The Fighter Ace & Luftwaffe Ace IPC cost is 11 IPC for each unit.
There was a flaw in the IPC cost in the original text in the rules.
This has now been corrected and updated in the rules attached to the first post in this thread.
Captain
AARHE: Phase 2: Units
-
Some ideas:
Mayeb BBs should have built-in AA.
Unless we let naval units hit air units (while keeping the land units can’t hit air units).Artillery
I think the once proposed long range support fire into adjacament enemy territory may not be realistic.
WWII artilleries had a range of only few kilometres.Carrier
With the proposed 2 hits carrier, is that realistic or only certain carriers?
I don’t like carriers able to defend itself. It should be the planes doing the defending.
So I think it shouldn’t defend on 3, should be less. -
Mayeb BBs should have built-in AA.
Unless we let naval units hit air units (while keeping the land units can’t hit air units).++++++++ Naval units can hit planes. thats very different than land combat. I think the way to do it is allow each ship to get a preemtive shot at planes ( very small) with cruisers getting the best weapons ( they are anti- air platforms as part of their utility)
Artillery
I think the once proposed long range support fire into adjacament enemy territory may not be realistic.
WWII artilleries had a range of only few kilometres.++++++ that proposal was withdrawn, however the proposal of a Rail gun by germany would allow such a benifit.
Carrier
With the proposed 2 hits carrier, is that realistic or only certain carriers?
I don’t like carriers able to defend itself. It should be the planes doing the defending.
So I think it shouldn’t defend on 3, should be less.++++++yes we need 2 hit CV… its too expensive of a unit and they were built on cruiser hulls… if the cruiser has two hits the CV gets two hits.
-
@Imperious:
++++++++ Naval units can hit planes. thats very different than land combat. I think the way to do it is allow each ship to get a preemtive shot at planes ( very small) with cruisers getting the best weapons ( they are anti- air platforms as part of their utility)
Oh no its blurred together with phase 3 land and naval combat.
Naval units’ main round hits cannot be taken by air units. But each DD, BB, CV and CR (cruiser) has a built-in AA.
-
Does the CV need new values intead of OOB’s Attack 1 Defend 3?
Maybe they should be Attack 1 Defend 1?
Or even better they should only have Anti-aircraft and cannot attack ships! -
Does the CV need new values intead of OOB’s Attack 1 Defend 3?
Maybe they should be Attack 1 Defend 1?
Or even better they should only have Anti-aircraft and cannot attack ships!I DONT think we should tinker with the DNA of the game. The values are based on other considerations namely the cost of the piece is rather high. #2 they were built on cruiser hulls and should take similiar damage. the cruiser unit is at 3/3 taking two hits to sink and costing 15 IPC, so the CV should be at a 3 as well also because at 1/1 they would be too weak. however they should have a weak AA defence. against other ships they use their speed to “run away” thats part of its intrinsic defense that we dont see because all ships move 2 spaces but CV travels at 34+ knots and BB moves at 25+ knots
-
Thats not right.
CV moving away from threat does not make them kill better! It should be the planes doing the killing.
BB are slow but I doubt DD have a hard time catching up to CV? :-PThey are expensive units built on crusier hull so they take 2 hits. Thats fine. But that should be all. Fter that they are expenisve for the platform, catapult and other equipment, not cannons/fire power.
And I don’t think “DNA” is a good excuse. We are introducing new units anyway.
-
CV moving away from threat does not make them kill better! It should be the planes doing the killing.
BB are slow but I doubt DD have a hard time catching up to CV? tongue+++++The value of defense is not only its ability to “fight” a Carrier has better ability to “see” targets like a BB or DD because it has planes that can declare the distance, course and speed… in a way it has farther vision than unsupported capital ships. The 3 value is not really a ability to “fight and damage” the enemy. IT also represents some value return on investment since a carrier costs 16 bucks and it has to have some value other than a transport of planes or people will just buy land based planes and “unsinkable aircraft carriers” also known as islands. The cost of fighting a carrier costing 16 has to have some sting for play balance. The DNA is the most rudimentary blueprint of the game that cannot be tinkered with. All original units must maintain the original values. Additional units can have new values, but these are optional rules anyway. People will not accept our changing of the original creators unit values. I think the only changes can be price but not attack/ defense values of existing units.
They are expensive units built on cruiser hull so they take 2 hits. Thats fine. But that should be all. Fter that they are expensive for the platform, catapult and other equipment, not cannons/fire power.
+++++as you know carriers take two hits as well.
And I don’t think “DNA” is a good excuse. We are introducing new units anyway.
Yes but they are optional rules and they are not OOB units, your idea it to make larger changes within established units that we are all accustomed too for 26 years.
-
Oh I only played the fourth edition (“revised”) Axis and Allies. The unit values was actually kept the same for 26 year?
it has to have some value other than a transport of planes or people will just buy land based planes and “unsinkable aircraft carriers” also known as islands.
Forget CV but this needs addressing on its own!!!
What did we have before? Something about refueling?Its difficult to model as combat refueling is implicitly there.
Maybe each sea zones takes 2 movement points? (rather than just a special case of leaving island entering sea zone takes 1 extra movement point)Also, I think land units should also move further in non-combat.
-
Oh yeah going with your argument I think CV should still be only 1/1 without planes on deck.
-
By the way are we pretty solid on BB now firing in opening fire?
-
Oh yea BB gets preemtive shot on warships each round . losses are allocated before the defender can shoot back with surviving ships. BB had way longer range guns than any other ship and its next to impossible to have small ships have a go at a Battleship because they would get picked off before they ever got in range. You need numbers. Look at what happened to Bismarck.
-
so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3 -
so is “sea zones take 2 movement points” a quick fix?
we didn’t have inflight refueling in WWII right?++++ clarify not clear… if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
and how are we going with the carrier issue?
how about…
empty 1/1
1 plane 1/2
2 plane 1/3Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!
Ill go with that.
-
@Imperious:
++++ clarify not clear…
it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ
if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrongThats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!
Ill go with that.
CAP?
-
it now takes 2 movement points to move from 1 SZ to an adjacent SZ
++++yes right!!
Quote
if planes take off from carrier they should have more limited movement
oh…wouldn’t that make players use islands (unsinkable carriers) more than?
but thats ok, my strategy is to focus on realistic modelling
if a realistic change leads to strange situation/effect, don’t blame it on the change, its just something else thats wrong++++++ yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.
Quote
Thats a good idea, because we are now assuming that now CAP is being performed by less planes… Not a bad idea really!Ill go with that.
CAP?
Combat air patrol ( air support performed over fleet movements)
-
yes it would make Island more inportant and thats why were promoting a island hopping campaign, because its the correct way to defeat japan… we are trying to stimulate this idea.
We’ll have to check its effect along the sugguested rule of 2 movement points to more between SZs .
Wake Island -> Japan -> Wake Island - 12 points
Okinawa -> Japan -> Okinawa - 8 pointssay make planes taking off from carrier has 1 less movement points?
in OOB it takes one movement point to move from island to its SZ
but no movement point to move from carrier to its SZ -
So the new AA as discussed.
Antiaircraft (AA)
AA costs 5 IPC, may have more than one AA per territory.
AA fires in opening-fire step of every cycle of combat. But it may not taken as casualty.
Each AA selects an enemy air unit independently. After all selections are made, each AA rolls a “search” dice detecting its target on 1.
Each AA then selects an enemy air unit independently among the detected units. After all selections are made, each AA rolls an “attack” dice hitting its target on 1, forcing the target to retreat on 2.Place AA on its side when first built. It may not fire in combat but may move in non-combat. Turn it upright in any mobilisation phase including the the one it is initially mobilised in. It may now fire in combat but may not move again.
-
I thought we were going with a built in defense in factories and victory cities. everything else seems fine.
-
I thought we settled on doing both built-in and not!
So we have built-ins as well as explicit deployment.In phase 1
IC has 2 AAs built-in.
VCs didn’t have AAs built-in.
How about 1 AA for VCs? -
yes one aa for VC looks correct.
Suggested Topics
