if their is no radar, fighters should be able to suprize attack air bases and naval bases like in pearl harbor. roll dice: 4-6 defending fighters go up. roll 1-3 SUPRIZE ATTACK defending fighters are caught on ground cannot return fire for 1st round combat. if you have radar tech, no suprize attack option. whaddya think? :?
if their is no radar, fighters should be able to suprize attack air bases and naval bases like in pearl harbor. roll dice: 4-6 defending fighters go up. roll 1-3 SUPRIZE ATTACK defending fighters are caught on ground cannot return fire for 1st round combat. if you have radar tech, no suprize attack option. whaddya think? huh
Well under this idea they can attack air bases and not have to fight non air units. They just have to get thru AA guns and then the usual defensive rolls.
Under an expansion of this idea to integrate it with a proper technology which might be Radar, it makes sence. 1-3 surprise, 4-6 normal and all air is preemptive attacking rolls first round.
So yes. Good catch.
exellent! i really like your concept of different movement values for combat and non combat movment. its so much more realistic and makes good sense. i guess infantry is out on this one. tried to apply it and couldnt make it make sense.
Sounds good, I i like the land and sea movement idea.
So a fighter can move 2 in combat(to there target) and 4 in the non-combat.
I dont understand the idea for airbases. the rules already allow for air-air battles if you are SBing an air base. I would just add that tac bombers can SB air and naval bases and particpate in intercpetor/escourt combat.
I dont understand the naval base suggesting either. Does the AA gun fire at ships or planes? how does it portect fleets from naval attack?
i think NBs shelter ships from attack by other ships. but does not protect ships from any aircraft. in fact ships should be more vulnerable to planes, just like Pearl harbor. AA guns always fire. maybe ships if you play with separate AA for ships. tac bombers, dive bombers, torpedeo bombers whatever you want to call them get attack bonus against ships in port.
I don’t understand the idea for airbases. the rules already allow for air-air battles if you are SBing an air base. I would just add that tac bombers can SB air and naval bases and participate in interceptor/escort combat.
Airbases:
Procedure:
A) AA guns fire if located in territory
B) Attacking planes fire using normal values
C) Defending planes fire using normal values
Further rules optional:
Surprise Attacks:
Surprise attack is possible if you don’t have radar technology ( added and replace with one of the joke OOB techs)
1-3 Attacking planes get preemptive fire first round ( if units get hit, survivors still get to fire back)
4-6 Has no effect
I don’t understand the naval base suggesting either. Does the AA gun fire at ships or planes? how does it protect fleets from naval attack?
On land its the same idea:
All land units move double if you choose to move them in NCM.
Again i appeal to the possibility to include the ‘surprise attack option’ against Naval ports as well. It now really models all the historical realities and helps the game play quicker.
I don’t advise this rule for AA42 or AA50 and really only for AAP40/ AAE40 and Global 40
2)
i think NBs shelter ships from attack by other ships. but does not protect ships from any aircraft. in fact ships should be more vulnerable to planes, just like Pearl harbor. AA guns always fire. maybe ships if you play with separate AA for ships. tac bombers, dive bombers, torpedeo bombers whatever you want to call them get attack bonus against ships in port.
Thats right thats exactly the idea here. Protect ships from naval attacks, but not air attacks.
Also, make the air bases more viable against land combat ( before they did nothing except help against ships passing into the sea zone adjacent from the island air base.
Your on the right track. play it out in your next game. This is defiantly KISS
What about having Aircraft only be able to land at airbases, factories or carriers. Also, transports can only load units from a territory with a naval base or factory. This would make building and protecting factories,airbases and naval bases much more important. :-o
What about having Aircraft only be able to land at airbases, factories or carriers. Also, transports can only load units from a territory with a naval base or factory. This would make building and protecting factories,airbases and naval bases much more important. shocked
Kinda limiting. If you lost your last AB you cant fly planes? Well according this this you would not have any planes, except if Germany used Italian bases.
The idea of German planes that cant land in Germany but must land in Italy because they don’t have air bases makes no sence.
My idea gives some benefits and drawbacks to using them. If you are weak in air force you wont be using airborne, but if you make it strong you got a good defensive advantage as well as movement.
If you look at nations with small air forces it somehow mirrors their capabilities, but always keeps the potential alive allowing a player to get the advantage if it suits him.
Also, if you don’t buy AB i can see how it can be an advantage because now you got the land units protecting the air planes…. this is a draw back to my system. So perhaps i can give them the 4 NCM only if they move from an AB?
After more playtesting I find this:
Naval port rules as outlined are perfect
Air base rules have issue which is this: Player with weak air forces will not use the air base because the stronger air forces can create kill squadrons. They will opt out of the defensive advantage of being able to scramble to adjacent territories and instead use the other units to help them defend from unilateral attacks.
The solution is this-
AS the other poster pointed out rightfully the air base should be a requirement to use fighters as offensive pieces in the combat move, but not on defense.
Second, this form of air attacks ( against air bases from planes only) will use the same combat values as SBR escort/ interception rules.
All Attacking bombers at 3, Fighters and Tactical Bombers are at 1, all Defending planes ( of any type) are at 2.
So again the air base allows this:
Is this good?
Does the cost of these need to drop to say 8 IPC?
@Imperious:
Does the cost of these need to drop to say 8 IPC?
I was thinking 5 ipc so they are not cost prohibitive, we want players to build and use airbases right? But, you need to spend an extra 5 ipcs to upgrade them to accept bombers. This would work especially well on pacific islands.
AAGGGHHHH!! screwed up that post, dont feel like rewriting, you get the idea sorry made my post look like your quote.
OK air base =5, naval base = 10? or 8?, or 12?
Need to playtest.
Naval probably need 10, or perhaps 6 for AB and 12 for NB?
do you agree with 5 ipc upgrade of AB to accept bombers?
I don’t see the realism in having an AB for fighters and paying extra to get bombers. It seems like splitting hairs. Rather one price for AB and another for NB
6 and 12 seem decent.
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. :? :? Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. :? :? Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
I think this means if you attacked Japan and Japan had ships in port those ships would not be able to defend with ground troops and aircraft. thats the trade off for the protection of a port, while in port ships cant respond to an immediate threat.
So let me get this straight you nee an airbase to land aircraft. huh huh Plus don’t you think that naval bases make it hard too attack coastlines. I mean attacking Japan would be impossible.
No you need an AB to make SBR or any combat attacks. The planes always defend even if they are not in an AB, and defend alone in an AB.
Naval bases have no effect on invasions of attached land territory. The option is with the naval defending: they can defend or they can just stay in port. That is the flexibility in being in port. Also, if the land territory is taken they become ‘dislodged’ and placed in the sea zone at the end of the turn. On their own turn they can move out or attack.
I already used the concept of ports stopping invasions and that didn’t work. It took too long to remove the ships.
Ok, if you dont like the upgrade for ABs to accept bombers. how about you require an AB to land a bomber?You already require one for SBRs, i dont think bombers should be able to land anywhere on the board that you own.
OK the requirement that all planes that want to perform a combat or SBR or airborne drop must start from AB. Lets just keep that.
To require them to always remain in AB is too limiting. They could not now even hope to move from continent to continent in NCM because you need a chain of AB. That is too limiting. I say just for purposes of combat movement you are required to launch from an AB. you can still land on a non-AB territory.
I already protected ports and some cash poor nations can’t be undermined by the AB requirement for all planes all the time.
Its like adding too much spice and ruining the flavor.
