POLL: repairs to bombed air and naval bases

[Guest]

The rule about repairing facilities currently reads “Facilities are industrial complexes, airbases, and naval bases. Each point of damage costs 1 IPC to remove. Repairs take effect immediately, and the controlling player can use repaired facilities during the rest of this turn.” (p. 10, Pacific 1940 rulebook)

A proposed alternative to this rule would apply to air and naval bases (not ICs).  Under this proposal, “Bases are airbases and naval bases. Each point of damage to a base costs 1 IPC to remove. Repairs are paid for during the “Purchase & Repair Units” phase, but do not come into effect until the “Mobilize New Units” phase. If the base had 3 or more damage points at the beginning of the controlling player’s turn, the base cannot be used  during the rest of this turn.”.

Under this proposal, bombing bases could take them out of service for at least 1 turn.

[knp7765]

I think it should be left as is:  You should be able to use the base as soon as you get it repaired.  You are already out the money to fix it, you shouldn’t be penalized further.

It should be noted that when facilities got damaged in wartime, things got repaired VERY quickly.  It isn’t like now days in peace time where union laborers drag their butts and you will be lucky if a somewhat minor flaw is fixed in a month.  When people were fighting for their country, they really got on the ball.

[Jennifer]

Further, I think the price for Battleships should be swapped with the price for Aircraft Carriers.

Carriers are worth FAR more than battleships to the point where you usually find people actually buying them.  So let those be 20 IPC units and 1 hit, reduce Battleships to 16 IPC and leave them 2 hits.  This should make them valuable enough that more will be purchased to augment carriers and carriers will still be purchased because their utility is needed.

[Guest]

That’s a good idea. It would also make the difference between battleships and cruisers more historically correct. Cruisers should be a cheap but less effective and less durable alternative to battleships.  They do the same fleet defense and shore bombardment jobs, but your plan would make them cheaper (12 versus 16 IPCs), less effective (hit on 3 versus 4), and less durable (one hit versus 2 hits and repairable).  Maybe this could be another poll?

[knp7765]

@Cmdr:

Further, I think the price for Battleships should be swapped with the price for Aircraft Carriers.

Carriers are worth FAR more than battleships to the point where you usually find people actually buying them.  So let those be 20 IPC units and 1 hit, reduce Battleships to 16 IPC and leave them 2 hits.  This should make them valuable enough that more will be purchased to augment carriers and carriers will still be purchased because their utility is needed.

Hmmm, not so sure about that.  You make some good points, but one reason that battleships are so costly is because of their high att/def plus taking 2 hits.  A carrier really is nothing without planes so if you add 2 fighters, it becomes a 36 IPC, 4 hit unit more or less.  Plus, if you raise their cost, I wouldn’t take away a hit.  They should still be capital ships.  Plus, pretty soon, we will be incorporating escort/light carriers and those will certainly be 1 hit pieces.  Our current carriers represent the big fleet carriers which took a lot of punishment before sinking.
Still, you do have some good ideas.  Battleships should be used to protect the carriers.  Also, going into a battle on attack or defense, I would much rather have a carrier with 2 fighters than just 1 battleship.

[Jennifer]

A battleship is more powerful than an empty carrier, but a loaded carrier is insanely more powerful than a battleship.  Granted you have to buy the aircraft to load it.

Dunno.  I like the idea of swapping the costs as it is only a 4 IPC difference and shouldnt really see a decline in the number of carriers, but will probably see more battleships on the board.  My friends and I never really buy cruisers now.  If we have the cash for a cruiser, we pop for the real battleship, but that’s ultra rare and usually only one or two more for America.

[variance]

Oldie but a goodie!  :-D

I now think the way it should work is that you pay for repairs to facilities in Purchase Units phase, but the repairs do not come into effect until the start of the Noncombat Movement phase (not at the end of turn as originally conceived).  This would work for ICs, airbases and naval bases.

I think this house rule would greatly reduce the Axis advantage by taking some of the cheesiness out of their use of bombers.  It would also make the game more fun and historical because there would suddenly be a really good reason for the allies to SBR West Germany, and for the axis to respond by stationing fighter interceptors there.

Heck, you might even see a battle of Britain scenario with Germany sparing the Royal Navy in favour of hitting UK airbases on G1 so as to reduce planes going to Taranto (not saying that’s a good idea, but its possible).

[baron Münchhausen]

@variance:

I think this house rule would greatly reduce the Axis advantage by taking some of the cheesiness out of their use of bombers.  It would also make the game more fun and historical because there would suddenly be a really good reason for the allies to SBR West Germany, and for the axis to respond by stationing fighter interceptors there.

Heck, you might even see a battle of Britain scenario with Germany sparing the Royal Navy in favour of hitting UK airbases on G1 so as to reduce planes going to Taranto (not saying that’s a good idea, but its possible).

Sorry. I don’t see the consequences bold above.
As you suggest, the rule in itself seems to provide more historical behaviour.
Could you develop please.

I understand the last part however.
If a StBomber from UK cannot get 7 moves because Air Base is unrepaired, then it cannot land in Tobruk after Taranto raid.

Thanks Variance.

[variance]

If the allies SBR the West Germany airbase, then German bombers could not hit Moscow, z123, or z81.  They could hit z91 but only if axis control Algeria or Morocco.

[baron Münchhausen]

@variance:

If the allies SBR the West Germany airbase, then German bombers could not hit Moscow, z123, or z81.  They could hit z91 but only if axis control Algeria or Morocco.

They could hit z91 but only if axis control Algeria or Morocco.
Bomber would have only 6 moves, hence cannot land anywhere except Morocco.

Thanks. I better see what you meant.

I find your idea pretty interesting to increase the need for protecting against raid on AirBase.
Letting All Repairs coming into effect at the start of the Noncombat Movement phase seems a good compromise.

Also, this may sweetened things in Pacific if some Naval Bases can be damaged by StBs just before launching an amphibious assault somewhere.
It can blocks some counter-attacking moves which needs the fleet being able to move the full 3 SZs.

[variance]

It gives the allies a countermeasure against the strategy of Germany building a huge stack of bombers.

[barney]

Non Combat Movement phase sounds reasonable. If you want to use the base you better protect it.
Currently at the most it costs 4 bucks to get it back in action and maybe less. Plus you have to run the AA risk and if you send two TACs to make sure it’s disabled they both get shot at.

Not really seeing a downside. Even if your base has no planes defending it, it can still score with a AA hit. I think I would have fighters intercept/escort at 2 though.

[amanntai]

I like it. Simple and effective.