i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering. I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.
That might work. Still, it means IL has to rethink his optimal Axis opening moves. Japan can still destroy tones of US ships, but carriers become vulnerable.
i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering. I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.
That’s why I gave them a range of 3 (5 with Long Range).
i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering. I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.
That’s why I gave them a range of 3 (5 with Long Range).
not counting the move to/from the carrier actually gives naval fighters a range of 4 when launched from a carrier. A range of three means that they would have to land a)on a different carrier, b) on land, c) that the carrier would have to move to pick them, as a 3 range cannot return them to the ship and use their full range.
a range of 2 (with bonus from carriers) encourages them to be used on carriers, otherwise they will be overused on land.
That might work. Still, it means IL has to rethink his optimal Axis opening moves. Japan can still destroy tones of US ships, but carriers become vulnerable.
yes, and the initial setup of the game might be best to check for the inclusion of such fighters from the start.
If you want it realistic naval fighters should be 2 space movers. ok
But to also be realistic they cant be used on land. different branches of the service didn’t make requests: “Hey admiral -send us some torpedo bombers”
I say attack at 3, defend at 3 move 2, cost 8-9
Air was the key factor against ships. If you had them you can sink anything that floats.
@Imperious:
If you want it realistic naval fighters should be 2 space movers. ok
But to also be realistic they cant be used on land. different branches of the service didn’t make requests: “Hey admiral -send us some torpedo bombers”
I say attack at 3, defend at 3 move 2, cost 8-9
Air was the key factor against ships. If you had them you can sink anything that floats.
But imagine if your country were really being hard-pressed by your enemies and your fleet had been destroyed, but you still had some naval fighters. You as the commanding general wouldn’t say, “I need to attack this territory to protect the capital, and I really need some more units. It’s too bad that I don’t have any aircraft carriers for these naval fighter divisions to base from so that they could join in the attack.”
The solution to the problem of people buying naval fighters specifically for the purchase of land warefare is to give them a shorter range and to make the regular fighter to actually be more cost-effective, so perhaps the naval fighter should have the following stats with the cost raised to 9 IPCs.
Naval Fighter Stats
2 Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3 Defense
3 Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9 IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
– Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.
What do y’all think?
Naval Fighter Stats
2 Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3 Defense
3 Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9 IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
– Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.
why do they attack at 2? A fighter with bullets kills a battleship at 3, and a fighter with torpedo bombs or a large bomb does it at 2? No way.
@Imperious:
Naval Fighter Stats
2 Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3 Defense
3 Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9 IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
– Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.why do they attack at 2? A fighter with bullets kills a battleship at 3, and a fighter with torpedo bombs or a large bomb does it at 2? No way.
I am definitely not opposed to a 3 / 3 naval fighter. The reason for having the naval fighters be a 2 attack / 3 defense value was to continue the AA tradition of fighters having a higher defense, so my questions for you would be the following:
Why have fighters always had a lower attack than defense?
Why have aircraft carriers always had a lower attack than defense?
At least I do understand why infantry units have a higher defensive value because of being dug-in and all that, but why would naval units have higher defensive values? Off the cuff, I would think that if any offensive/defensive values were to be unequal with naval units, that the attaker would have the advantage, so the offensive value should be the higher one.
I have always thought that perhaps all of the units in the game should have equal attack and defense values, but I do understand that in a 6-sided die system (where currently no unit has an attack or defense value of “5” or “6” - effectively making it a 4 point system) that for unit variation, some units should have unequal attack / defense values.
On a diferent note, how do you feel about the naval fighter having a range of 3 (5 with Long Range)?
Without adding special rules from other verions of AA, I feel that this is just about right. Imagine a carrier in a seazone 1 move away from a sea zone containing an island. The naval fighters on the carrier MAY attack the island and still land on the carrier which has moved into the sea zone surrounding the island. I think this move was and should be a part of WWII. With a range of 2, that move would not be valid without special rules which would add to the complexity of the game.
Yes, fighters are always better on defense that offense, but only because the attacker has to fly such long distances. The question we need to ask is how far did a typical navy pilot have to fly to his target? Is it enough that it would cause a significant difference in the pilot’s combat capability that a navy fighter must have a reduced attack?
I think fighter should still have a move of 4. Yes, from a tactical standpoint of a single battle, the fighter wouldn’t be able to fly more than 1 space away from the carrier, then fly back. However, we have to remember that more than just battles happen in a turn.
For example, two loaded Japanese carriers are sitting off Midway in AA50 41. Moving 4, the fighters can hit the BB off Hawaii. During Non-combat, the carriers and planes can rejoin off the coast of Japan. This maneuver doesn’t represent a single battle or flight. Obviously, if 2 fighters flew off a carrier in midway to attack a ship in Hawaii, and the carrier went in the opposite direction towards japan, of course the fighter could not hit hawaii and fly all the way back to japan in one go.
That’s not the point. If a turn really represents six months, you need to able to compensate for strategic maneuver and redeployment. A 4 move fighter allows you to do this, while a 2 move fighter does not, and forces you to place you carriers in riskier situations, to the point of actively engaging ships, when they ought to stay out of range.
Naval fighters are torpedo planes and divebombers (for the most part) along with fighters for CAP.
I suggest the classic fighters are allowed on carriers to become CAP, while these specialized planes that actually take out battleships which are not fighters do also attack at 3, because 2 makes them like some silly destroyer when these are devastating to capital ships i feel they should be at 3 attacks.
This allows them to also be used as land based tactical bombers which also do more damage against tanks, then fighters.
Fighters are only good for dogfights, escort duty and occasional strafing of men. They dont take out tanks or artillery or warships. This is what dive bombers and torpedo bombers do.
So i think the naval fighter concept should be shelved and replaced with the designation “fighter- bomber” which allows the flexibility of land sea and air utility and also removes the ahistorical thing about naval fighters attacking land targets.
I like the CAP idea.
Still, you could certainly retrofit a P-51 or even a P-38 to land on a carrier. There is also no reason why a P-51 could not carry a bomb or a torpedo. Here are my rules for both torpedo planes and dive bombers:
Dive Bombers
During the Combat Move phase, before you move any of your units, you may designate any number of fighters as Dive Bombers. Dive Bombers may attack in two different ways.
Tactical
Your fighter attacks on a 5 during the first round.
Strategic
Your fighter may conduct a Strategic Bombing Raid against an IC. Each fighter roles 1d6, and inflicts damage equal to half the amount on the die, rounded up. All other SBR rules applying to bombers apply to dive bombers.
*If enemy fighters are present in a territory or sea zone being attacked, fighters may not act as dive bombers in those territories.
Torpedo Bombers
During the Combat Move phase, before you move any of your units, you may designate any number of fighters as a Torpedo Plane. During the first round of combat, hits inflicted by Torpedo Planes can only be inflicted on enemy ships.
*Long Lance Torpedoes give Japanese planes a +1 for this first round strike.
There is also no reason why a P-51 could not carry a bomb or a torpedo.
why didn’t they? If its so easy and since these planes were very fast perhaps their is something more behind just adding a torpedo?
Planes for this purpose have to be designed to dive at a specific speed in a controlled manner to deliver the ordinance effectively, and the P-51 does not cut it because its too fast. Thats why the wing span and size of the wings are different on the divebomber so they can glide at a steep decent, where as the fighter needs to be fit and agile so it can maneuver quickly.
There is a reason why some planes are of one type and others can only perform specific roles.
You’ve got another point there, certainly with the dive bombers. Specialized wing design is ideal, if not necessary. I know that if a p-51 dove too fast, i could create a sonic boom, and tear the wings right off.
P-51, to my knowledge, was originally meant to be an attack plane, that is, until it got the new Merlin Engine. Then no other fighter could touch it. The P-51 did eventually do attack missions, which included dive bombing and rocket attacks, but only after the Luftwaffe was taken care of.
yes i too watched that on the military channel this afternoon.
Actually, I haven’t even had that channel for some months now. (money crunch :-()
Still, military channel rules :-D
i think the time estimates of several months per turn is part of the reason that ‘fighters’ are more easily placed in the game as one unit type–when you begin modifying the game with more specific unit types you begin to run into these types of problems.
I like the fighter-bomber idea, i’ve played IL’s Eastern Front with them and used them in a game of AAE a couple times, so i don’t think it’s a bad way to go.
On the other hand, as so much of a separation of land/sea combat exists with the way combat works (transports/subs/for example) that if naval fighters could be utilized in a naval-focused way that they could bring interesting combat developments to the naval game, if some overlooking of the abstractness of the game itself can occur.
I’ve always seen planes as units that can fight on either land or sea, and I really don’t like the idea of limiting a plane to one area.
I’ve always seen planes as units that can fight on either land or sea, and I really don’t like the idea of limiting a plane to one area.
Exactly my point. Naval fighters COULD fight on land if needed, and land-based fighters could always fly out to sea and attack naval units as long as they have the movement points left to return to land.
But, a specific naval fighter, I believe, would help the naval warfare side of the game.
I’ve always seen planes as units that can fight on either land or sea, and I really don’t like the idea of limiting a plane to one area.
but we do it with ships and infantry…. oh wait, bad example… :roll: :-D
I think this topic should be revised considdering the introduction of a fighter-bomber to Axis and Allies. Should this new air unit be the defacto “Naval Fighter” or carrier bases plane? Is this simply a dead concept, or can it be revised?
The entire premis behind a “Naval Fighter” is that land-based and carrier-bases planes are not interchangable. Aircraft carriers require specialized planes, both fighter/interceptors and attack planes.
Perhaps a simple rule would be this: wherever a plane is initially built, it is confined to that area of combat. A fighter deployed on land remains a land-based aircraft for the remainder of it’s life. A plane deployed on a carrier can only fight from a carrier.
I can already think of several problems for this rule, but I will allow others to comment…mostly because I’m tired.
Well it’s simple.
Army airforce = must land on territory (or island) only
Naval airforce = Must land on carrier only.
Just used two different pieces to identify the planes.
Example: hellcat = naval, P51 = airforce.
Can defend and attack together.
Fighter attack at 2 against ground units.
Attack on 3 against ships.
Always defend on 4.
Dive bomber must be a different unit.
Att: 4 in the first round and at 3 on the next turn.
Always defend on 2.
Torpedo bomber
Attacking ship only
At 3 in the first round. (may choose is target)
At 2 in the next round.
Def: 1
All planes movement = 4
In our houses rules, planes may retreat after the first round fo combat.
