Check the range of V weapons. Four spaces is too long of a distance. Also, the new tech units it needs to be clear: When you get say King Tigers do all your tanks go “Poof” and become Tigers , or from that point on are any tanks you build…Tigers. The later idea is much more realistic.
AARHE: Phase 2: Technology
-
That file is looking better. I dont favor the double column thing however. I used to do it on older rulesets but i hate how the topic headings are allways in the middle of the page. You gain more control with one column and everything is more together. It doesnt matter too much anyway.
-
It would be interesting to build an actual chart, to “tick” off with a pencil, printable, instead of having a placement chart per player, with chits to mark it with…
GG
-
Thats what is being done. I am making player aids for this. that was the original concept.
-
Alright, sorry for being behind the times a little :-D… The only question that comes up with what we have is that both Sea Techs deal with Subs, why? Are we limited to 12 techs or could we add more?
GG
-
OK what other would you like? perhaps 3 more?
-
The reason I mention it is because we have diversified the Air and Land Advantages but the Sea units are definitely one sided… 1 more is my idea, to give land, sea, and air each 3 to achieve… I am asking more in the sense of do you feel that we would go overboard to add more and did we limit the current ones to what they are for historical reasons… one idea sticks out:
Extended Flight Deck:
Carriers can carry 3 Fighters.
Not sure if it has been addressed…
GG
-
probably “super carriers” akin to super submarines
any others?
-
None others… I think the other 2 are ok, I just think it would be better to “streamline” it with an equal amount of Techs, that didn’t all address the same style of combat… Since ASW and SW were the principal developments in Nav at the time I think they should get what they have (ASW tech addressses several units fighting Subs anyways) but I felt that focusing merely on that for techs was a little out of historical context, for the amount of naval development that did take place… I think 13 techs is good for play chart availablility and limited complexity…
GG
-
yep headings sticking out in the middle in a problem of 2 columns format
though we save a few pagesfor the extended flight deck or super carriers tech…
what about one that lets +1 capacity to both carrier and submarine?
so CV carry 3, SS carry 1
were submarine carriers significantly used in WWII? -
Only by the Japanese, and they didn’t pursue it to the degree they did the flat tops… For one it wasn’t worth it (a couple hundred lb. bombs, dropped by a vintage WW1 float plane)… They did work on extending the amount of planes they could put on there AC’s as well as the US and to some degree the British… I would rather make the Sub AC’s an NA for possible use…
GG
-
Naw the japs cant have those “carriers”
- those were only on the larger I-400 class subs.
- they only had 2-3 planes
- they were recon… they didnt attack and sink enemy warships
we cant model such an small scale thing in this game.
Perhaps Japan can have those AVBB hybrib carrier/ battleships with a one plane capacity but they only had 2 of them.
I know its cool but its not historical in this varient.
super carriers carry 3 planes
-
yeah I wasn’t sure to begin with
thats I asked whether submarine carriers were used much -
The French had a few of these as well. Germany was gonna make a few but didnt
-
Alright, my reasoning behind super carriers (Need one, for the historical notes):
American and Japanese Naval Designer discovered the pure power of air armada’s amassed in the skies, especially against naval targets; the Carriers at the beginning of the war, could only carry 30-50 planes… The US Essex Carrier was a devestating naval introduction, fielding a maximum of 100 planes, capable of wrecking havoc on enemy fleets. The Japanese also developed a conversion system, in which they took Battlecruisers and “flat topped” them with a flight deck, giving most of them a maximum carrying capacity of 90 planes… 3 Boxes, Americans and Japanese start with 1?
GG
-
American and Japanese Naval Designer discovered the pure power of air armada’s amassed in the skies, especially against naval targets; the Carriers at the beginning of the war, could only carry 30-50 planes… The US Essex Carrier was a devestating naval introduction, fielding a maximum of 100 planes, capable of wrecking havoc on enemy fleets. The Japanese also developed a conversion system, in which they took Battlecruisers and “flat topped” them with a flight deck, giving most of them a maximum carrying capacity of 90 planes… 3 Boxes, Americans and Japanese start with 1?
some of this is not accurate. Those hybrid jap CV/BB had a capacity of 8 float planes and like 15 divebombers… the float planes were the only ones that could be retrieved to the ship and were carrierd by crane back onto the catapult. They only had 2 of these, plus they converted another from what i believe was a seaplane carrier
The front line CV’s from japan ( the best say 10 carriers) had a capacity of 74-91 planes the second tier had a capacity of from about 55-70 planes. The light carriers had like 25-45 planes.
Japan and USA as well as UK’s carriers after 1944 all had large plane capacity. The essex class was fast as well.
I would consider the Shinano to be the best for Japan, but that was in 1944. You could consider the Akagi/ kaga to be front line super carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano
-
I was referring to the Akagi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi
It was laid down as a battlecruiser, and was flat topped, capable of carrying 91 Aircraft…
GG
-
yeah 3 boxes would be about right
its not majorthis would be an upgrade not a new unit right?
anything else besides super carriers?
-
Correct!
New techs? Not from my end, IMO I would actually make a point not to make too many… The goal to limiting techs is that players will develop particular interests in one “strain” or the other of techs instead of “I-haven’t-tried-that-one-before” syndrome… If someone thinks otherwise, then yes I do have some…
GG
-
So what does that mean?
We don’t need your sugguested “super carrier” tech?
Or you wanna replace one of the current techs with it? -
Those carriers could be a NA for Japan and USA
Suggested Topics
