Carrier and Plane Movement

@barnee said in Submarine Movement and Customized Map:

@gen-manstein

someone should roof a game store with sheets of AnA lol

I probably have enough maps to do my ceiling in the fort.

Thanks for your honest comment Ozymandiac,
is the opening post easier to read and understand now?
Same information, different order.
I tried as much as possible to be clear in this new edited version.
Even the second post of this thread is just a more formalized way inspired by OOB 1942.2 written rules, which say same things than first opening post but with all words of official rules.

Please, I need everyone opinion.
And more specifically, I’m asking people which have a lot of experience with G40 games.

Because I’m still trying to keep the OOB Carrier and develop a real Fighter unit (able to hit directly planes) within the OOB combat values of G40 Full Carrier (A6 D10 / A7 D9 / A6 D8), I’m locked within some borders. Here they are.

Do you think this can still be a viable Fighter unit?
Or is this already and ultimately doomed because it remains too powerful with a Defense @3 which hit directly enemy’s planes?

Does a reduced cost for planes, such as minus 2 IPCs, (ex.: Fg at 8 IPCs, TcB at 9 IPCs, StB at 10 IPCs) can change something about balancing this Fighter unit?
(Here, I thought about a reduced cost as a way to compensate for high attrition rates amongst planes.)

This also rise the issue about such high SBR values, does an increased risk to loose valuable 12 IPCs Strategic Bombers still worth doing SBR? Or such revamped Fighter unit imply to revised SBR, anyway?

Details below are provided to understand what I’m talking about.
I’m not really trying to promote this new unit but rather asking people about obvious flaws which can be seen from experienced players POV get used to play with a lot of units and IPCs coming along with any G40 games.

Down below are the three aircraft units combat values and cost:

FIGHTER
Attack 2 can rise to 3
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.
This last point is an entirely new feature:
it is provided to ensure that Fighters on Carrier can still have a high defense against any Strategic Bombers Spam, such as Darkened Skies strategy.

Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack / Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

SBR escort mission: Attack @2
Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 11
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
+1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

No Carrier Operation

Now in SBR situations, aircrafts will be fighting each others with more logical values:
Fighters: Attack 2 Defense 3
Tactical Bombers: Attack 2 Defense 0
Strategic Bombers: Attack 1 Defense 0

@Baron:

It is intended to be played with the starting board.

Fg A2D2M4C8, 1 hit, all hit destroy an enemy plane first, if there is any.
Give +1A/D to any TcB paired with.

TacB A2D3M4C10, 1 hit, gain +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with any Fg or Tank.
Can do a Tactical bombing raid vs AB and NB.

Now, the Fleet Carrier is A0D2M2C16, 2 hits, can now hold up to 3 planes.

This point is for balancing vs OOB full carrier with 2 planes:
2 Fgs= A6D8C20 (.7pt/IPC)  / 1 Fg+1TcB= A7D7C21 (.67pt/IPC)

3 TcBs= A6D9C30 (.5pt/IPC)
2 TcBs + 1 Fg = A7D9C28 (.57pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A10D10C28 (.71pt/IPC)
1TcB+2 Fgs= A7D8C26 (.58pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A8D8C26 (.62pt/IPC)
3 Fgs= A6D6C24 (.5pt/IPC)

There is probably some changes to compensate for the weaker planes units.
For instance, 1 CV with 1 Fg and 1 TcB should be added an additional Fg on board.
You can also put on board a Fleet Carrier 1 TcB or 1 Fg when there is 1 plane on a CV and at least 1 Fg or TcB in a Naval Base nearby.

Since in this HR TacB gets the best defensive value, it should be better to put on the initial board a TcB instead of an OOB Fg and put a Fg instead of a TacB.

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

SS

I agree with Der Kuenstler…
But I have an other idea.
All ground units are vulnerable against fighters so infantry,artillery and tanks return fire at 1 againts fighters.

No not at all. Never felt that even once.

Just had to clarify the rules so when you play it’s done correctly.

But Shinano (same hull as Yamoto) took 1 submarine with 1 torpedo spread (one torpedo hit the I beam supporting one of the torpedo blisters and turned the I-beam into a battering ram that went through the boilers…)

While Yorktown was hit at Coral Sea, damaged, limped back to Pearl, and then fought again at Midway.

In both cases these carriers lost their battle with little against them… so id keep the one hit idea. If a Yamato class carrier can be sunk by a sub and the yorktown plus those 4 japanese carriers go down by a few planes i dont see why these ships need a two hit thing. The battleships should however. Do you not aggree?