AARHE: Phase 2: Units

[tekkyy]

Thats not right.
CV moving away from threat does not make them kill better! It should be the planes doing the killing.
BB are slow but I doubt DD have a hard time catching up to CV?  :-P

They are expensive units built on crusier hull so they take 2 hits. Thats fine. But that should be all. Fter that they are expenisve for the platform, catapult and other equipment, not cannons/fire power.

And I don’t think “DNA” is a good excuse. We are introducing new units anyway.

[Imperious Leader]

CV moving away from threat does not make them kill better! It should be the planes doing the killing.
BB are slow but I doubt DD have a hard time catching up to CV?  tongue

+++++The value of defense is not only its ability to “fight” a Carrier has better ability to “see” targets like a BB or DD because it has planes that can declare the distance, course and speed… in a way it has farther vision than unsupported capital ships. The 3 value is not really a ability to “fight and damage” the enemy. IT also represents some value return on investment since a carrier costs 16 bucks and it has to have some value other than a transport of planes or people will just buy land based planes and “unsinkable aircraft carriers” also known as islands. The cost of fighting a carrier costing 16 has to have some sting for play balance. The DNA is the most rudimentary blueprint of the game that cannot be tinkered with. All original units must maintain the original values. Additional units can have new values, but these are optional rules anyway. People will not accept our changing of the original creators unit values. I think the only changes can be price but not attack/ defense values of existing units.

They are expensive units built on cruiser hull so they take 2 hits. Thats fine. But that should be all. Fter that they are expensive for the platform, catapult and other equipment, not cannons/fire power.

+++++as you know carriers take two hits as well.

And I don’t think “DNA” is a good excuse. We are introducing new units anyway.

Yes but they are optional rules and they are not OOB units, your idea it to make larger changes within established units that we are all accustomed too for 26 years.

[tekkyy]

Oh I only played the fourth edition (“revised”) Axis and Allies. The unit values was actually kept the same for 26 year?

it has to have some value other than a transport of planes or people will just buy land based planes and “unsinkable aircraft carriers” also known as islands.

Forget CV but this needs addressing on its own!!!
What did we have before? Something about refueling?

Its difficult to model as combat refueling is implicitly there.
Maybe each sea zones takes 2 movement points? (rather than just a special case of leaving island entering sea zone takes 1 extra movement point)

Also, I think land units should also move further in non-combat.

[tekkyy]

Oh yeah going with your argument I think CV should still be only 1/1 without planes on deck.

[tekkyy]

By the way are we pretty solid on BB now firing in opening fire?

[Imperious Leader]

Oh yea BB gets preemtive shot on warships each round . losses are allocated before the defender can shoot back with surviving ships. BB had way longer range guns than any other ship and its next to impossible to have small ships have a go at a Battleship because they would get picked off before they ever got in range. You need numbers. Look at what happened to Bismarck.

[tekkyy]

so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?

and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3

[Imperious Leader]

so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?

++++ clarify not clear… if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement

and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3

Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!

Ill go with that.

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

++++ clarify not clear…

it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ

if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement

oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrong

Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!

Ill go with that.

CAP?

[Imperious Leader]

it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ

++++yes right!!

Quote
if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrong

++++++ yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.

Quote
Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!

Ill go with that.

CAP?

Combat air patrol  ( air support performed over fleet movements)

[tekkyy]

yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.

We’ll have to check its effect along the sugguested rule of 2 movement points to more between SZs .
Wake Island -> Japan -> Wake Island - 12 points
Okinawa -> Japan -> Okinawa - 8 points

say make planes taking off from carrier has 1 less movement points?

in OOB it takes one movement point to move from island to its SZ
but no movement point to move from carrier to its SZ

[tekkyy]

So the new AA as discussed.

Antiaircraft (AA)

AA costs 5 IPC, may have more than one AA per territory.

AA fires in opening-fire step of every cycle of combat. But it may not taken as casualty.
Each AA selects an enemy air unit independently. After all selections are made, each AA rolls a “search” dice detecting its target on 1.
Each AA then selects an enemy air unit independently among the detected units. After all selections are made, each AA rolls an “attack” dice hitting its target on 1, forcing the target to retreat on 2.

Place AA on its side when first built. It may not fire in combat but may move in non-combat. Turn it upright in any mobilisation phase including the the one it is initially mobilised in. It may now fire in combat but may not move again.

[Imperious Leader]

I thought we were going with a built in defense in factories and victory cities. everything else seems fine.

[tekkyy]

I thought we settled on doing both built-in and not!
So we have built-ins as well as explicit deployment.

In phase 1
IC has 2 AAs built-in.
VCs didn’t have AAs built-in.
How about 1 AA for VCs?

[Imperious Leader]

yes one aa for VC looks correct.

[tekkyy]

ICs has 2 AAs built-in.

I just checked again. In phase 1 final draft we have that at 3 not 2 AAs.
But I am fine with 2 AAs.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok please post the official ideas on this? Its hard to keep track with so many ideas flowing

[tekkyy]

the “offiical” idea is at
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0

but I think IC with 2 AA and VC with 1 AA is ok

[Imperious Leader]

Oh yea righto! keep it three. I like what you did with that post very succinct!

[tekkyy]

With this land fighter and naval fighter distinction, to stop land fighters from landng on carriers casually…

New values and new costs?

Otherwise player’ll just buy all naval fighters and no land fighters.