Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊
AARHE: Phase 2: Units
-
Ok please post the official ideas on this? Its hard to keep track with so many ideas flowing
-
the “offiical” idea is at
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0but I think IC with 2 AA and VC with 1 AA is ok
-
Oh yea righto! keep it three. I like what you did with that post very succinct!
-
With this land fighter and naval fighter distinction, to stop land fighters from landng on carriers casually…
New values and new costs?
Otherwise player’ll just buy all naval fighters and no land fighters.
-
OK:
Fighters stay the same…
naval fighters: attack 2 defend 3 cost 8 move 2 ( from carrier)
The carrier can move before the planes to increase movement.
not sure about this…
-
Duno which point are you unsure about.
Move 2, and carrier can move before launching planes
That comes to another point.
Historically did they often leave carriers behind and sent rest of the fleet with fighters to attack?
We are talking about leaving a carrier a whole SZ behind…Attack 2 Defend 3
Attack 2 is quite weak. I sugguest attack 3 defend 3.
And I don’t see why a CF (carrier fighter?) should defend better than attack…espeically when we implement the rule disallowing carrier fighters to keep fighting without a carrier…
Its not like land FTR where defender should be more well resourced/supported. -
Move 2, and carrier can move before launching planes
That comes to another point.
Historically did they often leave carriers behind and sent rest of the fleet with fighters to attack?
We are talking about leaving a carrier a whole SZ behind…++++ Carriers constantly moved, while naval based planes only move 2 spaces… thus its necessary for it to be clear that the carrier can move both before or after planes are launched… ( carrier movement points permitting) the idea that a carrier must stop movement for the turn and then launch fighters is far less realistic.
Attack 2 Defend 3
Attack 2 is quite weak. I sugguest attack 3 defend 3.
And I don’t see why a CF (carrier fighter?) should defend better than attack…espeically when we implement the rule disallowing carrier fighters to keep fighting without a carrier…
Its not like land FTR where defender should be more well resourced/supported._++++++ yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2. The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combat , while the naval plane would have impact against naval targets … possibly +1 thing
-
@Imperious:
the idea that a carrier must stop movement for the turn and then launch fighters is far less realistic.
Yeah I would be more realistic if we remove that seemingly artificial/arbitrary restriction on carrier.
yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2.
Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combat
I think we don’t need to give divebomber extra strength in non-dogfighting land combat.
I recall in another variant where LHTR’s Germany Luffwaffe divebomber 's extra strength was modified to be limited to land combat.
Yet I recall reading a story about Germany divebombers attacking US a ship. Great circular formation. Precise execution. Sailors watched in awe. Do you recall? -
Quote
yes i was just keeping the values in line with the new price… fighter is 3/4 naval fighter is 2/3 costing 2 less… Also looking at the idea of divebomber with same values or perhaps at 3/2.Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?+++++ thats fine as long as the price and cost don’t misalign it with respect to value vs. other unit buys.
Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
++++ yes that was the idea.
Quote
The divebomber would have direct impact in ground combatI think we don’t need to give divebomber extra strength in non-dogfighting land combat.
I recall in another variant where LHTR’s Germany Luftwaffe divebomber 's extra strength was modified to be limited to land combat.
Yet I recall reading a story about Germany divebombers attacking US a ship. Great circular formation. Precise execution. Sailors watched in awe. Do you recall?++++ What i remember is the total domination they enjoyed in Poland and France…due in part to the Blitzkrieg concept and entirely new vision of mobile warfare. The Germans hardly used planes against ships due in large part to Goering and his motto: “whatever flys is under my dominion”
That is why the German Carrier could not be completed for service because Goering would not release any planes for training in maritime combat drills other than simple strafing at beaches and harbors.
-
Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?
+++++ thats fine as long as the price and cost don’t misalign it with respect to value vs. other unit buys.So what would be a good price for a 3/3 naval fighter? Is 8 IPC too cheap compared to 10 IPC 3/4 land fighter?
Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
++++ yes that was the idea.What shall be the cost of a 3/2 dive bombers? 8 IPC too?
It does appear now we have too many planes though.
Fighter, naval figher, dive bomber, bomber…
vs. land only getting infantry, armor and artillery…If we were to pick between naval fighter and dive bomber to add, you would pick naval figher right?
@Imperious:
++++ What i remember is the total domination they enjoyed in Poland and France…due in part to the Blitzkrieg concept and entirely new vision of mobile warfare. The Germans hardly used planes against ships due in large part to Goering and his motto:Â “whatever flys is under my dominion”
That is why the German Carrier could not be completed for service because Goering would not release any planes for training in maritime combat drills other than simple strafing at beaches and harbors.
Ok, what we gotta focus on a dive bombers in general (not just German)?
-
Quote
Yeah ok.
But what you do think of my argument that “naval/carrier fighter” should attack just as strong as defend?
+++++ thats fine as long as the price and cost don’t misalign it with respect to value vs. other unit buys.So what would be a good price for a 3/3 naval fighter? Is 8 IPC too cheap compared to 10 IPC 3/4 land fighter?
++++ 8 IPC fighter seems correct… but a destroyer costs 10 IPC at 2/2, while this plane is at 3/3 costing 8… seems a no brainer to just buy planes… thats why i now favor a 3/2 fighter which splits the difference. The attack at 3 resembles its devestating torpedo payload against surface ships, while the 2 defense makes it closer to its relationship in air combat against land based fighters. It also brings the value in line with other naval buys.
Quote
Divebomber are slightly more agile than bombers and I understand the selection of 3/2 vs bomber’s 4/1.
++++ yes that was the idea.What shall be the cost of a 3/2 dive bombers? 8 IPC too?
+++++ yes see above.
It does appear now we have too many planes though.
Fighter, naval figher, dive bomber, bomber…++++ no just two fighter type planes:
- all purpose fighter
- torpedo bomber/ divebomber one use for sea, another use for land… same values and costs.
vs. land only getting infantry, armor and artillery…
++++ in land were adding optional rules for mech infantry, heavy artillery, and heavy tanks.
If we were to pick between naval fighter and dive bomber to add, you would pick naval figher right?
+++++ yes i would but it can be for both just for different reasons.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on July 04, 2006, 09:27:25 PM
++++ What i remember is the total domination they enjoyed in Poland and France…due in part to the Blitzkrieg concept and entirely new vision of mobile warfare. The Germans hardly used planes against ships due in large part to Goering and his motto: “whatever flys is under my dominion”That is why the German Carrier could not be completed for service because Goering would not release any planes for training in maritime combat drills other than simple strafing at beaches and harbors.
Ok, what we gotta focus on a dive bombers in general (not just German)?
++++ yes i was just using some illustration to back up the point. IN the war all nations had this “divebomber” plane.
-
8 IPC fighter seems correct… but a destroyer costs 10 IPC at 2/2, while this plane is at 3/3 costing 8… seems a no brainer to just buy planes…
Its not too bad. I mean the naval fighter could have a range of 2 instead of 4.
And naval fighters is not a no brainer replacement for destroyer as destroyer can stay in the sea while naval fighter is at the mercy of carriers able to survive.But yeah 3/2 seems good too.
+++++ yes see above.
You sound like considering combing naval fighter with dive bomber or just making them both 3/2?
while the 2 defense makes it closer to its relationship in air combat against land based fighters
Don’t worry about that.
We have dogfighting values.So only think of its ability in anti-ship combat.
3/2 for anti-ship combat is reasonable, to say defensing naval ships are more sitting duck than attacking naval ships. (Though one would argue this advantage should dimenish after first cycle of combat.)As for dogfigthing values. Currently…
FTR 2/3
BMR 1/1
JET FTR 4/4So we’ll add values for…
NAVAL FTR (very difficult to squeeze in between FTR and BMR… :|, but I think attack should same as defense)
DIVE BMR
JET BMR (god…this is spilling everywhere…)
++++ no just two fighter type planes:
- all purpose fighter
- torpedo bomber/ divebomber one use for sea, another use for land… same values and costs.
The land fighter (is that all purpose fighter?) can’t land on carrier right?
So we probably shouldn’t call it the all purpose fighter. -
In LHTR you must offload a unit the same turn you’ve loaded the unit. Unless naval combat of amphibious assault failed. But thats only was for combat move.
To model Battle of Atlantic I think we need to expand that to non-combat move as well.
-
yes right NCM as well.
-
now, we go back to my earlier post (3 posts above this post) about values of naval fighters and divebombers
need a table a normal and dogfighting values for fighter, bomber, jet figher, jet bomber, naval fighter, divebomber…
-
Question,
are you going to allow all types of units to be built everywhere or are you going to limit the type(s) of units to the areas that could actually handle such a build. example: on a quick responce to the attack on pearl by the Japaneses, the Americans can build battleships there that next turn, but after that no longer. pearl was no major dock for large scale battleship production. would also like to know if you go to build battleships and aircraft carriers, do you get to us them the next turn or will it take longer to build? -
I have these ideas on some of my other games… for example BB, CV and CA take 3 turns to build in War in Europe… while armor/air take two turns… everything else is 1 turn ( DD, SS, TR, infantry)
As far as drydock repair…Pugent sound ( in washington) is where most ships were built for the navy and repaired. Allowing Hawaii to repair battleships is acceptable… heck they fixed the yorktown in time for the midway battle… so well just keep things as they were.’
The projects idea is to address major unrealistic unhistorical rules with a broadstroke approach… all these little things fall below the radar… they turn this into some kind of GMT style game where it becomes too micro management.
So the bottom line is these would make the project more realistic… but at the expense of having a fun game.
-
are you going to allow all types of units to be built everywhere or are you going to limit the type(s) of units to the areas that could actually handle such a build.
well we do have a mechanism
you can only spend 4 times IPC income of a territory on an ICso Germany is 10 IPC…you can spend 40 IPC there per turn
but Alaska us only 2 IPC…so if you build an IC there…you can only spend 8 IPC there per turn -
so I am looking at these values
normal
fighter 3/4
jet figher same?
bomber 4/1 (heavy bomber rolls two dice)
jet bomber same?
naval fighter 3/2
divebomber 3/2dogfighting
fighter 2/3
jet figher 4/4
bomber 1/1 (heavy bomber rolls two dice)
jet bomber same?
naval fighter 2/2
divebomber 1/2 -
so I am looking at these values
normal
fighter 3/4
jet figher 4/6 ( it took more than a few planes to even have odds against this plane… you may even want to allow them double attack per round. look up me-262)
bomber 4/1 (heavy bomber rolls two dice)
jet bomber 3/3 ( these only carried very small payloads only germany had this plane Arado 234b jet bomber) They should be impossible to shoot down by AA guns. also id give them a targeted attack on an armor unit of their choice… even though the best they did in the war was destroy stationary targets like bridges.
naval fighter 3/2
divebomber 3/2dogfighting
fighter 2/3
jet figher 4/4
bomber 1/1 (heavy bomber rolls two dice)… this is not a bad idea due to multiple guns…
jet bomber 2/4
naval fighter 2/2
divebomber 1/2this looks very good!
Suggested Topics
