AARHE: Phase 2: Units

[tekkyy]

ok

[tekkyy]

1. just found a problem
DIVE (dive bombers) is useless!
NAV (naval fighter) is better

               IPC    Combat    Dogfight
FTR         10      3/4         2/3
NAV         8       3/2          2/2
DIV          8       3/2          1/2

2. FTR gives ARM +1 on 1-to-1 basis under air superiority, what about NAV and DIV?

[Guerrilla Guy]

Dive Bombers can target Capital Ships? All AA Fire hits them at -1?

GG

[Imperious Leader]

1. just found a problem
DIVE (dive bombers) is useless!
NAV (naval fighter) is better

IPC    Combat    Dogfight
FTR        10      3/4        2/3
NAV        8      3/2          2/2
DIV          8      3/2          1/2

2. FTR gives ARM +1 on 1-to-1 basis under air superiority, what about NAV and DIV?

+++ Ok what i have been doing is use the term “naval fighter” and “divebomber” as the same thing when it applies to the sea.

Lets go over it again:

perhaps the problem is what we call these things… solution

Divebomber for land attacks. These planes have the values to state and have the same attack values as fighters do against land targets and cost -2 less than fighters.
they also have a poor defense. These units can only attack land or air ( no naval)

Torpedo bomber or “naval fighter” are for sea attacks. they also have a poor defense and they should have a more limited range ( one space from carrier one space back–- whether or not the carrier has  moved)… these planes can only attack sea and air targets ( no land)

thats the differences. They are not even seperate pieces or have to be since divebombers came from land to land territories and torpedo planes originate from carriers. The only plane that can do both is fighters.

Dive Bombers can target Capital Ships? All AA Fire hits them at -1?

++++ any plane can “target” a ship with exceptions ( DD and CA can sheild the hits to them at 1/1 basis). Also a torpedo run by a divebomber forces them to fly at a low level at a slow rate of speed. that -1 could be good because it represents an advantage to the aa guns on these ships.

[Guerrilla Guy]

Well Dive Bombers were harder to hit them Torpedo Bombers, there is a difference… But I guess you should choose one or the other and fly with it (no pun intended)

GG

[Imperious Leader]

yes it appears that their are too many planes! perhaps we can narrow down the idea to “tactical fighter”  I’m not sure…

[Guerrilla Guy]

No I think those choices are fine… Dive Bombers need an advantage vs ships, otherwise I won’t buy them… Perhaps giving them the -1 advantage when aa fires…

GG

[tekkyy]

I duno about the -1 to AA fire.

If NAV (naval) and DIV (dive) can carry torpedo…what stops FTR (fighter) from carrying torpedos?

Currently naval antiair is about number of dices (not stronger or weaker attack)…

Naval units with a non-zero Anti-air value have an additional antiaircraft function in opening-fire.
Each unit has a number of rolls equal to its Anti-air value, with each roll hitting an enemy air unit on 1.

Note currently only NAV (naval) can land/rearm on CV (carrier).

they should have a more limited range ( one space from carrier one space back–- whether or not the carrier has  moved)

Ok I am adding to the draft a range of 2 for NAV.
Don’t think we should say “whether or not the carrier has moved” though, they changes something else.

We still let NAV fight on land though. No reason why they can’t be fitted with bombs.

I think problem is solved. You buy DIV not NAV for land because of range.

[Guerrilla Guy]

I think my line of thought was -1 one die, but that doesn’t sound correct since in some situations that would be reducing it to 0 die… I am just pointing out that as the rules currently are I wouldn’t even buy a DIV because they aren’t worth it…

GG

[tekkyy]

I wouldn’t even buy a DIV because they aren’t worth it…

Maybe DIV should be 3/2 and NAV 3/1.

Imperious does mention both should poor defence but which one should be worse?

Ok I see why Imperious said

one space from carrier one space back–- whether or not the carrier has  moved

We made CV move 3. So If NAV moves 2 it’ll be weird with the OOB carrier “cargo” rule.

So we need to get rid of OOB’s “cargo” rule. You don’t have to launch fighters.
It doesnt introduce anything weird right?
Abd what about UK NAV on US carrier?

[Guerrilla Guy]

Dive Bombers are representing Bombers, NAV fighters… I don’t think the Defense should go up, instead you need a way to make them more formidable against Naval Forces… NAV I almost envision as there “opponent” unit… You want to be able to launch your NAV’s anyways to counter the DIV threat… Perhaps no Aircraft can hit Ships except bombers? (Fighters and NAV can hit Transports?)

just an idea… How many P-40’s did you hear of knock out a carrier with a 500 LB. bomb?

GG

[tekkyy]

What do you mean? I not suggestion up but actually down the defence of NAV.

As for planes attacking ships, we actually let them do it. FTR NAV and DIV, but not BMR.
We say that BMR do saturation level bombing from high altitude. Hence they can’t hit ships and have no selectively fire.

[Guerrilla Guy]

I was referring to DIV… Sorry I didn’t clarify… Capital Ships can only be attacked by DIV?

GG

[tekkyy]

Yeah, all air units except BMR can attack ships.

[tekkyy]

Another thing.
Should AA (Antiaircraft) still cost 5 IPC after our changes?
Maybe 3 IPC?

[Gen AlexanderPatch]

4 IPC is more accurate… Hardware weremore expensive than men (AA guns should cost more than infantry)

[Imperious Leader]

I thought all factories and VC have a built in AA fire? whats the use of aa guns? is it to now protect your land units? if so we can easily add the thing in artillery as part of their functions. extensive flak batterys did not travel with armies as they moved. Very limited aa flak artillery was present in military formations. We could just use those guns as heavy artillery unit or coastal batteries.  But if you really like them then fine.

[tekkyy]

Ah yes the AA rules have been changed to reflect this. They are not mobile fighting units.
You can’t fire until you deploy them! You can’t move them after you’ve deployed them!

I retract my sugguest to reduce cost.
I just remember we planned to call the game piece ID (Infrastructure Defence) to includes Coastal Batteries.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes thats correct!

[tekkyy]

Ok people lets draft some Coastal Batteries rules…

We have a few ideas mentioned already.
Like they shall only be able to hit ships engaging in amphibious assault. That is, transports unloading units or surface ships doing bombardment or helping attacking infantry with +1 in 1st combat cycle.

Whats the range of coastal batteries compared to destroyers and batteships?
Ships can choose to not support infantry?
Should the actually “transport” piece be hit? Or should attacking infantry (in reality, landing crafts) be hit?