Aircraft Carrier Giving Movement Bonus like Airbase

@Uncrustable:

Why would anyone want aircraft to have extended range from carriers ?
This flies in the face of history, and, logic.
Aircraft operating from a carrier actually should have a reduced range, not an increased range lol.
Aircraft is forced to operate ‘lighter’, thus less fuel and munitions.

Even with today’s modern aircraft and carriers, aircraft still can go further when operating from a land based strip rather than a carrier.

ABSURDNESS!!!

We also have to remember that A&A is a Strategical level game.
1 turn is for almost 3-6 months of wartime.

So any real Task Force of Carriers can be able to make a sea-travel an operate at a long distance.
For example, after the Battle of the Coral Sea (May 4-8, 1942), 1 damaged CV (Yorktown) was able in a few days to reach Hawaian islands, make repair in 2 days (May 27 to 30)  and fight to destroy IJN fleet in Midway (June 4-7 , 1942).

In the game, there is no NB in Solomon, so you cannot reach Midway SZ (3 SZs away) in one single turn.

Another inconsistency: Cruisers and Battleships cannot make any offshore bombardment if there is any battle in the Sea-Zone.
In fact, they could have sink many ships in the first two month of naval warfare, then past 1 month bombarding with heavy fire an entrenched position on an island before letting marines landing in. (I think of Iwo Jima here.)

So why don’t let Cruiser and Battleship makes them both naval battle and 1 offshore bombardment during the same turn?

that works for both land based aircraft and carrier based lol

at the end of the day no matter how many months, land based aircraft WILL be able to travel MUCH further than any carrier based aircraft

this is basic common sense if anything…

at the end of the day this is a table top board game lol, you cannot go into that much detail without eventually rendering the game unplayable

if it were a video game maybe things could be different…

Did you read this post?

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Why would anyone want aircraft to have extended range from carriers ?
This flies in the face of history, and, logic.

Aircraft operating from a carrier actually should have a reduced range, not an increased range lol. True
Aircraft is forced to operate ‘lighter’, thus less fuel and munitions. True
Even with today’s modern aircraft and carriers, aircraft still can go further when operating from a land based strip rather than a carrier.

ABSURDNESS!!!

@St3vYb0y:

Hi guys,

my gaming group had a game of Global 1939 yesterday (but the point also touches Global 1940) and the Japanese player complained about the fact, that transport ships in combination with a naval base could reach an island that is 3 movements away and could then unload their troops to initiate a amphibious assault.
While aircraft carrier fighters in the same seazone as the transports can’t be part of the land combat on said island because they only got 4 movements and can’t reenter the seazone to land on the aircraft carrier that can reach the seazone around the island.

It was a rule problem first.

Then a physical/historical non-sense:

@Gargantua:

Tell your friends that everyone knows planes are slower than ships! :P

The other way to solve this “+1M to warships and TTs starting from a Naval Base” issue and inconsistency is to forbid any amphibious assault and allow the +1M for Non-Combat Move only.

So Naval Base give +1M bonus to any vessels for NCM only.

An other way to erase this inconsistency is NB allow +1M to NCM or CM for sea-battle only, never for any amphibious assault.

Maybe let those planes ‘bombard’ similar to battleships and cruisers.

That is they can only participate in the 1st round of combat (all normal rules apply) and then must return to their respective carrier.

It is an interesting conundrum though…

Changing the naval base rules is too drastic in my opinion and would require too much rebalancing to be a feasible option.

@Uncrustable:

Maybe let those planes ‘bombard’ similar to battleships and cruisers.

That is they can only participate in the 1st round of combat (all normal rules apply) and then must return to their respective carrier.

It is an interesting conundrum though…

Changing the naval base rules is too drastic in my opinion and would require too much rebalancing to be a feasible option.

Good idea. It was the one which was missing to complete all the options.
I think with this one, we have come around the garden.
From the more generous (see OP), to the least generous toward attacker (my last post). To something in between, your last post.

Here is the summary of all nine House Rule options described earlier from the most boosted ones to the more restricted ones :

Here is the problem (or conundrum):
@St3vYb0y:

Transport ships in combination with a naval base could reach an island that is 3 movements away and could then unload their troops to initiate a amphibious assault.
While aircraft carrier fighters in the same seazone as the transports can’t be part of the land combat on said island because they only got 4 movements and can’t reenter the seazone to land on the aircraft carrier that can reach the seazone around the island.

Here is the various solutions:
1-
@St3vYb0y:

So we suggested to let the fighters move with the aircraft carrier, but we figured out that this would give the fighters an advantage of 2 to 3 movement when flying to another location than the aircraft carrier they started on.

So we finally decided to let aircraft carriers give fighters/tactical bombers a +1 bonus movement like an airbase.
What do you think about this? Would you make the aircraft carriers more expensive or makes this the planes too powerful?

2-
@toblerone77:

You can pretty much house rule anything you like, If I were going to do this I’d simply give everyone long range aircraft.  That way you’re not going to create too much havoc in the balance department.

3-
@Buran:

Not so sure of saying that the aircraft get a blanket +1, but if they move on the aircraft carrier before launch you could say that they have only used 2 movement points vs 3.  That way they would be limited to just the attack on the island, but not get a bonus for flying to other locations.

4-
@Baron:

I like this way of seeing the aircraft move on a carrier when they go in the same SZ.
Let’s just say that after the carrier have moved, planes only have 2 remaining movement points. And cannot go to another Sea-Zone away.
Just enough for inland air support and coming back on the carrier.

Restriction: the carrier must move during the Combat Move step.

It is different from a carrier which stay behind waiting the results of any battle and moving during the NCM.

This House rule have some real consequences: Japan and Hawaii are 3 SZ away from each other. So, if you have a lot of CV and Fgs, you can now launch a direct amphibious assault from either island on the other.

5-
@Baron:

To limit this movement bonus much more:
(and to forbid an air reinforcement on continental Asia upon landing in a nearby territory after an amphibious assault in any asian territory boarding an ocean: see the example above).

In addition, this special move helping aircrafts on carrier only (Fg & Tcb, no StB) is only possible
1- when CV leaves a Naval Base and get +1M
2- during a Combat Move
3- while staying with the carrier.
You cannot do it in any other circumstances.
And 4- it doesn’t allow Fg or TcB to go chasing others ships 4 SZs away and fly back on the CV.
5- All Fgs or TcB must return to the previous CVs group and land on any of the carriers.
6- This additional move for Fgt and TCB is not allowed if there is a Naval Battle in the SZ before the amphibious assault.

6-
@Maofator:

For our house rules we allow carriers to move first then launch aircraft. Once a plane has landed on a carrier it may not take off again that turn. However, we don’t use the extra movement bonus from naval bases (or air bases).  Maybe not for everyone, but works great for us.

7-
@Uncrustable:

Maybe let those planes ‘bombard’ similar to battleships and cruisers.
That is they can only participate in the 1st round of combat (all normal rules apply) and then must return to their respective carrier.

It is an interesting conundrum though…

Changing the naval base rules is too drastic in my opinion and would require too much rebalancing to be a feasible option.

8-

An other way to erase this inconsistency is NB allow +1M to NCM or CM for sea-battle only, never for any amphibious assault.

9-
@Baron:

It was a rule problem first.

Then a physical/historical non-sense.

The other way to solve this “+1M to warships and TTs starting from a Naval Base” issue and inconsistency is to forbid any amphibious assault and allow the +1M for Non-Combat Move only.

So Naval Base give +1M bonus to any vessels for NCM only.

I’m not really for bumping up range all that much outside of Variants which usually need to completely overhaul whatever edition you’re playing. I suggested the free tech because it does have precedent with some prominent players in house or private games.

Baron you do have some good but IMO complicated ideas, and while that comment is not directly related to the OT, there are several members of the forum that might enjoy a comprehensive variant myself included and am working on. Like oztea’s Global scenario it’s not a huge deviation from OOB but a cool set-up variation. A lot of people like this and may like what you produce.

Back on OT, I know that Cmdr. Jennifer has used free and or/modified tech in some house games. It was even suggested eons ago to get rid of aircraft on carriers all together and simply have the “built-in” air units. I don’t remember what the stats for that were though and you’d have to research it.

@toblerone77:

I’m not really for bumping up range all that much outside of Variants which usually need to completely overhaul whatever edition you’re playing. I suggested the free tech because it does have precedent with some prominent players in house or private games.

I know that I put yours very early amongst the options, it was a bit tantalizing. It is true that your option can be more easily accepted because it already been in use and still but…
it has a much wider scope than the Naval issue on hand here. I feel it like a large hammer crushing a small bug. It works for sure.

That’s why I mostly prefer the #7 from Uncrustable:
an already known rule in the OOB: it is like an offshore bombardment but for Fgs and TcBs,
still in use in actual OOB rules,
applied elsewhere to a specific situation (+1M bonus from Naval Base to CVs with Fgs on board trying to support an amphibious assault),
which can be understandable historically: as a lack of fuel, time and opportunity (due to the greater distance) for CV’s Fgs to support the amphibious assault.

Baron you do have some good but IMO complicated ideas, and while that comment is not directly related to the OT, there are several members of the forum that might enjoy a comprehensive variant myself included and am working on. Like oztea’s Global scenario it’s not a huge deviation from OOB but a cool set-up variation. A lot of people like this and may like what you produce.

Thanks. What is a comprehensive variant? (I don’t understand this meaning.)

Back on OT, I know that Cmdr. Jennifer has used free and or/modified tech in some house games. It was even suggested eons ago to get rid of aircraft on carriers all together and simply have the “built-in” air units. I don’t remember what the stats for that were though and you’d have to research it.
I will miss those wonderful carriers sculpts.  :cry:

What I suggested is that you compile your House Rule ideas into a single variant or version of A&A incorporating your ideas. Essentially like some of the early advanced books/games we saw during the Classic years.

The carrier idea is not mine originally. You still use the carrier sculpt but don’t put aircraft on it, hence “built in carrier aircraft” that operate almost exclusively in naval engagements.

Many suggestions that have made on this forum were mainly a work in progress or a “spaghetti on the wall” as some says.
Here is a new topic I just posted to discuss one important and evolutionary House Rule about sub naval warfare which I think worth the time to read:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515