There was already many changes suggested in the Revised Thread, adding Marines or Elite Infantry was more interesting than another defensive unit.
There is already many big changes to try with my actual roster.
Convoy Raid and reduced cost for ships is amongst the ones which can affect radically balance.
With Subs combat ability change, there is already many things to try.
Hope, you will be able to test it somehow.
I will appreciate any feedback, for sure.
**If I want to play with Fg, TcB, Medium Bomber and Heavy Bomber,
what can be the ability of Medium Bomber between TcB and StB (heavy)?
Were they used to chase Subs? More than Strat Bomber?
-Have they better defensive machine guns against other planes than TacB but less than Heavy strat**?
Below is what I have in mind for change from previous values and to reduced to reasonable range heavy strat bomber and medium. Dark Skies showed that range and projection of power is to be limited for bombers.
This is made for 3 planes carrier game.
FIGHTER A2 D2-3 M4, same in SBR Cost 6
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.
Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
1 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (for 1942.2, 2 Fgs can scramble from an Air Base/Victory City instead.)
SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2, or even Defend @3 for 1 Fg if an operational Air Base is present.
Can scramble in adjacent SZ up to 4 Fgs: 3 defend @2 and 1 defend @3, getting the +1 Defense bonus from an operational Air Base.
Can hit unsubmerged submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
TACTICAL BOMBER A3 D2 M4 Cost 8
All hits are allocated to any ground units of your choice.
This can makes for Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber” and “Tank Buster”:
SBR/TcBR Attack @2,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit unsubmerged submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
Medium BOMBER
Attack 2** AA1*
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 8
*In regular combat, if any enemy’s aircraft, gets an additional Attack @1 against aircraft, each combat round.
All hits are allocated to any ground units of your choice
Strategic Bombing Raid
SBR/ TBR : Attack @1
SBR/ TBR damage: 1D6 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Can hit unsubmerged submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
**Antisub air search and destruction (attacking sub by itself, with no DD to block Sub): on a 2 or less roll hit submarine before it submerge.
Heavy Strategic BOMBER
Attack 4 AA1*
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 10
*In regular combat, if any enemy’s aircraft, gets an additional Attack 1 against aircraft, each combat round.
Strategic Bombing Raid
SBR/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA.
SBR/ TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Can hit unsubmerged submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
Summary of SBR/TcBR escort and intercept combat values:
Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3 (+1 to 1 Fg from an operational Air Base)
Tactical Bomber: Attack 2 Defense 0
Bomber Medium: Attack 1 Defense 0
Strategic Bomber Heavy: Attack 1 first strike, as AA gun against up to 2 Fgs, Defense 0
AA_Baron Munchhausen units & set-up charts for 1942 2ndEd_1941_AA50.doc
Do you think a PBY Catalina can be categorized as a medium bomber for game-play ?
Or it still be part of the long range and stronger payload of heavy bomber?
Loads: 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs or depth charges
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina#Specifications_.28PBY-5A.29
From what I understand, PBY Catalina payload was within medium bomber allowance but the range and length of the plane is in the lower spec of heavy bomber, am I right?
Do you think a PBM Mariner can be a medium bomber in game play?
Loads: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) of bombs or depth charges
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_PBM_Mariner#Specifications_.28PBM-1.29
For example, a B-25 Mitchell Medium Bomber has a load of:
Hardpoints: 2,000 lb (900 kg) ventral shackles to hold one external Mark 13 torpedo
Bombs: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) bombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_.28B-25H.29
B-24 Liberator has such a bomb load:
Short range (<400 mi [640 km]): 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg)
Long range (<800 mi [1,300 km]): 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg)
Very long range (<1,200 mi [1,900 km]): 2,700 pounds (1,200 kg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator#Specifications_.28B-24J.29
And a Heavy Bomber B-17 Flying Fortress can load these bombs:
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#Specifications_.28B-17G.29
Heavy Bomber Long Range Aircraft B-29 Superfortress can load up:
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_.28B-29.29
Finally, Heavy Bomber Avro Lancaster can load up:
Maximum normal bomb load: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) or 22,000 lb (9,979 kg) Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#Specifications_.28Lancaster_I.29
That idea is to get such Medium Bomber (with 2 engines sculpt) a special “historical ability” to be able to directly attack submarines like they were blocked by Destroyer unit :
Medium BOMBER
Attack 2** AA1*
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 8
*In regular combat, if any enemy’s aircraft, gets an additional Attack @1 against aircraft, each combat round.
All hits are allocated to any ground units of your choice
Can hit unsubmerged submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
**Antisub air search and destruction (attacking sub by itself, with no DD to block Sub): on a 2 or less roll, hit submarine before it submerges.
-Does Medium bomber have better defensive machine guns against other planes than Tactical Bombers, but less than Heavy Bombers?
Here is finally my modifed set-up for G40 on two pages.
It also includes OOB set-up with the same presentation.
It will work for A2 D2 C7 Fg and TcB A3 D2 C8
Hope it can be useful eventually…
The conversion rule of thumb is:
Conversion Table (to Fighter A2 D2 C7 & TcB A3 D2 C8):
Allies: +11 Fgs + 3 TcBs +1 AAA vs Axis: +8 Fgs + 6 TcBs
Soviet Union: 2 Fgs+ 1 TcB= +1 Fighter +1 TcB
United Kingdom: 6 Fgs+ 2 TcBs = +3 Fighters +1 TcB
United States: 6 Fgs + 1 TcB = +3 Fighters +1 TcB
ANZAC: 3 Fgs = +2 Fighters
China: 1 Fg = +1 Fighter + 1 AAA
France: 2 Fgs = +1 Fighter
Germany: 5 Fgs + 5 TcBs = +3 Fighters + 2 TcBs
Japan: 9 Fgs + 8 TcBs = +4 Fighters + 4 TcBs
Italy: 2 Fgs = +1 Fighter
OOB G40 Set up chart and Air Intensive Set Up.doc
OOB G40 Set up chart and Air Intensive Set Up.pdf
its blank ( your file)
@Imperious:
its blank ( your file)
Nothing seems to work. Neither Word 2003 nor PDF version of it…
Is it my computer?
I even tried older version of above files and doesn’t work.
EDIT:
It doesn’t seem because I can send my files by email to my TAB4 and read them.
So, it is like A&A.ORG is not uploading files correctly.
I send good ones, but when I try to download it is empty.
Also, the number of K on files appear correctly on the post. (223 Ko .DOC and 131 Ko .PDF)
You found a problem Imperious Leader.
perhaps you use dropbox and just provide a link rather than use the storage space from this site?
@Imperious:
perhaps you use dropbox and just provide a link rather than use the storage space from this site?
@P@nther:
@Baron:
There seems to be a problem with downloading new files.
Yes, it has started at least 24 hours ago. No more free space for uploading the files.
Please see
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39413.0
and
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39411.0Looks like djensen needs to free up some space…
@Imperious:
its blank ( your file)
Finally, problem solved.
Baron, I enjoy reading about your ideas, and I think you have a keen grasp of both A&A strategy and the principles of game design. However, I usually do not look at your posts about alternate unit charts, because I find them very difficult to read! Here are some of the reasons why I struggle to read your unit charts:
You often describe multiple versions of multiple units for multiple maps in the same post. It’s not always clear when you’re shifting from map to map, from version to version, or from unit to unit.
You use so much bold font that it doesn’t work for me as a way of adding emphasis; instead the test just feels jagged and broken up.
You spread out your commentary and analysis, putting some of it right next to each unit, some of it underneath each unit, and some of it at the bottom of your post or in another post. This makes it hard to compare rules from one unit to the next, and it also makes it hard for me to read and absorb your analysis.
You do not use table formatting, colors, font sizes, or bullets to help show the structure of your posts.
I am pointing all of this out not to be mean, but because I am interested in your ideas, and I would gladly read them and comment on them if they were put into a format that made them a little easier for me to digest. Obviously you do get plenty of people commenting on your posts anyway, so if you don’t feel like changing your style, that is totally fine! I just wanted to share my concerns and give you a chance to respond accordingly.
Thanks for the editorial comments.
I agree there is too much information in to short notice.
If you want to start somewhere, just download the first files.
In it, you get all the player’s sheet I use in game to know what a unit can do and to what cost and everything else.
There is no commentary in it, only rules and abilities.
Eventually, I will make another thread with the most recent development from Redesign project and play-tests.
This is a long work in progress develop along five years.
Thanks! I hadn’t even seen that link! The Word document is very clean and well-organized; very easy to read.
THE GOOD: I like your land units; I think the mech. inf. + mech. art are very elegant and well-balanced. I also like the air bases, air fields, and the spread of movement ranges on the various types of planes. It’s neat to have tac bombers + med. strategic bombers + heavy strategic bombers.
THE BAD: You and I have talked about this a little bit before, but I am still not convinced that bombers should be killing fighters with first strike @ 1 during dogfights. I think A1 is already pretty generous for a bomber during a dogfight against a fighter’s D2. I defer to your superior number-crunching skills; I’m sure you’ve worked the math out properly. I just think it “feels” wrong to have a bomber be almost as powerful in air combat as a dedicated air-superiority fighter plane. Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder. Making them even cheaper and more powerful seems like it will force players to buy hordes of submarines to protect their navies even if they’re not much interested in stealth and/or offense. I would rather see cheap destroyers, or maybe a DE class boat. Something like…
Destroyer Escort (DE): C5 A0 D1 M2, cancels one sub’s special abilities
Submarine (SS): C6 A2 D1 M2, submerge, first strike, and convoy raid
Transport (TT): C7 A0 D0 M3, can carry two land units, may take as casualty
Destroyer (DD): C8 A1 D2 M2, cancels one sub’s special abilities, 1 AA shot @ 1
Cruiser (CA): C9 A3 D3 M3, supports unloading land unit with one bombard @ 3.
THE INTERESTING: I like your air transport unit, and I think 5 move is exactly correct, but it might be slightly overpriced at 8 IPCs. I think I would prefer a 7 IPC price. Similarly, I like your carrier escort, but I’m not sure if it gives good value for money, especially if the enemy has few or no subs. When would I need to support one plane in the ocean? In real life, America and Japan needed escort carriers for protecting relatively minor troop transports and supply convoys in secondary theaters, e.g., for mopping up the Philippines, or for taking the rest of the Caroline Islands after Truk fell. But on the Axis & Allies maps, especially the smaller maps like 1942.2, there really aren’t any territories I can see that are both large enough to be worth sending a transport, and small enough that you could effectively guard that transport with only an escort carrier. Where do you think players will wind up using your escort carriers? I bet there’s a use for them somewhere, I just don’t see it myself. Finally, I don’t think letting tactical bombers hit an air target of their choice on a roll of 1 is interesting or important enough to justify the extra complication in the rules – all the bombers should get the same special ability, i.e., if they roll a 1, they can choose their target. If you want to limit that target to land (and sea?) then that’s fine, but limit it for all the bombers, not just some of them.
THE NITPICKY: Cruisers give +1 move when paired 1:1 with a surface vessel, but cruisers themselves still only have a move of 2. Typo? Also, I think historically the main British air base in the Middle East was in Trans-Jordan, not in Egypt.
In general, these are a fun set of alternate units, and if one of my friends ever assembles a set of all of the necessary miniatures, I would be happy to playtest them! Thanks for sharing. :-)
Thanks for this in depth analysis.
I will return read this post once I will get a clear idea about what is my inspired roster from Redesign.
Even Mech Artillery has been under microscope because Barney introduced it in G40 Triple A.
The 5 IPCs A0 StBs provided me a total paradigm shift.
Which is not included. Now StB my C5 will attack @1 against C6 or C7 Fg A2 D2.
There is two sets of rules according to which Fg you prefer.
Probably, Fg A3 D4 C10, would roll “2” or less to hit plane.
This TcB associated with special roll is not satisfying, “1” doing something, “2” something else not KISS.
On Destroyers vs Subs, you need see that if Subs is 5 IPCs, DDs is only 6 IPCs.
Pretty simpler to use.
Again Barney is developing on Triple A something a bit different but it can somehow give the feel of more elusive Subs.
DD A1 D1 M2 C5, with an anti-sub (patrol) roll both offense and defense @1.
It is almost ready.
Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.
One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.
