AARHE: Phase 2: Units

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…

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

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 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 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.

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:

1. all purpose fighter
2. 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.

yes right NCM as well.

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.

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  3/2

dogfighting

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  1/2

this looks very good!

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)

but remember this value is for normal combat not dogfighting

++++ oh right… important idea is the me- 262 was concieved as an interceptor by the design team… then old Hitler wanted it as a fighter bomber because it could not be shot down… the combat values in any case must be superior to fighters if we accept the route that Herr Hitler imposed on the project.

Quote
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.

now you have equal attack and defense value, why not 3/4?

+++++ because it had a weak guns for dogfighting… its primary defense value is its blazing speed… it was like 200 MPH faster than any allied plane. It was like trying to dogfight Rodan… (yes that Rodan)

this bomber has small payload, targetted attack, its becoming like a fighter
immunity from AA guns goes for all jet planes…now bomber is 15 IPC why would you buy it instead of the 10 IPC fighter?

+++++ on the jet planes the values have to be higher and the price should be increased… but only marginally because after all its a tech that Germany may get long after its clear they are losing… or the icing on the cake for the victory in Washington DC fall 1946… The value to buy these things must be necessary id place the value at 12 IPC… The jet bomber could stay at 15 IPC but that plane does not engage in SBR… it was not a strategic bomber… it was a tactical bomber hence the targeted ability.

Quote
bomber 1/1 (heavy bomber rolls two dice)… this is not a bad idea due to multiple guns…
yeah thats what I was thinking

Quote
jet bomber 2/4
that would make defending jet bomber dogfight on same odds against attack jet fighter
maybe 2/3?

++++ ok sure sounds good.

should jet bomber dogfighting better than normal fighter?

+++++ only on defense due largly to its speed.

jet bomber and heavy bomber
the ideas are sorta conflicting
can you have a heavy jet bomber?

++++ no thats a long way off… well about 5 years away from a strategic heavy jet bomber… we can add this.

should it get a targetted attack?

No strategic heavy bomber just drops tons of bombs in a confined area… no targeted attack…

This brings up another thing… bombers should not be able to attack naval targets… they can search under ASW but thats it… its impossible for say a lancaster to “bomb” a destroyer or Battleship… because level bombing is done at high altitude at slow speeds and ships are moving too fast. If the planes can lower for a bomb drop all of them would be destroyed by warships AA guns… like shooting giant Rodans moving at 15 knots=== YOU CANT MISS SOMETHING THAT BIG.

Sorry to use the “Rodan” reference so much… i just bought that movie.

jet fighter

so we could consider 4/5, I am just a little sensitive at the moment to a 6 value
+++++ ok thats fine

or we could leave it at 3/4 but firing in both opening and main cycle…
(this is NOT just two rolls…but like what you sugguested…to model its speed you now attack twice…bypassing/skiping dogfighting for main cycle)

but then we gotta decide if jets dogfighting each other in main round fire
or should planes even bomb in main round fire…which is when your troops advance…friendly fire?
+++ this is not clear…sorry

by the way, could WWII jet fighters dogfighting each other?

+++++ yes, however i never seen any actual encounter with a German Jet and say a glouster meteor jet fighter/bomber

Jet bomber

Bomber              15 IPC 4/1 no selective, SBR, can’t attack ships
Jet Bomber          15 IPC 3/3 selective attack, no SBR, attack ships
Fighter                10 IPC 3/4 selective attack, no SBR, attack ship
Jet Fighter          12 IPC 4/5  selective attack, no SBR, attack ship

We still can’t see why you would use Jet bombers, even if we go ahead with “twice attack for jets”.
+++= twice attacks for jet fighters in air to air combat only… not jet bombers against land units for example. those values are good but they are against land targets only

Normal, Jet, Heavy

So Jet is not an upgrade but new fighter and bomber units?

+++ yes it is an upgrade it and be a upgrade for heavy bombers ( jet hvy bombers)

But heavy bomber remains as an upgrade right?
+++ its an upgrade from a bomber and requires tech success.