I am leaning towards e fewer new units and fewer map changes.
I would add that under phase one we just make like one unit per nation at a cheaper scale and NOT any new units… under phase two we add new NA’s and under the optional rules we add about 4-5 new units. That way the new units is only something that is optional in a latter stage.
Andersson since you dont like new units… if you had to come up with something under optional rules what would you introduce?
Cruiser?
SS panzer?
paratroopers?
mech infantry?
air transport?
grace us with some of your cognitive exploits.
I recall the argument that major paradrop operations failed.
Good exmaple were often missions on a tactical level only.
Hence the rules I added… You could just make “counters” to put under units to represent the units you can’t make… It is easier to print 50 counters then to pay for shipping
Are you talking about “counters under units” to represent new units?
yes… SS Panzers for example could have a (SS) Chit under them…
Once again there is no need for more units, make nation specific instead!
Doesn’t matter.
Unless Imperioius Leader releases pretty chips or printout 8-) everyone’ll do there own things to represent.
Let start thinking about costs of units.
Many varients reduce cost of naval units such as the battleship.
Is that realistic?
This is going to be difficult as naval pieces represents fleets and no simple to compare.
@B.:
Once again there is no need for more units, make nation specific instead!
Yes, but therefore we are doing several phases. Phase 1 doesn’t include new units, but does have nation specifics. Phase 2 however will have new units. And if someone doesn’t want to buy other units he/she could indeed use counters or just stick to the phase 1 rules.
Anti tank weapons something for new unit? But I personally think that you will be needing a D12 system for that, otherwise I don’t see how we can justify them instead of buying ART or Armor.
Dive bombers: Same problems;
I also like the list mentioned;
Cruiser? Could use MB BB ships
SS panzer? Could place counter beneath it.
paratroopers? Just paint some helmets
mech infantry? counters or buy jeeps or halftracks
air transport? could use the bomber indeed.
Dive bombers= use fighters from milton bradley
I also like the list mentioned;
Cruiser? Could use MB BB ships…. yes
SS panzer? Could place counter beneath it… paint them black… easy
paratroopers? Just paint some helmets…or buy one box of 1/72 scale paratroopers or put a counter underneath
mech infantry? counters or buy jeeps or halftracks…yes exactly… all nations used halftracks except japs… they can use trucks instead
air transport? could use the bomber indeed… yes milton bradley bomber
This is an important reason why its feasiblew to have these pieces… because we all ready have many of them!
So what about the naval unit costs?
According to Micoom’s stats posted here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6469.msg97775#msg97775
   Destroyed  Built
DDÂ 476Â Â Â Â Â Â 700
ACÂ 38Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 173
BBÂ Â 24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 20
Is it because they are very expensive to build? Maybe BB should cost more than 24 IPC if any cost changes.
Should we come up with a list of what each piece represents?
DDÂ Â Destroyer fleet of 10
ACÂ Â Carrier task force of 5
BBÂ Â Battleship fleet of 2
Anti tank weapons something for new unit?
I worry about specific countering units. It seems difficult to model as we don’t let land units pick targets.
What about land/sea mines? This would be represented by a little counter or something.
Actually is it realistic for enemy know where you’ve lay the mines?
But then they’ll know as we roll for them as they attack.
But should laying player be decider of when to “use” the mines?
Doesn’t matter.
Unless Imperioius Leader releases pretty chips or printout everyone’ll do there own things to represent.
Let start thinking about costs of units.
Many varients reduce cost of naval units such as the battleship.
Is that realistic?
This is going to be difficult as naval pieces represents fleets and no simple to compare.
I can easily make you counters for the new units the idea is under phase two is to have optional units so its an OPTION for players who like this…
Should we come up with a list of what each piece represents?
DD Destroyer fleet of 10 ( i think the number is more like 30
CV Carriers are about 5
BB Battleship fleet of 4-5
Quote from: Micoom
Anti tank weapons something for new unit? ( perhaps a better qualifier would be self-propelled artillery… which covers all those other armor units that are speciality against other armor… like tank destroyers…
(they should be able to select an other armor unit if they hit.)
What about land/sea mines? This would be represented by a little counter or something. (this is too specific)
Actually is it realistic for enemy know where you’ve lay the mines?
But then they’ll know as we roll for them as they attack.
But should laying player be decider of when to “use” the mines?
Sorry I am probably throwing you guys way off with my posts… I’ll try to keep it in your vein of thought:
Mines are broad in a game of your scope… Something on the Scale of your Jutland game could have Mines, but since they sunk more like 1 ship in a “squadron” it seems impractical to say they sunk a whole DD squadron…
GG please post as often as you like… The mines are really too “specific” for a new unit.
@Guerrilla:
but since they sunk more like 1 ship in a “squadron” it seems impractical to say they sunk a whole DD squadron…
You’re right.
@Imperious:
DDÂ Â Destroyer fleet of 10Â Â ( i think the number is more like 30)
CVÂ Â Carriers are about 5
BBÂ Â Battleship fleet of 4-5
So any changes to naval costs necessarily for realism?
Wikipedia on Aircraft carrier “Many of the major battles in the Pacific involved aircraft carriers. Japan started the war with ten aircraft carriers, the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. There were six American aircraft carriers at the beginning of the hostilities, although only 3 of them were operating in the Pacific.”
I reckon the CV piece represents only 3. And BB representing 4-5 maybe too many?
Yes I really feel the BB should be 20 IPC and destroyers at 10 IPC.
DESTROYERS
Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.
(This is a revised rule for destroyers only, not a new unit)
Cost: 10
Attack: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Defense: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Move: 2 (3 when supported by a carrier)
Special Abilities
Supported by Carriers: When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leave from and end up in the same sea zone.
Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in combat involving enemy submarines, they attack and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.
Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.
Battleships
Description: Powerful and nearly indestructible monarchs of the sea.
(This is a revised rule for battleships only, not a new unit)
Cost: 20
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 2
Special Abilities: All attacks on other naval ships are conducted with preemptive salvos to represent longer-range gunnery. Every combat round they attack in a similar manner. Otherwise they conduct themselves the same as LHTR. These ships take two hits to sink
@Imperious:
Attack: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Defense: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
I haven’t heard reply for you guys yet I as I’ve mentioned earlier it is flawed to just increase attack/defense when enemy submarine is presented.
Imagine when 3 DD attack 3 DD + 1 SS.
The cancelling ability of DDs should not be 100%. We need all that sub detection stuff.
Like how sub to sub attack is weird. Similar here I think we need to model depth charge rather than simply increase attack.
–> When a DD sucessfully detects one or more SS, besides victims of SS gets to return fire, the DD roll another dice for depth charge, hitting on 2. This is not opening fire.
Similar to AA fire, you get to a point of detecting saturation in the SZ. This is because sub detect is not like AA fire…you use sonar/radar not ammunition. There is essentially “no limit” to number of SS a DD can detect, the limit is in no. of SS it was attack.
So Instead of per DD gets to detect x no. of SS, probably of each SS being detected depends on no. of DDs in the SZ.
–> Roll a dice for each enemy SS. For <4 friendly DDs detections are on 2. For 4+ friendly DDs detections are on 4.
Yes your correct we have to save that for phase two. we can leave out everything about those units pertaining to ASW tactics… but the general idea under phase one was some cheaper naval units. 20 BB 10 DD.
