Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now

Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.

Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.

I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units

I agree on this.
Adding a free 1@1 Plundging Fire First Strike to OOB BB will again makes Cruiser weaker (than they already are) against them.

The +1M his interesting because in Global, Oceans have numerous sea-zone.
And it makes any additionnal type of Cruiser if someone “really” want them:
Armored Cruiser CA and Battlecruiser CB with this special move of 3 spaces more valuable.
Cruisers are now in a different class.
Think of a CA A3D3M3C15, 2 hits, 1SB@3 / CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

And in themselves are different from OOB Light Cruiser CL A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, 1SB@3.
And all other fighting vessels: DD (M2/no SB), BB (M2, 2 hit vs M3, 1 hit).

The game don’t really need them, but it is easier to create a different type of unit with the M3.

I’m still pondering about the special rule for “1” to destroy a plane, interesting addition to “pimp up” Cruisers but I don’t know if I will  do it to all other units you propose…

For historical reference:

B. Andersson, Game Master:
Cruisers

A cruiser is a multipurpose ship. During World War 2, there are three kind of cruisers: the heavy, the light and the antiaircraft ones.

The heavy cruiser (10 000 to 12 000 tons, with 10 or so 8 inches guns) is a small battleship. A little quicker (she was able to follow the carriers, which was not the case of most battleships) and with a handsome armor.

The light cruiser (6 000 to 8 000 tons, with 10 or so 6 inches guns) is less protected (the French and Italian light cruisers were especially badly protected). Her role is more akin to that of destroyer, as flotilla leader. She can operate at the same speed, with guns and torpedoes and can provide a solid complement of firepower.

The anti-aircraft cruiser is as big as a light cruiser (sometimes as a heavy cruiser), she has more but smaller guns (5 inches or less) and are able to lay a deadly fire on incoming enemy planes. They rarely operate independently or against surface ships, by lack of heavier guns.

Impy mentioned the battlecruiser. She is not really a cruiser but rather a battleship (as to the weight and the weaponry), in which protection is sacrificed for the need of speed. That kind of ship proved a failure during the battle of Jutland, during World War 1. Almost only remnants of that period appeared in the order of battle during World War 2. The newly built battlecruisers were in a fact either full blown battleships (such as the Scharnhorsts) or very heavy cruisers (such as the American Alaska). Both had an adequate protection.

A last word to mention the auxiliary cruisers (Armed Merchant Cruisers) which were merchant ships with a couple of guns. They were used either to attack isolated merchant ships (the German used a dozen of them), or to defend them (the British had much more of them).

Destroyers
A destroyer weight from 1000 to 3000 tons. She sails fast, up to 40 knots. She is the fastest ship in the fleet. Her weak point is the range. Whereas a battleship or a cruiser can sail 10 000 miles upward, the destroyer can hardly put more than 1000 or 2000 miles, a couple of days of sailing. That forced the task forces during the war to perform lengthy and dangerous fueling operations, where either fleet tankers or bigger ships (carriers, battleships) gave away part of their fuel to the guzzling destroyers.

The armament of a destroyer is about 6 guns, around 5 inches (The Germans built bigger destroyers with 6 inches guns, but they were not successful). Some World War 1 leftovers had guns of less than 4 inches. The most deadly weapon of the destroyer was the torpedo.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now

Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.

Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.

I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units

I agree on this.
Adding a free 1@1 Plundging Fire First Strike to OOB BB will again makes Cruiser weaker (than they already are) against them.

The +1M his interesting because in Global, Oceans have numerous sea-zone.
And it makes any additionnal type of Cruiser if someone “really” want them:
Armored Cruiser CA and Battlecruiser CB with this special move of 3 spaces more valuable.
Cruisers are now in a different class.
Think of a CA A3D3M3C15, 2 hits, 1SB@3 / CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

And in themselves are different from OOB Light Cruiser CL A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, 1SB@3.
And all other fighting vessels: DD (M2/no SB), BB (M2, 2 hit vs M3, 1 hit).

The game don’t really need them, but it is easier to create a different type of unit with the M3.

I’m still pondering about the special rule for “1” to destroy a plane, interesting addition to “pimp up” Cruisers but I don’t know if I will  do it to all other units you propose…

However, with this little Plundging Fire, I find it very funny to recreate the battle between BB Bismarck unit and CB HMS Hood unit.
And how it increase the slight advantage of aircrafts over surfaces vessels against BB.

BB A4D4M2C20 2 hits, SB@4, 1@1 First Strike vs surface vessels.
CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

I know, I know, Plundging Fire is not required here.
Only 1 hit from BB and roll of “5” or “6” from the CB.

Let’s me dreaming… :-D

In fact, it seems that it was 2 BB A4D4M2 units against each other.
BB HMS Prince of whales (including 1CB escort) vs BB SMS Bismarck (including CH escort SMS Prinz Eugen).

[Jennifer]

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

I disagree with that statement.  As I pointed out before, it is far superior to purchase 2 cruisers than 1 battleship which is precisely why there are significantly more cruisers being purchased.

Yes, its 4 IPC more for 2 cruisers, but you get 2 shots at 3, instead of 1 at 4, you get divisibility (they can sail in different directions) etc.  Other than the United States, and possibly Japan every once in a while, I never see people purchase battleships.  However, I see England, Australia, US, Japan, Italy and sometimes Germany buy Cruisers.  Hell, I see Russia buy more cruisers than Germany or Italy buy battleships!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

I disagree with that statement.  As I pointed out before, it is far superior to purchase 2 cruisers than 1 battleship which is precisely why there are significantly more cruisers being purchased.

Yes, its 4 IPC more for 2 cruisers, but you get 2 shots at 3, instead of 1 at 4, you get divisibility (they can sail in different directions) etc. Other than the United States, and possibly Japan every once in a while, I never see people purchase battleships.  However, I see England, Australia, US, Japan, Italy and sometimes Germany buy Cruisers. Hell, I see Russia buy more cruisers than Germany or Italy buy battleships!

Whether people buy Cruisers because they cannot afford a better unit, hence BB;
maybe it is see as an hindrance when they need to visit NB when damaged.
Or as you said they need to spread out and cannot afford expensive BB everywhere.
Their Cruiser buying are a compromise purchase. It is a second choice vessel.
Otherwise, they will do like USA and Japan which have the money to afford their real first choice.

More, in theory, on a same IPCs level, Cruiser is the sole true combat unit (Sb, DD, CA, BB) which has less chance of survival compare to a costlier one.

10 Subs [98%] will destroy 3BBs [2%],
5 DDs [60%] have better odds of survival 2BBs [35%],
5 CAs [28%] vs 3 BBs [65%].
Even when 3 attacking BBs  [41%] vs 10 Subs@1 [59%], Subs have better odds of survival.
3 DDs [66%] vs 2 CAs [27%], still less odds of survival for cruiser.
2 Subs [86%] vs 1 CA [14%], still few odds of survival for cruiser.

5 CAs A15D15 5 hits, 5 SB@3  vs 3BBs A12D12 6 hits, 3SB@4.
The real superiority is the number of Shore Bombardment.
For me it is not enough.
I prefer to buy StrB to bombard @4 for the same 12 IPCs.

[Jennifer]

I am not going to argue that 6 BBs are not better that 12 CAs.  Personally, I’d say 6 CA and 3 BB are better than both options since it’s flexible, has more attack dice, more survivability, etc…kinda best of both worlds…

What I am going to argue is 2 CA is far better than 1 BB, especially for United Kingdom Countries (England, India and ANZAC) because:

• 1 You can buy two cruisers by breaking the cost between two rounds if you want
• 2 You have two attack dice, instead of 1.
• 3 You have the same number of hits you can absorb.
• 4 My mother always told me not to put all my eggs in one basket, I think this is good advise for Axis and Allies as well!
• 5 If you need too, you can send or build the two units in different areas (especially good for the United States and Japan, but also true for England)

Now yes, once you get to massive fleets, sure.  Or if you have build restrictions, like the US does if they are not at war.  (Although, I kinda liked the Mexican IC for that, so you could toss out half dozen ships anyway, lol!)

The question is, however, does it matter anymore which unit you go with once you get to a massive fleet status?  After 10 rounds of building battleships or cruisers every other round, you either own the sea lanes or you don’t.  If you don’t own the sea lanes, you probably don’t have all the ships together anyway.  If you do own the sea lanes, then you are probably using the ships to protect transports on route or to soften beach heads in which case, it’s a matter of opinion which would be better.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I am not going to argue that 6 BBs are not better that 12 CAs.  Personally, I’d say 6 CA and 3 BB are better than both options since it’s flexible, has more attack dice, more survivability, etc…kinda best of both worlds…

**What I am going to argue is 2 CA is far better than 1 BB, especially for United Kingdom Countries (England, India and ANZAC) because:

• 1 You can buy two cruisers by breaking the cost between two rounds if you want
• 2 You have two attack dice, instead of 1.
• 3 You have the same number of hits you can absorb.*** 4 My mother always told me not to put all my eggs in one basket, I think this is good advise for Axis and Allies as well!
• 5 If you need too, you can send or build the two units in different areas (especially good for the United States and Japan, but also true for England)

Now yes, once you get to massive fleets, sure.  Or if you have build restrictions, like the US does if they are not at war.  (Although, I kinda liked the Mexican IC for that, so you could toss out half dozen ships anyway, lol!)

The question is, however, does it matter anymore which unit you go with once you get to a massive fleet status?  After 10 rounds of building battleships or cruisers every other round, you either own the sea lanes or you don’t.  If you don’t own the sea lanes, you probably don’t have all the ships together anyway.  If you do own the sea lanes, then you are probably using the ships to protect transports on route or to soften beach heads in which case, it’s a matter of opinion which would be better.

Jen,
you are comparing 2 fleets of different value. Of course, when you have 4 IPCs more in one, then it will prevail.

Let’s add 1 small Sub to the BB (26 IPCs) vs 2 Cruisers (24 IPCs).
The BB and Sub will wins most of the time: 79% vs 13%.

[Derek]

You can compare a cruiser + destroyer to BB

BB are great for fleet staying power, absorbing hits without losing any units. This is great when te fleet is far from home, and any ICs.

[Jennifer]

BB are great for large fleets (fleets with combined value over 60 IPC)  and I won’t argue adding one or two when you already have a few carriers and a half dozen destroyers submarines isn’t a good idea.

But I am looking at your typical small fleet buy, what you usually see the smaller powers (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, India, whatever) buy in any given round.  Not looking at multiple round builds.  If you have a choice between 2 cruisers or 1 battleship yes, 2 cruisers win.  If you only have 20 IPC then Cruiser, Destroyer still win over Battleship.  It’s only when you already have support ships that the battleship even becomes a viable build.

For instance, the Japanese are in the Sea of Japan.  Do you buy a battleship as your only fleet unit for India, or do you buy a cruiser or two?  ONLY fleet unit, you have no other ships in the area (perhaps America has beat back or threatened an invasion of Japan itself, so if you are attacked, it will be by air power alone.)  Same could be said for England itself.

America’s unique.  I grant that.  You’ve got EONS to build what you want and so much money it’s freaking ridiculous so why not put a BB out every round?  You can easily do BB, CA, 2 DD a round and have money left over to replace lost fighters and submarines.  Not really fair to look at a nation like that, if you ask me.

[baron Münchhausen]

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) =  32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4  =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

BB are great for large fleets (fleets with combined value over 60 IPC)  and I won’t argue adding one or two when you already have a few carriers and a half dozen destroyers submarines isn’t a good idea.

But I am looking at your typical small fleet buy, what you usually see the smaller powers (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, India, whatever) buy in any given round.  Not looking at multiple round builds.  If you have a choice between 2 cruisers or 1 battleship yes, 2 cruisers win.  If you only have 20 IPC then Cruiser, Destroyer still win over Battleship. It’s only when you already have support ships that the battleship even becomes a viable build.

For instance, the Japanese are in the Sea of Japan.  Do you buy a battleship as your only fleet unit for India, or do you buy a cruiser or two?  ONLY fleet unit, you have no other ships in the area (perhaps America has beat back or threatened an invasion of Japan itself, so if you are attacked, it will be by air power alone.)  Same could be said for England itself. Â

America’s unique.  I grant that.  You’ve got EONS to build what you want and so much money it’s freaking ridiculous so why not put a BB out every round?  You can easily do BB, CA, 2 DD a round and have money left over to replace lost fighters and submarines.  Not really fair to look at a nation like that, if you ask me. Â

If you only have 1 round of built and must defend a bare naked IC’s sea-zone, you go buy only DD and Subs to maximize AD/hit ratio.
4 subs A8D4 4 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.
3 DDs A6D6 3 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.

But, if you have Fgts already on the board, you will max out your defense with CV and Sub/DD 14+6/8 (1942) or 16+6/8 (20/22/24 IPCs).
Because you can add A6D8, 2 hits from a previous purchase in this sea-zone.

It means simply forget it about Cruiser buying:
2CA A6D6 2 hits vs 1Cv A0D2 2 hits +1DD+2Fgs= A8D12 5 hits.

[Jennifer]

I always envisioned the Cruiser as the World War 1 battleship, you know, with the 2x4 deck boards left unarmored and the huge magazines in the middle of the ship, etc.  The “battleship” piece, to me, was more of the World War 2 battleship, the one bristling with cannons and anti aircraft guns and had the 12-20 inch thick armor plating and basically, barely had enough power to turn, let alone stop or start moving!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) = 32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

I said:

1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw but CA+DD have a slight advantage.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

It needs to be details better:

Since CA+DD have a slight 3% over BB, and it is also Anti-Sub. I must say it should be the first 20 IPCs put on bare IC’s Sea-zone.
This A5D5, 2 hits is more versatile.

But, when you can add another 20 IPCs, you should buy CV (if you already have some Fgts) or BB.
Adding another CA+DD is already less powerful mix than the BB+CA+DD:

2CA+2DD A10D10, 4 hits vs 1BB + 1CA+1DD, A9D9, 4 hits =  45% vs 47% toward BB & co.

So buying a CA with a DD is a good first choice, but you never buy a second CA to get rapidly a more powerful fleet.
Unless, you need CA+DD to protect different group of TTs

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I always **envisioned the Cruiser as the World War 1 battleship, you know, with the 2x4 deck boards left unarmored and the huge magazines in the middle of the ship, etc.**  The “battleship” piece, to me, was more of the World War 2 battleship, the one bristling with cannons and anti aircraft guns and had the 12-20 inch thick armor plating and basically, barely had enough power to turn, let alone stop or start moving!

Maybe the first cruisers on OOB board can be considered outdated BB from the previous WWar I. Whether Armored Cruiser or Battlecruiser kind of.

But it is a game about WWII, so it is normal to see which type and capacity of cruisers were commissioned in 1941-42. It is according to their purpose and performance we should adjust the historical background of a cruiser type unit IMO.

If anyone wants to create an historical board game which modify performance of different units over 2 or 3 turns to simulate the improvement of the new ships, I made a list of CV type on the other active tread in HR. It can be a starting ground. Simply Cv can improve from Yorktown-class to Essex-class (in a NB).
Then latter, someone can buy a Midway-class CV.

Feel free to develop something like this about cruiser and BB.  The only limit is the miniature sculpt and markers.

[Jennifer]

Ugh, you’d need to talk to Imperious Leader about that.  He’s the one who put all that time and effort into making the Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition!

As for me, I’m thinking of making a set of rules to balance the game board out overall, and add some flair that I just think is missing.  Thinking the Axis should need a total of 15 Victory Cities combined to win, but that there need to be more VCs on the boards too.  On top of added fleet complexity.

For instance, if submarines are the only units being attacked, then the destroyers should have to roll a hit to find them, then a hit to sink them, to simulate the fact submarines aren’t going to be just sitting there when a destroyer is present and waiting to be sunk!  (but said submarines don’t get to return fire, they’re busy diving for the ocean bottom!)  A la the movie Das Boot.

Also, given the size of the map…I dunno, I think destroyers might need a speed boost, at least in the Pacific (for both sides.)  I generally say that you cannot change the map itself, since it’s a royal pain to “fix” it by changing where borders are, etc.

Likewise, the NOs have to change.  NOs should be things you attain, not things you start with.  In my mind.  My opinion of course.  But they are OBJECTIVES and the Objective of war isn’t to keep what you have, it’s to take what they have!  SO like, Tokyo should be a 10 IPC objective for the US vs the US having a 10 IPC NO for not being invaded.  Maybe Korea + Iwo Jima + Okinawa instead of Tokyo…just as an example.  And it would have to be US Territory, not Russian.  Russia would probably be a 3rd faction with loose ties to the Allies with it’s own victory conditions (Control of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and one of N. Italy or Germany maybe?  And have no Russian territories controlled by Germany or Italy, would probably work fine.)

Battleships with plunging fire would probably be a big role, just because I truly feel that the battleship is the least utilized weapon on the board, as defined as the least purchased of all the naval units.

[baron Münchhausen]

For instance, if submarines are the only units being attacked, then the destroyers should have to roll a hit to find them, then a hit to sink them, to simulate the fact submarines aren’t going to be just sitting there when a destroyer is present and waiting to be sunk!  (but said submarines don’t get to return fire, they’re busy diving for the ocean bottom!)  A la the movie Das Boot.

David Schwartzer’s World War II The Expansion rule for A&A version from Gamer’s Paradise had a search and destroy Subs phase.
Only destroyers and planes could have done it.
For every searching unit you roll 1 dice.
If you roll “1” or “2” then subs are “ping down”, if there is only plane then it is a 1 round only attack. 1 dice for every fighters and bombers.
If there is a DD then (as OOB), all DD must be destroy before subs can escape.

It was also possible for DDs to go on search and patrol in the next sea-zone, even destroying all ennemy’s subs and to come back to the original sea-zone to protect all others ships left there.

Subs were harder to find but if there is many units on search mission then it need only one success to make all units fire against subs.
Example: 3 StrB are searching: 3 rolls: “3” “4” “2”.
The 3rd find the subs, then all 3 StrBs are attacking @4.
OOB is better for Subs since it needs DD for aircraft to be able to attack them.
But it is automatic attacking.
There Don’s version requires from each DD a roll of “2” to find any.
In addition, it is only this DD that can fire at the subs even if there is 2 or more DD, only those which roll 2 or less can make an attack vs subs.
That’s the difference between DDs and Air patrol mission, in which anyone makes all planes attack 1 round.

[Jennifer]

I was thinking the destroyers had to find the submarines and then any attacking ship that was in the sea zone or over the sea zone (airship?  Fine airplanes, better?) could fire at it.

Might have to include increasing destroyer base movement to 3, maybe not.  I mean if it’s a 3, then it really shouldn’t get a bonus from being near a navy base, since it kinda always has the bonus then.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

**I was thinking the destroyers had to find the submarines and then any attacking ship that was in the sea zone or over the sea zone (airship?  Fine airplanes, better?) could fire at it.  **

Might have to include increasing destroyer base movement to 3, maybe not.�  I mean if it’s a 3, then it really shouldn’t get a bonus from being near a navy base, since it kinda always has the bonus then.

Sorry, I can’t remember exactly. I will look in the web if someone already scanned this.

“World War II Expansion rules” for Axis & Allies from Gamers Paradise.
That’s the title.
Made by Philip Schwartzer.

[Derek]

need to add mobile artillery

would work same as mech inf, that is, it is an artillery peice same as OOB with +1 movement and +1 cost
and like mech inf it can blitz when paired 1:1 with armour

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

and of course give cruisers +1 movement aswell ;)

[Imperious Leader]

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

Jeep carriers were pretty slow compared to fast carriers with cruiser hulls.

SPA: 3-2-2-5

[Jennifer]

Say the devil’s name, and he SHALL appear!  Hi IL!

In the market to try a not so complex historical edition of global (not as complex as yours for Revised!  more along the enhanced lines of thought…)

Anyway, Escort carriers, IMHO, would be lightweight one shot deals that carry 1 small aircraft unit, Fighters and maybe tactical bombers.  Though, I get the feeling all that extra armor on the dive bombers along with the bombs themselves might be too much weight.