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.
I tend to agree that each fighter of FB should be designated as land or sea based, and cannot change. My father worked on the Seafires, a naval version of the Spitfire, but they had many problems and had great difficulty landing safely on carriers even with mods.
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: 1All planes movement = 4
In our houses rules, planes may retreat after the first round fo combat.
I’m okay with this, but naval aircraft should still be able to land on islands and regular land.
I tend to agree that each fighter of FB should be designated as land or sea based, and cannot change. My father worked on the Seafires, a naval version of the Spitfire, but they had many problems and had great difficulty landing safely on carriers even with mods.
Perhaps then it is a good idea to make the fighter-bomber/tactical fighter the defacto Naval Fighter, since a true dogfighter would be not be pactical on a carrier. Naval fighters have short wings, good for diving, but not for dog fighting.
However, Japanese 0s were deployed off carriers, so…
One thing comes to mind if you don’t allow these naval fighters to land on islands or land tt. What if a sub (or other unit) takes out your carrier. The planes die after battle? I don’t like that.
Ya but during the non combat move only!
That’s the reason why we have introduced planes retreat after one round of combat!
Yea so if they can land on the ground through retreat or non combat, they should also be able to def on the ground if attacked. Therefore they can’t be navy only. That’s why Larry is giving us a multiuse dive/torpedo air unit in the new AA40E/P. On land it gets a +1 when paired w/tank, and chooses targets at sea. Making an air unit for only sea sounds like a good idea, but just isn’t good for game play. If they sink your carrier you should be able to save your planes, by landing on ground.(even crash land).
Only Navy planes can land on carriers but if you lose the carrier, they still should be able to defend themselves, especially the fighters.
Torpedo and dive bombers should take a modifier against another fighter.
let them land where-ever, but you could base their attack/move values on where they take off from. if from a carrier, they act like a naval fighter, if from land, then a normal air force fighter….
