Fleetwood Dan is correct. It’s land units only in the box rules, and both land and air units in LHTR.
LHTR 1.3 vs LHTR 2.0
-
Dug In Armor would be only for Round 1, and would reflect the actual combat situation when tanks were on the defense in the war…
Earthen redoubts behind which ARM were parked that gave them protection from enemy fire, and from which their fire range, etc. was pre-marked to the gunners so that their initial shot was highly accurate.
Then, once the enemy ART and ARM know where those redoubts are, the ARM had to move or die, negating the advantage once battle was fully engaged and the ARM had to start moving around.
-
Panzerblitz-> Heavy Panzer. German Panzer had the more precise aiming systems: panzer attack at 4 in the first cycle of combat. Always.
Panzerblitz owns! That would make it weaker ;/
Trihero now I have the doubt that I misundrstood this NA.
It depends on my difficult with english grammar… :oops:I quote the NA text:
3. Panzerblitz
THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE DEFENDERS.
If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.The word any in this case means: all the thanks, in the sense that I may move all all the tanks that participate in the attack? Or only one?
For the other observation I agree.
-
About Russian Winter:
The game says it starts in Spring 1942. I think a game turn means about 3 months, so Russian Winter could be as in the original, but not by players choice. Make Russian Winter in 4th turn, and then, each 4 turns.
-
Good ideas.
Okay, with the criticism of my version of Russian Winter, how about this:
Russia may declare a severely cold winter which prevents any axis attacks or moves for this turn. Russia, meanwhile, must give up the Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases of their current term. This NA must be declared at the start of their turn.
That should prevent Russia from getting two attacks to whittle down a defense and hit high priority targets while still giving Russia a reprieve. Basically, it is a restricted Russia for Russia, but halts the axis a full turn.
As for mobile industry, I think I was misunderstood. You only get the bonus units if you move out of the starting territory and it only effects ICs that start with the game and only on red territories. So moving out of Caucasus to Kazakh and then back to Caucasus would have a null effect. I just wanted to make it a little more useful to move those ICs around instead of shooting yourself in the foot, production wise.
Reinforced carriers for America. Understood. Carriers were flimsy enough that a solitary Zero could crash through them and sink them. Gotcha. How about Reinforced Carriers: American Aircraft Carriers may carry 3 Fighters, or 1 Bomber in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean ONLY. America did launch bombers from Carriers in WWII and the American Carriers were superior to the Japanese Carriers (I presume since our carriers won.)
I like the Panzer idea. Attack 4, Defend 3. I’d limit that to Europe and Asia, possibly.
As for the U-Boats, Germany’s not going to be spending a lot on navy anyway. But a little extra could be nice, considering Germany did have quite a bit of U-Boats out there in WWII.
For those who do not like Mideast Oil is that because you’ve never really thought about how it can be used well? It’s not overly powerful, but it will get your equipment around the world in a single turn if you want it too. Kinda nice for KJF. IMHO. Not much use against Germany I agree.
-
For the Reinmforced Carrier the idea is coming to me from the difference i ncarrier design in WWII.
USA and Japanese carrier have thin flight deck brecause their philosophy is that an AC is a floating airport.
So they are built with the idea that best defense are the aircraft and then they try to board the maximun number of them. About 70-80 aircraft may be boarded by the Fleet Carrier.
Brithish built AC with another philosophy. For them an AC ias first a ship and only secondarily an AC. Usually british AC boarded only 40-45 aircraft, but they had armoured deck and a lot of AA firepower. In fact they have to fight near the coast of Europe and not in the open spaces of Pacific.
So the idea may be:
British. Mideast Oil -> Armoured Carrier: Carrier are are two hit points ship
USA. Fast Carriers -> Fleet Carriers: carrier may board 3 fighter or 1 bomber, and are attack 1 defense 2 ships.What about my doubt about panzerblitz?
-
I could go that route, but it might over balance the British navy. Have to test it out.
-
The word any in this case means: all the thanks, in the sense that I may move all all the tanks that participate in the attack? Or only one?
Hey Romulus, yes it means you may move any number of tanks, all of them if you wanted to. That’s why it’s so awesome, you can send your stack of 8 tanks to blow up a pile of 1-3 inf then retreat them instantaneously, it makes it so much easier to trade units (unless of course you get unlucky and it takes more than one round, then you will cry when your tanks die in the counterattack! :oops: )
I just wanted to make it a little more useful to move those ICs around instead of shooting yourself in the foot, production wise.
Yeah I see what you mean, I was very much joking when I was talking about the extra units on cauc/mosc. I personally think you already shoot the enemy in the foot when they have no complex to build on the next turn.
How about Reinforced Carriers: American Aircraft Carriers may carry 3 Fighters, or 1 Bomber in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean ONLY.
That sounds cool but we have to think of people who use physical boards, it will be awkward because the carrier was molded to hold 2 fighters, not 3 or even a bomber.
Russia may declare a severely cold winter which prevents any axis attacks or moves for this turn. Russia, meanwhile, must give up the Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases of their current term. This NA must be declared at the start of their turn.
That sounds a lot better. Personally I still don’t like how you could essentially abandon Moscow and the Axis could no way attack it. The current version to me seems more balanced because you still need piles of infantry to halt the advance for one turn.
About Russian Winter:
The game says it starts in Spring 1942. I think a game turn means about 3 months, so Russian Winter could be as in the original, but not by players choice. Make Russian Winter in 4th turn, and then, each 4 turns.
That’s definitely more realistic, but it would be pretty strong to happen more than once per game. And it’s also very awkward to count turns.
-
I used to fit three fighters on a carrier with the physical board. Bomber I never tried, but I got three fighters to fit. It’s tight though, and moving it is a real B*TCH. Then again, moving it with 1 or 2 fighters is too. :)
Though, i wonder if that might be over powering? Then again, with Japanese battleships getting 2 shots at 5 or less in the first round (each) I don’t think it would over power much at all, do you?
-
Though, i wonder if that might be over powering? Then again, with Japanese battleships getting 2 shots at 5 or less in the first round (each) I don’t think it would over power much at all, do you?
It could definitely be overpowering, it’d be sick to have just 2 carriers with 6 fighters as defense O_O! The Japanese can be strong in the seas, but they need something like 2-3 NAs (night fighting, most powerful bbs, kamikazes). And while Japanese BBs are strong, it’s extremely unlikely that they will be building any more. Usually you add another carrier to fit all the fighters, then subs/transports for fodder.
-
Those additional rules are totally useles in my eyes,
I would just skip those, it’s weird that one round a unit is worth x points of attack, and after that (for 1 time) its worth 1 or 2 more, totally out of line in my eyes.
-
Yea, but as opposed to having 2 hit aircraft carriers where you do no damage when you hit once, at least with 3 fighters each every hit you make on them kills something, right?
Besides, I like that idea better then, say, War Economy.
And I think America needs something to make naval warfare against Battleships that take 2 hits to sink and fire 2 shots at 5 or less a little more possible. What do you think would even that out a little bit?
(And for the record, with Night-Fight + Most Powerful against a KJF situation, I’m buying 2 more battleships another carrier and submarines. Won’t need destroyers other then the one I start with.)
-
And I think America needs something to make naval warfare against Battleships that take 2 hits to sink and fire 2 shots at 5 or less a little more possible. What do you think would even that out a little bit?
(And for the record, with Night-Fight + Most Powerful against a KJF situation, I’m buying 2 more battleships another carrier and submarines. Won’t need destroyers other then the one I start with.)
True true, all true. Night fighting was a pretty big boost over Kaitens. It’s arguably better than Most Power Battleships, and very nasty when paired together.
Probably Americans need some sort of boost to their fighter power. Island bases and fast carriers make for some interesting flexibility, but in terms of trying to knock out night fighting and most powerful bbs -_-! Maybe it’s as simple as you said, letting carriers carry 3 fighters…I dunno!
-
I dunno either. But Fast Carriers except in some very off the wall situations, really isn’t much of a boost. How often do you want to send your carrier an extra space away from your fleet? And it doesn’t help your fighters any. 3 Out + 1 Back is still 4 Spaces. If the carrier moves 3 spaces, you can bring it as fodder, but it doesn’t let you move 4 Out and 1 Back, right?
But I had remembered that I could, physically, get 3 fighters on a carrier (looked neato too!) so why not go with the 3 fighter carrier? 1 Bomber could have it’s uses, but not as much as 3 fighters.
-
Bean, thanks for the explanation. I will never say again that Panzerblitz is useless!
It is great!Fast Carrier, I do not see them as a in improvement for US Navy that allows for combat aginst Night Fighting and Powerful Battleships.
I think that 3 fighter carrier is more worthy as NA. It still requires the building of the three fighter, but is a great boost for AC task forces. -
I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:
1) Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2) America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.But how often does that happen?
How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?
Suggested Topics
