Air and Naval base damage

Hi Marc.  I was hoping for your input on this.

What you are saying is very true.    This is why I’m proposing to simulate NB’s servicing ships/fleets with a “radius”.  The ships do not ever have to enter the actual sea-zone where the NB is located.

Therefore, if you have a chain of Naval Bases, your ships can stay at sea forever, as long as they stay within range of a base.  A range of 3 sea zones would be several thousand miles.

Ships would only need to actually go to a Naval Base to get repairs.

–—

The Japanese also had their ships out on very long missions.  Example being their carrier fleet around Java back in '41.  But they were able to do that with a very nice series of Bases leading all the way back to the mainland to service them.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

Yeah exactly. Another huge problem I have with this game is as said in the other forms, that units should have different attacks and defense against certain units. Transport craft in WWII have basic defense abilities against aircraft and fast attack craft so I still argue that it should have a defense of 1 for the sake of logic in this game.

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

Regarding the heavy tanks, its the ability to cancel a hit that you’re paying for. Don’t underestimate how powerful this can be; many people insist that tanks in 1914 are broken until they actually buy some and use them to breakthrough the enemy lines.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

No, it’s less complex than you think.
All you have to do is to move the cargo on the convoy route and protect it if there’s a sub near by. The rules of transport and cargo are almost the same.

In most AA game, UK and Japan are too stronger.
During WWII, Germany tried to cut the UK supply.
US make the same thing at the beginning of 1943 against Japan.
If UK or Japan player build a thousand of tank,plane and other materiels each turn even if they lost their fleet and the control of the ocean. That doesn’t make any sense!

For the warship cost.
Each country has their own cost.
ex: Uboat = 5, USA,UK sub = 8, Italy 9 etc…