Though if Japan could take India, they would’ve taken Yunnan already.
It’s virtually the only way to move from Europe to China.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+ Â D3 Â M1 Â $5. Â Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.
Cost of $6 is too much; would be better to just buy a tank. Needs to be greater than $4 based on superior capabilities to Art/Mech. $5 is the only slot left. By definition, this unit needs to be demonstrably better than normal infantry at base A/D values. There is very little room to fudge the numbers in a D6 system at this low a cost.
Based on the way Baron has been calculating relative unit value/power… (2) normal Infantry should be somewhere in the ballpark of (1) Elite in terms of cost and base hitting power.
Such range of combat value is near my HRed Mechanized Artillery.
MECH ART A2-3 D2-3 M2 Cost 5, +1A to Inf and MechInf, gets +1A/D if paired with Tank.Going higher than A2 D2 seems weird to me when talking about Infantry, even if they are Elite ones.
Paratroopers A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 4, are within acceptable limits.But the issue is to beat the Inf-Art combos (A4 D4 cost 7 IPCs) within a D6 system to make any Elite troops interesting and balanced from an optimized game-play perspective.
2 Artillery units are already less interesting (A4 D4 cost 8 IPCs).
It is a real challenged. -
@Baron:
Good Action
Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?
It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry). It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.Maybe this could fit the bill for a generic special Infantry unit:
Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.
Better and simpler version, here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919 -
I am intrigued by some of your ideas Baron. Since we have mostly been talking about existing pieces and adding some new ones, I am going to start a new thread here in House Rules to continue the discussion. I feel like we are getting Black_Elk’s topic off point.
I have been wanting to get opinions on the revised unit structure I am formulating, so this appears to be the best time.
-
Another thought I had, which is perhaps too radical for some tastes, would be to award actual units rather than just ipcs, each round. With some limited number like 1 land 1 air 1 sea (with the actual unit type determined by a roll) and severely restrict where they can be placed, such as 1 per factory territory. The idea here is that the “bonus” unit doesn’t cost you IPCs, it’s a freebie for the player, but has to be placed somewhere specific. Again it might be too much of a departure from the traditional system. But perhaps something like that could be used to encourage players to mobilize units in two theaters or multiple theaters, instead of just building in one direction?
Does something like that seem workable?
I’ve played with the +1 ipc battle bonus in AA50 and it typically produced between 3-10 ipcs per nation per round. Everyone had a much greater incentive to “actively fight” because each battle fought put +1 ipcs at stake.
No battle is a complete destruction of all armies involved on one side.
For each battle, allows the winner to save 1 of his costlier unit taken as casualty, to be produce at no cost in his own IC on the next game round.
Allows the looser to retrieve 1 cheapest unit casualty, at no cost on his production center on the next game round.
There must be at least 1 unit lost on each side to occur. -
All these combat unit discussions are fruitful, so I’d definitely encourage them. As for introducing new unit types this is also a possibility, but I would be cautious. In tripleA it’s relatively easy to include new unit types, but on the physical board the options are more limited. HBG does offer a wide variety of specialized sculpts, but these are sometimes limited in number, so it can get pricey if you have to by an expansion set for each player nation.
One way to approach it, is to offer an “expanded roster” option. So basically specialized units (whatever those end up being) are not included as part of the standard set up cards, but can be incorporated as units for purchase by those who wish to adopt them. Possibilities here might include things like Elite Infantry, Heavy tanks, a new class of aircraft etc.
For Elite infantry it might be advisable to make that unit type a catch-all, so Airborne, Marines, Rangers etc. all represented by one generic sculpt. Ideally it should be very easy to distinguish from regular infantry. A sculpt in a crouched or prone position, rather than standing might be one way to go. Not sure what HBG has on offer. Or maybe a painted base stand? But something to make it pretty identifiable at a glance.
I like some of the cost proposals coming in lately.
I also like the Gold Reserve concept. I think that idea has real promise as a way to tweak the traditional capital capture looting mechanic.
-
@Baron:
Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.
Probably it could be more interesting if Marines/Elite on TP can allow 2 Marines Inf and 1 Art unit, at most for 12 IPCs invested. Giving A2+A2+A1 first strike on offence. Iit was more historically the case for Marines working with Artillery division, it is the only way I saw some incentive to put them together.
But, it probably becomes too OP vs regular transportation. -
Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…
What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?
The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.
Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?
I may be in the minority, but I’m not a particular fan of the way it works OOB, especially for Carrier decks.
The game’s other repair system is related to bombing and facilities, with a direct cost in IPCs. Ships by contrast repair for free, but they need to be at an operational naval base (which costs 15 ipcs to build.) I’m just curious if we might be able to create a better or more forgiving system for Carriers? Unlike battleships, which don’t lose their special ability to bombard, the usefulness of the carrier is totally shot if it is damaged mid battle. This might be novel from a historical perspective, but in terms of the gameplay it’s pretty rough.
One possible solution would be to allow 1 fighter to land/take off from a damaged (rather than the current system where it’s either 2 fighters if operational or 0 fighters if damaged.) The rationale here might be that the single unit sculpt represents a carrier task force which might include more than 1 actual carrier. So, as sometimes happened in the war, if the deck of one carrier was damaged, airborne fighters might be able to land on a the deck of a sister ship.
I think there were what like 3 or 4 carriers operating in the Pacific for the start date? And these are represented by a single sculpt. Japan likewise had more carriers than just the 3 they have as part of the OOB set up chart. So it would make some sense right? These sculpts are clearly representing larger carrier groups.I just think it would be nice if at least 1 fighter could land on a damaged deck, because the carrier unit has no defense value by itself. Fleets are already so vulnerable to land based aircraft and the carrier is the only way to meet the land based air threat, by putting defensive 4s the water via fighters. Seems a shame that a 36 ipcs investment can be undone so easily, when the game just doesn’t provide many alternative options for fleet defense at a cost within reason vs land based aircraft.
I played with 2 hits Carrier on WWII The Expansion. A damaged one could still have 1 plane on board.
In this rule, if you wanted to put a hit on BB, it required to put one on a Carrier first.
Simply because Carriers were the main target at sea.
What about extending the range of Naval Base repair capacity?
Any damaged capital ship in an adjacent SZ to a NB’s SZ can be repaired without moving the warships.
It is because the ships have the time to go back and forth within the timeframe between game round (3 to 6 months). -
I agree that giving a marine 3A with a artillery is a little overpowered but if they don’t get a bonus you’d be better off with reg inf/arty combo. As LHoffman alluded to limiting their number might be a good way to go.
I use Midnight Express’s rule that limits the US to 6 marines and Japan to 8 SNLF. They A2 on amphib 3 with arty. Revert to normal inf after amphib attack. Cost is same as inf. It takes 2-3 turns for the US to get into action so they’re really not OP’d. Japan can pretty much always have SNLFs so maybe they should be lowered, but overall I find it makes the Pacific more exciting.
I painted the helmets of US inf black and Japan red to distinguish. It seems to work good although you might need some more regular inf from other games.
-
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to keep up with this thread, but I see that some of the ideas are evolving pretty quickly. I know that these sea unit profiles are really off the current radar, but I just wanted to throw them out there. I personally think there are enough sea units in a G40 game without adding more, and I would rather increase their capabilities and/or cost than decrease their cost. That said, it is very difficult to modify 1 unit without a ripple effect to the other units, and I always prefer to keep things simple. Here are my unrefined, and untested ideas for new sea unit profiles…
Transport
Attack-0
Defence-0
Movement-2
Cost-7
Abilities
-May transport 2 land units (same as G40).Submarine
Attack-2
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-8
Abilities- Same as G40.
Destroyer
Attack-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Defence-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Movement-2
Cost-9
Abilities
-Can spot and attack submarines with other sea and air units (same as G40), however, destroyers do not negate submarine capabilities until the beginning of round 5.
-Attack and Defence increases by 1 after round 5.Cruiser
Attack-4
Defence-4
Movement-2
Cost-15
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@4Aircraft Carrier
Attack-1
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-17
Abilities
-Require 2 hits to be sunk.Battleship
Attack-5
Defence-5
Movement-2
Cost-23
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@5
-Requires 2 hits to be sunk.To compensate for more powerful sea units in the initial setup, I would propose adding a German fighter on both Holland and Norway, as well as a German Tactical Bomber on Berlin. I would also add a British fighter on both Gibraltar and Malta, and an American fighter on both Philippines, and Hawaii. </r5)></r5)>
-
One goal of mine, perhaps a gamey goal, is to see more ships on the board (more ships introduced through purchasing over the course of the game). Even holding to the traditional “no chips under ships” mentality, there are way more naval sculpts in the box than are typically used in a normal game. So the argument for reducing the cost/replacement cost of ships, is that if they are cheaper people will buy more of them, and be more willing to trade them in combat. Especially for cash strapped nations like UK, Italy, Anzac, Russia, the baseline entry cost of 8 ipcs for a destroyer, is fairly prohibitive. And a lone destroyer doesn’t do you much good anyway, so in reality you’re looking at a 24 ipcs at the door OOB, 8 for the DD and 16 for the carrier deck (on which to land 2 existing fighters, either yours or a friendly ally) just to have any hope of not seeing that investment immediately blasted by enemy air. Add to that 1 transport to make the fleet effective, and that’s 31 ipcs right there. More than most nation’s can manage on their starting income, and that’s blowing the whole wad on ships, with nothing left over for the often obligatory ground or air builds. Its just a lot of cash on the line, if you want to make an entry on the water. Even with a loaded carrier deck to defend, you often need the cover of an airbase with fighters to scramble, just to keep enemy air from nailing you immediately.
Part of the desire for cheaper ships has do with the way that navies get clipped right at the outset in A&A, usually by land based air attacks. I suppose it’s possible to design the first round such that these attacks are less common. But if the design of the first round resembles OOB, then more expensive ships seems like it would just equal less ships overall. Less cat and mouse, slower build ups and the like.
One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.
The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.
The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.
To Baron
I rather like the idea that just came in for naval base repair extending to adjacent sea zones. It seems reasonable enough, without upending the OOB concept too much. This would make the NB considerably more valuable than it currently is, at least with regard to repair, which in turn would make capital ships more attractive purchases, especially the battleship.
Instead of repairing in a single sea zone, an island NB could cover up to 5/6 tiles.
This raises the question though, would that make repair a non issue? Given that most sea zones are adjacent to an NB?Perhaps each NB should have a cap, such that it can only repair a certain number of ships in a given round?
Say each NB could only repair 3 ships per turn (to mirror the AB’s 3 fighters scrambling), this might prevent the repair free-for all that might otherwise occur if we extended the repair range of the NB to adjacent sea zones.
-
I totally agree on every points you just said. :-)
You also pointed out one issue about NB repair adjacent SZs which was annoying me too.
I find the 3 warships repair maximum to be a very consistent solution. -
One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.
The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.
The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.
You just gave me another reason for the change I suggested on Transport getting only air defense but staying defenseless against warships. This would give more incentive to put 5 IPCs Subs and 6 IPCs DDs at sea rather than throwing planes to chase TPs.
What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?
1, the higher cost 8 vs 5 or 6.**A defensive benefit ?
Here is an old idea, in a new context (5 IPCs Sub and 6 IPCs DDs) than previous idea.
Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some costlier attacking planes.On the other part, this would emphasis the role of Submarines warfare (especially for Germany) against transports.
And the owning player would have to chose between loosing a cheaper 6 IPCs DD defending @2, or a costlier TP at 8 with no defense. Either ways, the Sub commander gets something in return.
And, in the case of a combined attack with planes, to get nearer Atlantic battle: forget about Last Strike idea for Transport.
That way, planes will always be at risk when attacking transports, even lonely ones.To summarize:
TRANSPORT A0 D0* M2 C8, 1 hit
***_~~Last Strike AA defense:
If the transport is not taken as casualty,each Transport gets 1 AA shot @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, each combat round.
No defense against warships.CRUISER
A3 D3 M3 Cost 9
Shore bombardment @3, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense: once per battle in opening combat round, each Cruiser gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.I would introduce both M3 and combined arms bonus to Cruiser also because it stays much weaker than Destroyer when compared to the same IPCs basis:
@Baron:It seems to be agreed on the forums that cruisers aren’t worth purchasing. Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships**, what if they had movement of 3 from any space regardless of naval base? Would that change your mind on purchasing? I think it would for me.**
I believe this could actually change the Pacific theatre in an interesting way.
What about this Cruiser unit?
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 12 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)This way, you can use the Cruiser & Transport combo without regarding Naval Base and maximizing the Shore bombardment. For example, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport can invade a few 1 Infantry’s islands which doesn’t have Naval Base but still keeping the pace of fleet making yo-yo move between Naval Base, to keep up the 3 moves pace.
On this post there is a similar idea, but only applied to transport & Cruiser combo then.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1358278#msg1358278I just found one of my original post which includes a combination of some previous ideas in this thread.
@Baron:@CWO:
Cruiser + Aircraft Carrier? Yes, cruisers added to the protective rings of AAA fire that were thrown up around carriers, whose own AAA abilities were limited. US practice was to put the carriers in the middle of a formation, with battleships surrounding the carriers, cruisers surrounding the battleships, and destroyers surrounding the cruisers.
Cruiser + Battleship? Nothing much to be gained there since, as I’ve already outlined, both ship types differ mainly in scale rather than in fundamental ability.
Cruiser + Destroyer?
A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills. (They often mooched from battleships too. The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.)Cruiser + Transport ship? Perhaps, in the sense that cruisers could (in principle) protect them from attack with their AAA batteries. I’m not sure, however, to what extent cruisers were actually used in that role in WWII; destroyers may have been cheaper to use in the same capacity.
Ok, talking about Cruiser and Combined Arms
1- Cruiser always moves at 3 CM and NCM.
2- Cruiser gives +1 CM & NCM to boost the moving range of any other surface vessel if paired 1:1 (BB, CV, DD and TP, only).
3- Cruiser with Battleship and Carrier get the Anti-Air capacity (same as AAA: @1 against up to 3 planes, preemptive).Battleship get nothing else, except as being part of #2 and a requirement for #3.
Carrier is in the same situation as Battleship.
However, to get a 3 move CM or NCM without Naval Base is costly for a Task Force Fleet: 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, needs 4 Cruisers.
The mandatory pairing 1:1 provides a very restrictive limit, since Cruisers are the worst Combat effective units of the Naval roster.
Speed and maneuverability is gained at the cost of optimized Att/Def values.Can this be within historical accuracy, A&A system and a balance limit?~~_**
-
However,
if Fighter stay at 10 IPCs and bombers at 12 IPCs, there is no need to add AAA capacity to Cruiser or even Battleship.
Their reduced cost at 9 and 15 IPCs make them far more effective against planes.
But the issue will remain when compared to 6 IPCs Destroyers.
On IPCs basis, DDs is the most dangerous and cost effective.
So Cruiser would need something special to compete with DDs, hence M3, +1M to paired 1:1 surface vessel.
Or it should be better to reduces Fg to $8 and Bombers to $10, to balance them vs warships.
And then add AA capacity to Cruiser only, and not Battleship. Because BB already outmatch Fg at 8 and Bomber at 10.
Or just a better moving capacity to Cruiser and no AA at all for BB or Cruiser.This unit would be simpler to use in play, (with either 10 or 8 IPCs Fg, 12 or 10 IPCs Bombers) and provides something different compared to DDs and BBs.
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB) -
One goal of mine, perhaps a gamey goal, is to see more ships on the board (more ships introduced through purchasing over the course of the game). Even holding to the traditional “no chips under ships” mentality
Amen.
-
@Baron:
However,
if Fighter stay at 10 IPCs and bombers at 12 IPCs, there is no need to add AAA capacity to Cruiser or even Battleship.
Their reduced cost at 9 and 15 IPCs make them far more effective against planes.
But the issue will remain when compared to 6 IPCs Destroyers.
On IPCs basis, DDs is the most dangerous and cost effective.
So Cruiser would need something special to compete with DDs, hence M3, +1M to paired 1:1 surface vessel.
Or it should be better to reduces Fg to $8 and Bombers to $10, to balance them vs warships.
And then add AA capacity to Cruiser only, and not Battleship. Because BB already outmatch Fg at 8 and Bomber at 10.
Or just a better moving capacity to Cruiser and no AA at all for BB or Cruiser.This unit would be simpler to use in play, (with either 10 or 8 IPCs Fg, 12 or 10 IPCs Bombers) and provides something different compared to DDs and BBs.
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)Don’t give the Cruiser the 3 movement. Have fuel tanker ship C10 A0 D0 M3.
If fleet has a fuel tanker ship with them, movement would be 3 sea zones. But still only move 3 from a naval base.
Also you may have to have a cap on how many ships the fuel tanker can support. -
@SS:
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)Don’t give the Cruiser the 3 movement. Have fuel tanker ship C10 A0 D0 M3.
If fleet has a fuel tanker ship with them, movement would be 3 sea zones. But still only move 3 from a naval base.
Also you may have to have a cap on how many ships the fuel tanker can support.@Baron:
@CWO:
Cruiser + Destroyer?
A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills. (They often mooched from battleships too. The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.)CWOMarc brought me the way to rationalize about this combined arms bonus.
A lot of support ships have no sculpt but are part of a real fleet.
In addition, there is already an unsinkable unit at 12 IPCs which gives +1 Move: Naval Base.
I believe your additional Tanker unit better fit into LHoffman roster who is looking into additional historical units. -
Ya I noticed after I posted. Thought it was his thread. :-)
-
This is slightly different cost structure because I try to introduce a Carrier holding 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
I also tried to stick as much as possible to 1914 cost structure (6-9-12), including Fg at 6 IPCs.
I write it here since many ideas came from the last exchanges.
All other ground units are as OOB.Unit type
Cost Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth MoveDESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.CRUISER
9 IPCs A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1CARRIER
12 IPCs A0 D3 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 3 planes, damaged CV still carry one aircraftBATTLESHIP
15 IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4FIGHTER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M4
Always hit aircraft first, then AAA, if any available.
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.TACTICAL BOMBER
8 IPCs A3 D2 M4
Pick any enemy’s ground unit of your choice as casualty.
TBR: A1first strike Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.STRATEGIC BOMBER
10 IPCs A4 D1 M6
SBR: AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage : D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.
ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
3 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane. -
I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.
-
I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.
In my mind, a 3-plane carrier has more to do with the strategic and cost implications of allowing a third plane on a single carrier. (For one, it means you need less carriers to do the job, which means fewer ships bought.) Their physical ability to fit is less of a concern. Two planes fall off pretty easy anyway and planes in a sea zone = planes on the carrier as far as I am concerned.
Suggested Topics
