British Fighters

Myself it really depends on what Germany does, though my standard moves are, Dest from SZ35 to SZ59, Sub from SZ40 to SZ45, The Subs a 50/50, some people like to take the carrier to the tran as well but, I prefer the Dest Alone. If Africa is going good, Namely if I can retake EGY, then the tran in SZ40 takes two inf from AUS and invades New Guinea (Something nice to try) If I cannot retake EGY I like to use the Tran to pick up 2 INF from AUS and then move to SZ30, then on UK2 drop them anywhere along the Africa coast (Even Persia if it needs them). If Germany takes EGY and you “can” retake it, then do it bringing 2 inf from IND, 1 INF from TRJ and the Fighter from SZ35 (You can also bring your Bomber but I usually don’t). Otherwise I like to stack 2 inf in TRJ and the 3 Indian Inf and A-A gun to Persia. The AC stays with the Tran wherever it decides to go. If Germany is stupid and doesn’t take EGY, then smile :lol: happily and move the INF from TRJ into it, stack 4 + A-A gun in Persia, move the FIG to EGY and move the Tran and AC to SZ33 (Out of reach of the IJN).
The SAF INF always moves up, regardless of what you do.

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

Thanks guys, found it in the LHTR with your help!

I like dumping the US AA gun in Karelia, they usually have extra transport space early on when I overbuild transports. It makes me mad as Germany to see an AA gun in Kar and Ukraine. The Russian fighters are happy trading Belo, while using art in Ukraine and the British are helping out in Kar  :lol:

Actually, I WISH I had the flying Stukas.  I stupidly selected those IPC-sucking subs that do nothing but suck IPCs out of Germany!  :lol:  4 subs purchased x $8 a sub = a whole mess of land units I could use right about now.  :-P  Those subs did shave a fair amount of income from Britain and the U.S., but when you’re buying only 8 infantry a turn as Germany, it’s like your moving in slow motion or something.  Freaking Russia was going crazy in Europe because I had too little fodder to be aggressive (until recently, that is).

I think I’ll start a thread on NAs, come to think of it.

It goes along with teh special mid-battle retreat that FIGs can do, and also the fact that they can NOT remain in a combat zone after a batle (except by landign on an AC after a naval battle).

You HAVE to be able to MOVE in NCM to land in every type of battle EXCEPT a Naval Battle, and then you can ONLY stay there if you WIN.

@Jennifer:

I agree.  If I plan to hide like a school girl cowering from an overly menacing mcdonald’s double cheeseburger with my fleet . . .

Traumatic personal experience?

Oh well, if you ended up looking like that in a bikini, I’m not complainin.

I think the general consensus is you can pretty easilly cripple the Royal Navy (kill the Gibraltar BB and the Egyptian DST), but killing the whole fleet, while POSSIBLE, does not yield positive net results for Germany.  UK can too quickly rebuild (a single AC and they get a defense of 11 with their starting FIGs, and it only costs 16 IPC’s) and the US can too easilly sweep in since the risk from Germany AF is basically nil.