LHTR 1.3 vs LHTR 2.0

About Russian Winter:

The game says it starts in Spring 1942. I think a game turn means about 3 months, so Russian Winter could be as in the original, but not by players choice. Make Russian Winter in 4th turn, and then, each 4 turns.

For the Reinmforced Carrier the idea is coming to me from the difference i ncarrier design in WWII.
USA and Japanese carrier have thin flight deck brecause their philosophy is that an AC is a floating airport.
So they are built with the idea that best defense are the aircraft and then they try to board the maximun number of them. About 70-80 aircraft may be boarded by the Fleet Carrier.
Brithish built AC with another philosophy. For them an AC ias first a ship and only secondarily an AC. Usually british AC boarded only 40-45 aircraft, but they had armoured deck and a lot of AA firepower. In fact they have to fight near the coast of Europe and not in the open spaces of Pacific.
So the idea may be:
British. Mideast Oil -> Armoured Carrier: Carrier are are two hit points ship
USA. Fast Carriers -> Fleet Carriers: carrier may board 3 fighter or 1 bomber, and are attack 1 defense 2 ships.

What about my doubt about panzerblitz?

The word any in this case means: all the thanks, in the sense that I may move all all the tanks that participate in the attack? Or only one?

Hey Romulus, yes it means you may move any number of tanks, all of them if you wanted to. That’s why it’s so awesome, you can send your stack of 8 tanks to blow up a pile of 1-3 inf then retreat them instantaneously, it makes it so much easier to trade units (unless of course you get unlucky and it takes more than one round, then you will cry when your tanks die in the counterattack!  :oops: )

I just wanted to make it a little more useful to move those ICs around instead of shooting yourself in the foot, production wise.

Yeah I see what you mean, I was very much joking when I was talking about the extra units on cauc/mosc. I personally think you already shoot the enemy in the foot when they have no complex to build on the next turn.

How about Reinforced Carriers: American Aircraft Carriers may carry 3 Fighters, or 1 Bomber in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean ONLY.

That sounds cool but we have to think of people who use physical boards, it will be awkward because the carrier was molded to hold 2 fighters, not 3 or even a bomber.

Russia may declare a severely cold winter which prevents any axis attacks or moves for this turn.  Russia, meanwhile, must give up the Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases of their current term.  This NA must be declared at the start of their turn.

That sounds a lot better. Personally I still don’t like how you could essentially abandon Moscow and the Axis could no way attack it. The current version to me seems more balanced because you still need piles of infantry to halt the advance for one turn.

About Russian Winter:

The game says it starts in Spring 1942. I think a game turn means about 3 months, so Russian Winter could be as in the original, but not by players choice. Make Russian Winter in 4th turn, and then, each 4 turns.

That’s definitely more realistic, but it would be pretty strong to happen more than once per game. And it’s also very awkward to count turns.

Though, i wonder if that might be over powering?  Then again, with Japanese battleships getting 2 shots at 5 or less in the first round (each) I don’t think it would over power much at all, do you?

It could definitely be overpowering, it’d be sick to have just 2 carriers with 6 fighters as defense O_O! The Japanese can be strong in the seas, but they need something like 2-3 NAs (night fighting, most powerful bbs, kamikazes). And while Japanese BBs are strong, it’s extremely unlikely that they will be building any more. Usually you add another carrier to fit all the fighters, then subs/transports for fodder.

Those additional rules are totally useles in my eyes,

I would just skip those, it’s weird that one round a unit is worth x points of attack, and after that (for 1 time) its worth 1 or 2 more, totally out of line in my eyes.

And I think America needs something to make naval warfare against Battleships that take 2 hits to sink and fire 2 shots at 5 or less a little more possible.  What do you think would even that out a little bit?

(And for the record, with Night-Fight + Most Powerful against a KJF situation, I’m buying 2 more battleships another carrier and submarines.  Won’t need destroyers other then the one I start with.)

True true, all true. Night fighting was a pretty big boost over Kaitens. It’s arguably better than Most Power Battleships, and very nasty when paired together.

Probably Americans need some sort of boost to their fighter power. Island bases and fast carriers make for some interesting flexibility, but in terms of trying to knock out night fighting and most powerful bbs -_-! Maybe it’s as simple as you said, letting carriers carry 3 fighters…I dunno!

Bean, thanks for the explanation. I will never say again that Panzerblitz is useless!
It is great!

Fast Carrier, I do not see them as a in improvement for US Navy that allows for combat aginst Night Fighting and Powerful Battleships.
I think that 3 fighter carrier is more worthy as NA. It still requires the building of the three fighter, but is a great boost for AC task forces.