AARHE: Phase 2: Units

[Guerrilla Guy]

Want to print out cards? Specialty unit “attacks” could be unique, unlimited use abilities (limited to how many you can hold) that cost money to carry out… Don’t ask me how they work just an idea to throw out…

GG

[Imperious Leader]

Ahh this was used in games like TSR Shirocco. I like that idea. You can have cards like:

Heavy tanks add +2 for all tank attacks this turn

elite infantry up to 6 infantry gains a +1 combat modifier in combat

Rail gun– the German player has a special attack on any adjacent territory. its preemtive and hits on a 5+

etc…

[Guerrilla Guy]

Ideas:

You can only hold like 5 Cards, and that number can go up if you have more Technology… The cards are either 1 time use (no cost) or multiple use (cost per use)… Like your suggestions… I would imagine we have “abstract” (“skill”) abilities and “concrete” (unit)… In fact instead of having National Advantages you could have cards play those… Maybe draw 1 card a turn can be increased by tech? some ideas for Cards:

Russia:
Katyusha
Fanaticism
Siberian Forces
Urban Defense

Germany:
Rail Guns
Heavy Tanks
Storm Troopers
AA Artillery

Britain:
SAS
Commandos
Home Guard

Japan:
Kamikazi (so it won’t cost so much)

I have run out of ideas so someone else please pick up the ball! :-D

GG

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

Soviet Union:
Katyusha rocket launchers
Commisars
Elite snipers
Armed workers/Urban defense however you wanna call it

Germany:
Seige guns (I like this name better than rail guns)
Heavy tanks
Stormtroopers
FlaK
Scharfschutze (sniper)

Great Britain:
SAS
Commandos
Territorial Army
Chindits
Battlecruisers

Japan:
Kamikaze
Shinyo suicide boats
Suicide frogmen
Bushido
Battlecarriers

USA:
Airborne gliders and paratroopers
Airships
Black Devils
Rangers
Marrauders

[Adonai]

That is kind of moving away from the traditional A&A feel, IMO. It’s more the beginning of a new boardgame (which we should consider after this project  :wink:) than a revision of the current game.

[Imperious Leader]

What is a Battlecarrier? you neam BBAV? The Hyuaga and Ise? those hybrid battleship carriers?

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Adonai:

That is kind of moving away from the traditional A&A feel, IMO. It’s more the beginning of a new boardgame (which we should consider after this project  :wink:) than a revision of the current game.

No instead it could simplify the game by removing the “Tech Charts” extra player aids, etc. and allow the extra units that would have to be represented…

GG

[Adonai]

But it still is a new system. Every change I’ve read so far builds off of A&A Revised. This seems to be a new entity.

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

@Imperious:

What is a Battlecarrier? you neam BBAV? The Hyuaga and Ise? those hybrid battleship carriers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecarrier

Ise, Hyuga, and even Iowa can be considered a battlecarrier

[Imperious Leader]

This is what i thought

“Battleship Ise and Hyuga were converted to Battlecarrier in 1943. They both could carry 22 dive-bombers.”

Iowa was not such a ship. Thats in the game only. Those conversions were made on older Jap BB due to the 4 carriers lost at Midway.

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

Okay thanks for that info. Anyway let’s get back on track. First off–what’s our current list of new units? And who’s currently working on this. As you know I’m a pro-New Units guy and I’d like to share my ideas. But first I wanna see the current list of units

[Imperious Leader]

This is the starting point:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6378.0

some of this will be covered under the NA’s or this proposed card system from GG.

[tekkyy]

At the moment no change to land units in place yet. We do have ideas of heavy tanks and mech infantry.
Note DD and BB has been made cheaper.

IPC Combat Dogfighting
FTR 10 3/4 2/3
FTR(Jet) 10 4/5 4/4
BMR 15 4/1 0/1
BMR(Jet) 15 3/3 0/2
NAV 8 3/2 2/2
DIV 8 3/2 1/2
Antiair
SS 8 2/2 0/0
DD 10 2/2 2/2
CA 15 3/3 3/3
BB 20 4/4 2/2
CV 16 1/1-3 1/1
AP 8 0/1 0/0

FTR Fighter
BMR Bomber
NAV Naval Fighter
DIV Dive Bomber
DD Destroyer
CA Cruiser
BB Battleship
CV Aircraft Carrier
SS Submarine
AP Transport

[tekkyy]

Are we going ahead with the 3 sea movement?

Destroyers and Crusiers move at 3. Everything else move at 2.

SS   2
DD   3
CA   3
BB   2
CV   2
AP   2

Although I am worry whether it’ll destroy the map.

[Imperious Leader]

No only carriers and cruisers move 3… rest move 3

[tekkyy]

at a glance

DD 36 knots
CA 32 knots
BB 20 knots
CV 30 knots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_destroyers
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_fleet.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN26-BritishShipsCruisers.htm

so I what thinking more like

DD, CA        3
the rest        2

of course we have to thinking about what the game pieces represent…
and supply ships? refuel depots?

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

so I what thinking more like

DD, CA         3
the rest        2

I thought cruisers were fast that’s why they’re called “cruisers.” So they should have a movement of 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser

*Wait no, CA stands for cruiser… I thought it was “carrier.” My bad

[Imperious Leader]

That destroyer thing needs correction… looked up the speeds of different nations destroyers

source ww2 data book:

Soviets 36-38
Germany 38-30
UK 35-36
Japan 39-27.7
USA  36.5-38
italy 32-33

cruisers were basically about 5-6 knots slower along with carriers

Battleships lagged farther at 24-30 knots… mostly at 27-28 knot range.

I also now feel that destroyers and carriers should be at 3 and the rest is at 2.

Gen Patch says carriers are not to be included in group… lets look at numbers:

UK  30.7-32.0
USA 34-33
Japan  28.3-34.5

I used the primary front line carriers for the numbers… not those jeep carriers which were built latter in the war… those were slower.

what you guys think?

[tekkyy]

I also now feel that destroyers and carriers should be at 3 and the rest is at 2.

eh I was sugguesting destroyer and cruiser move at 3 not destroyer and carrier…

your numbers hasn’t explained why it should be “destroyer and carrier” rather than “destroyer and cruiser” moving at 3 and the rest at 2

I used the primary front line carriers for the numbers… not those jeep carriers which were built latter in the war… those were slower.

yes we only consider fleet carriers here
not the slow and small capacity escort carriers and stuff

[Imperious Leader]

your numbers hasn’t explained why it should be “destroyer and carrier” rather than “destroyer and cruiser” moving at 3 and the rest at 2

+++++ i am not advocating this anymore…based on these numbers…

Its allmost like the difference is not enough to make any change… what good would it do to marginalize the slower ships.

My original idea was this:

looking at the situation at in the pacific (e.g. midway and the attack on hawaii) we saw that the Carriers traveled either alone or in a really small group with other ships that could keep up with them. Nagumos first carrier strike force consisted of only carriers and destroyers with the cruisers and battleships like 300 miles farther away. To make a specific operation using carriers found they allways traveled with only small ship escorts… Perhaps its too much tactical ideas to attempt to model and we should stick to more basic approach.

The second idea was to bring value to the faster ships but its been demonstrated that they have more than enough “value” as a surface ship ( refering to carriers and destroyers)