    Italy had a big fleet, and UK gets a CA at Egypt with the DD. So the balance in the Med stays even…

    Yes, Italy had  several Airborne (Folglore) divisions who had been prepared for the invasion of Malta…

    Japan also receives it’s CA and FB in the pacific, so i don’t see that the Western US CA will be a problem…


  • oh I see

    East Indices CA <===> Westen US CA.
    Egypt CA <===> Italy CA
    Greenland CA <===> Germany CA

    sort of balanced

    however, I hope the other units are replacements
    (I mean we can argue the additional naval units as part of “cheaper naval units” scheme)
    but air and land units probably upset balance a bit more

    could we change

    Japan: FB (Japan)
    Germany: FB (Ukraine), FB (Western Europe)
    USSR: FB (Caucasus)
    UK: FB (Egypt)

    to

    Japan: FB (Japan)
    Germany: FB (Ukraine)
    USSR: FB (Karelia)
    UK: FB (Egypt)


  • Yes, I think that’s fine.

    For MECH also Replace an INF for a MECH

    But i would like the PARA’s to be added. So we  have CA and PARA added, and FB and MECH replacing units.


  • yeah, I guess one PARA at Capital can be too bad
    you need to buy TP (transport plane) before you can them as air assault anyway


  • so is it all good, Imperious Leader?

    PARA (paraptrooper): new placement
    MECH (mechanized infantry): replace INF
    FB (fighter bomber): replace FTR
    NAV (naval fighter): replace FTR
    CA (cruiser): new placement

    Japan: 1 CA (East Indies), 1 FB (Japan) 1 PARA (Japan)

    Germany: 1 CA (Baltic), 1 FB (Ukraine), 2 MECH (Western Europe, West Russia), 1 PARA (Germany)

    Italy: 1 CA (Italy), 1 PARA (Italy)

    UK: 2 CA (Egypt, Greenland ), 1 FB (Egypt)

    US: 1 CA (Western US), 1 MECH (Eastern US), 1 PARA (Eastern US)

    USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1 FB (Karelia), 1 PARA (Russia)


  • One thing:

    THe Soviets have only 2 planes and one of them is reduced to FB… THese are critical units for them… everything else is perfect.  But perhaps FB should be an extra rather than replacement… then the Soviets at least get a 3rd plane and they have more strategy because it can do limited SBR… something they never get to do.


  • I think this is correct, those fighters are maybe to most important pieces in the game (normal Revised)


  • Lets just add the 4 total pieces to the game like cruisers. It will really make alot of new strategy. Germany really needs her full fighter strength and the Soviets for the previous reasons.


  • unlike naval units
    new air and land unit placements changes things a bit more

    so how about
    FB are new placements, only Germany and USSR gets FB
    at Karelia or Russia?


  • But isn’t that the idea, that we make more strategies possible without effecting the balance to much? If powers receive extra pieces, balance isn’t effected that much if those pieces are placed in the same area on the map. But you do get more strategic options. More diversity in attack and defence…  Conclusion, I don’t think you should worry to much on the balance, as long as we choose good placement territories.


  • like the unit placement due to new map
    I prefer not too many changes

    balance is so complicated because the players have different income and setup
    proportions are not kept easily

    giving Germany and USSR new FB is fair enough

    but USSR already has a hard time defending Far East, so I think get rid of Japan FB
    and UK FB doesn’t really open up new strategies neither

    since its new placement we can move it back to Caucasus

    Germany: 1 FB (Ukraine)
    USSR: 1 FB (Caucasus)

    thats what I am thinking


  • I see, but will for example Japan use it’s FB against Russia in AARHE? The VC system drives Japan more towards the Pacific then Russia… Maybe we could say that the new unit placements should only be used when the individual winning conditions are used.


  • also Japan don’t need the FB it for new strategy, like UK they have a BMR

    I am still not happy with it though
    USSR can’t afford to lose a FTR but Germany already has many units
    how about just USSR new FB

    reality check
    who HAD much dive bombers in 1942?


  • OK, now we are going somewhere. I like you diversion between a completely new alternate setup and one for automatic placement when people decide to use the optional units.

    Place the Russian FB in the Caucasus.


  • reality check
    who HAD much dive bombers in 1942?

    Well the fighter-bomber is alot more generic than a divebomber… All nations had these planes.

    OK add FB to Soviets and Germans

    replace FB with fighter with Japan and USA

    the other 2 dont get anything ( UK and Italy)


  • Hey, my reply was on a comment about alternate setup, but i see tekky modified the text… so my reactions seems kind of odd.

    First the Germans with Stukas and the then Russians with Sturmaviks, The Japs specialized in torpedo bombers. The UK and US started to turn their FIG in ground attack models form 1942 on… This game is in the early 1942 so the German and Russians have the advantage. Japan could also, if the torpedo bomber is also represented by it.


  • @Micoom:

    Hey, my reply was on a comment about alternate setup, but i see tekky modified the text… so my reactions seems kind of odd.

    hehe yeah I removed it again cos I thought too many ideas at once
    and suddenly felt like just wrapping this part up

    Imperious, here it is again…

    *our goal is becoming vague
    *maybe make this minimal and simple (its just to cater for new units)
    *later make an “alternative setup”, for opening new strategies, realism and other stuff

    OK add FB to Soviets and Germans
    replace FB with fighter with Japan and USA
    the other 2 dont get anything ( UK and Italy)

    yeah I was consider a hybrid (new placements + replacements) method too, but was trying to keep it simple

    oh I see, now thats different again…now US not UK gets FB…
    would that be Western US?

    NAV (naval fighter)
    the FTR at Hawaiian Islands (not on CV)…should it become NAV or remain as FTR?

1 / 3

Suggested Topics

  • G40 - Turn 0 - The Setup Round, aka "The Buildup"

    May 20, 2016, 11:11 PM
    2
  • Europe 1940 (2nd Edition) Alternate Setup/Rules: By the Book

    Mar 8, 2015, 8:13 AM
    6
  • Alternate Pacific 40 setup & NOs

    Jul 29, 2010, 8:37 AM
    1
  • AARHE 4.1: Optional rules

    Jan 18, 2009, 8:12 PM
    20
  • AARHE: Air Combat

    Nov 10, 2008, 7:12 AM
    14
  • AARHE 1939 Infantry Build at VC and China Factory

    Aug 31, 2008, 6:54 PM
    2
  • AARHE: Phase 3: Naval combat system

    May 18, 2006, 4:58 PM
    18
  • AARHE: Phase 2: Technology

    Sep 1, 2006, 2:47 AM
    153
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.7k

Users

40.3k

Topics

1.8m

Posts