Lets Talk Paratroopers!

Ok, if anyone is interested, I’ve added this to the Canadian Mod. There are a lot of changes which I could go into, I expect it will be a bit like Balanced Mod in that early on Allies will have the edge but if it gets popular and people understand how to play it a bit more, Axis will start to win out.

Anyone interested in playtesting? Tried one game against myself which the allies look like winning.

I want to know what else keeps the game exciting the first few rounds besides the sino-japanese war.

Like what kind of options do the allies have to interfere with Japanese expansion early in the game?

@crusaderiv:

Well heavy artillery for me means katyusha rockets,nebelwefer and 155mm long tom.
heavy artillery attack and defend on 3. May choose is target in the first round fo combat.

that just seems like another way to do regulare artillery.

And I agree I would rather have a rocket artillery unit than siege guns, but i think rocket artillery would have a more offenisve nature, not just generaly good.

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

With the above post in mind, I propose the following for both Escort Carriers AND Naval Fighters.  Also, with Naval fighters being slightly weaker than their land-based counterparts, I propose that the regular aircraft carrier’s IPC cost be slightly tweaked.

Regular Aircraft Carrier

1    Attack
2    Defense
2    Movement points
11    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 10 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    May  hold up to 2 naval fighters.

Escort Carrier

1    Attack
1    Defense
2    Movement points
7    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 6 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
-    May only hold up to 1 naval fighter.

Naval Fighter

2    Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3    Defense
3    Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters MAY be used on land.

Regular Aircraft Carrier + 2  naval fighters

5    Combined attack value
8    Combined defense value
3    hits
27  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

Escort Carrier + 1 naval fighter

3    Combined attack value
4    Combined defense value
2    hits
15  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

These stats seem to fit a little better into the naval chart.

Actually, it refers to the type of bathing suit worn by the girls painted on the plane.

cost 7, if VS land targets:

these are 3-3 units moving 2 and each plane boosts the tank +1 at 1:1 basis

if VS Sea targets:

3-3 units moving 2 ( carrier based)…also possible modifier for attacks on surface ships ( not sure)

They cant move from land or from sea to attack the other on the same turn. So carrier planes cant attack land targets unless they fly first to land on the turn before and vice versa.

this will result is fighters staying on land where they belong with a few on carriers as escorts