What do we want in AAE40 that we didn't get in AAP40?

@Brain:

If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground  or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.

There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:

• An attack value
• A defense value
  2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have:
• A land combat value
• A naval combat value
• An air combat value
  3. Combining the two methods. Units would have:
• An attack value (land)
• A defense value (land)
• An attack value (naval) . . . etc.

Method three results in six different combat values; making it both the most realistic and the most complex. The methods Larry and I used are relatively similar in their complexity, but involve differing trade-offs with respect to realism. Infantry hiding behind trenches should have an advantage–an advantage which Larry’s system incorporates. Mine does not, because all units have the same land combat values whether they are on offense or defense. But to make up for that, my rules set allows for the inclusion of air-to-air combat–combat for which fighters are specialized. It has the following definitions for aircraft:

Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15

Nice, I like the concept

Your opponents should check your loaded dice :wink:

@KurtGodel7:

@Brain:

If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground  or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.

There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:

• An attack value
• A defense value
  2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have:
• A land combat value
• A naval combat value
• An air combat value
  3. Combining the two methods. Units would have:
• An attack value (land)
• A defense value (land)
• An attack value (naval) . . . etc.

Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15

I like your ideas, Kurt.  It’d be nice to not have the cheap 4 attack of the bomber used on everything halfway around the board.  Bombers used in land fights wouldn’t be so over-represented (and represent an apparently infinite supply of bombs for however many rounds of combat).  Navies would be mostly fights between carrier borne aircraft, as it should be.  Bombers would be mainly used for SBRs, and as support aircraft, not the main force for attacking.

Not sure about the rule for the territory value loss there…  By round 3 of a dedicated Allied SBR campaign Germany will be producing 0 units even with repair (4-5 Brit bombers and 4-5 US bombers day/night raids).  Maybe have the “SBR territory damage” bought back at 2-3X the normal repair cost.  Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced.  Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!

@SgtBlitz:

Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced.  Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!

Fighter escorts would solve this.
And really that’s what fighters do best: engage other fighters.

@allboxcars:

@SgtBlitz:

Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced.  Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!

Fighter escorts would solve this.
And really that’s what fighters do best: engage other fighters.

I guess the Allies will need to take Norway or land in eastern europe somewhere to pull fighter escorts off?

I guess the Allies will need to take Norway or land in eastern europe somewhere to pull fighter escorts off?

The answer is the long-range fighter tech (for me this should be separate from the long-range (and heavy) Bomber technology.

@Brain:

We need a battle strip for this new concept

Would be cool to include dogfights in AA, that’s for sure.

If it was stealthy and hit the airfield before the fighter scrambled. Israel did this, granted they used fighter-bombers.

The single biggest item I want in AAE40 is that it is well tested/edited before it goes into production. I don’t want to pick up a game that is unplayable out of the box. I’m giving the folks over at WotC one more chance to redeem themselves. Otherwise AAE40 will be the last Axis & Allies series game I ever purchase.

My foremost wish is a quality game with easy to understand rules, plenty of pieces/chips, and a nice finished feeling.  NO CHEAP COP-OUTS!!!

Which is lame…they had unique boats tanks and such in an earlier edition. Does FMG make italian sculpts?

lame…theirs are all grey and colorful…cant they make them Italian brown? like in the game?