Naval and Army aircraft

Yes. The statement that Iraland “are under British rule” suggests the rule of a foreign power, which is an often held but erroneous perception.

The clearest evidence to the contrary is the Good Friday Agreement, which allows Northern Ireland to leave the UK and join Ireland should the majority wish it so.

I agree this should be addressed. On the custom map we use all islands are worth at least 1 IPC, which helps somewhat, but like you said, it’s only financial.

I like the supply concept you have. Instead of tampering with all the unit stats, perhaps you could say that no surface attacks can be launched unless a friendly land zone is located in an adjacent sea zone. (double that distance with a naval base)

This sounds like an interesting idea, but why just BBs and cruisers?

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

My suggested changes to the Naval setup:

Partially intended to be used in conjunction with Turkey & Italy not being “at war” until the start of their own first turn, so for example the Austrian fleet might move through SZ17 unimpeded, the German cruiser in SZ18 can head for Constantinople…

Austria: add sub SZ18

Germany: add transport & sub SZ10, add cruiser SZ18, add cruiser & transport SZ26

France: remove battleship SZ15, remove 1 transport SZ16

UK: remove battleship SZ29

Turkey: remove 2 cruisers SZ20

Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)

So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.

you cant assign any unit to lay mines. I choose destroyer because it closest to mine layer. Perhaps a transport should be used instead.

Also, damaged battleships shouldn’t be repaired until the start of the owner’s next turn.  It’s stupid that Brition can damage it, America can damage it and Russia can damage it all in the same round and it doesn’t sink when normally 2 hits kills it.