LHTR 1.3 vs LHTR 2.0


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, I know most of you don’t play the full version of Axis and Allies Revised, but some of us do, and I thought it would be nice to hash out the National Advantages each nation has and how they have changed.

    IMHO, Version 2.0 seems to reskew the game back towards the allies.  I can realistically see the Axis needing 20+ IPC if the wrong national advantages are randomly selected.

    Some of the changes are thus:

    Russia: No Change to their normal useless NAs.  Some of them are fun to use, but generally speaking, the only one halfway worth while getting is Non-Agro and only because it holds Japan back for two rounds.

    Germany:
    Lost Fortress Europe (a major hit in my book.  Artillery defending like tanks is fracking awesome!)
    Gained German Scientists. (A major gain in my book!  Cheaper chances for Rockets and Jet Power, two needful technologies in this new version!)
    Nerfed: Dive-Bombers.  Dive bombers no longer work in naval engagements and do not work after the first round of combat or if enemy fighters are present.

    England: No changes that I can see.  A shame considering some of the nifty ideas I can think of for them!

    Japan:
    Lost Kaiten Torpedos (which were useless in most games anyway)
    Gained: Night Fighting which allows Battleships to hit twice in the first round of NAVAL warfare. Stress that, ONLY IN NAVAL WARFARE, not when shelling the shores. 😞
    Kamikazees only work in SZ 58, 59, 60 and 61 now, you still lose the fighter and you only hit on a roll of 1. (Yes, better chances to attack a fleet with your pants on year head screaming I LOVE ICECREAM at the top of your lungs.)
    Banzai nerfed, only a bonus to attack on the first round of combat.

    America:
    Lost B-29s, a shame, but not too bad over all.
    Gained: Wartime Economy, a very nice boost to productivity.  Think Industrial Technology for Naval and Air Units.



  • I believe that Stuka Dive bombers work also in naval battles, if FIG are not presents.
    At least seems to me that there are not this indication in the rules.

    For the amikaze the rules say explicitly that the aircraft used for the Kamikaze is not represented on the board. It is inspires to Kamikaze in A&A pacific. You may select an enemy ship as target and attack before the combat wit htwo dices that hits at one. Giving the fact that they cost nothing they have only the limitation of the sea zone 58, 59, 60 or 61.

    Ovwrall I rate them quite interesting. In fact we are usually playing with them in our face2facegames.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Let me quote from LHTR 2.0:

    Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber:

    “Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs.  They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal.  In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in LAND BATTLES ONLY.  Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat.  In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally.  If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is canceled.”

    Emphasis added for clarity.



  • One thing I would have liked to have seen is for Dug In Defenders to be immune to battleship bombardments. It makes a lot of sense, and would make that advantage at least somewhat worth it. Who actually stacks Japanese islands with infantry anyways O_o? It wouldn’t be that overpowered since Japan isn’t an island itself ;/

    As for kamikazes, I don’t think you have to spend a fighter, or that’s the way I read it anyways. It looks like just an extra attack at the beginning of battle in those seazones. That makes it more feasible than the old kamikaze, but then you got the seazone restriction.

    Russia: No Change to their normal useless NAs.  Some of them are fun to use, but generally speaking, the only one halfway worth while getting is Non-Agro and only because it holds Japan back for two rounds.

    Signed. It was a lot more interesting when you could lend lease airplanes, but that was ages ago.

    Germany:
    Lost Fortress Europe (a major hit in my book.  Artillery defending like tanks is fracking awesome!)
    Gained German Scientists. (A major gain in my book!  Cheaper chances for Rockets and Jet Power, two needful technologies in this new version!)
    Nerfed: Dive-Bombers.  Dive bombers no longer work in naval engagements and do not work after the first round of combat or if enemy fighters are present.

    Yeah losing fortress Europe hurt. Fortress Europe makes artillery extremely close to cheaper tanks on gray territories, just that they can’t blitz and they have a worse “skew” factor. German scientists is very interesting, but it still costs around 24 IPCs to get a research. The dive bomber nerf hurt, but I still like it a lot for trading against the Russians.

    Japan:
    Lost Kaiten Torpedos (which were useless in most games anyway)
    Gained: Night Fighting which allows Battleships to hit twice in the first round of NAVAL warfare. Stress that, ONLY IN NAVAL WARFARE, not when shelling the shores. Sad
    Kamikazees only work in SZ 58, 59, 60 and 61 now, you still lose the fighter and you only hit on a roll of 1. (Yes, better chances to attack a fleet with your pants on year head screaming I LOVE ICECREAM at the top of your lungs.)
    Banzai nerfed, only a bonus to attack on the first round of combat.

    Night fighting isn’t terribly great, but a hella better than Kaiten torpedos. Night fighting makes KJF rather difficult because Pearl and the Kwang fleet will go down in scrap metal quickly.

    Banzai nerf is very unhappy, it makes it unuseable, you just need to have a lot more firepower than one round of infantry, plus they’re slow moving so trying to use it on a capital just takes too long.

    America:
    Lost B-29s, a shame, but not too bad over all.
    Gained: Wartime Economy, a very nice boost to productivity.  Think Industrial Technology for Naval and Air Units.

    It’s most noticeable on transports/subs because it’s a greater % of their base cost, but that in itself is great. 23 IPC bbs aren’t a whole lot different than 24 bbs though.

    IMHO, Version 2.0 seems to reskew the game back towards the allies.  I can realistically see the Axis needing 20+ IPC if the wrong national advantages are randomly selected.

    I don’t know. While the Axis took a couple “big” hits (banzai + dive bombers + fortress Europe), the Allies didn’t really get any better either. I mean like you said Russia only really wants Non Aggression still. And the US can’t rely on much on a stupid mass bombing strategy anymore : ). I guess as Germany I would be unhappy to receive wolfpacks + interdiction + scientists, but that isn’t a whole lot different than 1.3 LHTR except the scientists. I don’t think the -1 IPC to tech rolls quite makes it a good gamble to get to rockets. The banzai nerf is annoying, but ultimately it doesn’t seem to matter much either since your bigger attacks will include lots of tanks.



  • @Cmdr:

    Let me quote from LHTR 2.0:

    Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber:

    “Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs.  They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal.  In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in LAND BATTLES ONLY.  Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat.  In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally.  If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is canceled.”

    Emphasis added for clarity.

    Thanks to your emphasis I have caught a great error I was doing!  :oops:
    I have read the paragraph just before repling to your post and I have completely overlooked that!  😮

    At 5:00 in the night I should stay in my bed other than on my PC!


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    No problem, Romulus.  I only capitalized it and made it red to help it stand out, not to yell at anyone.  The problem with reading rules from a computer screen (which I assume is how most people read LHTR) is that your eyes can scan over lines of text without realizing it.  Lord knows, I’ve done it!

    Anyway, Trihero, love the idea of making Dug-In defenders immune to shore bombardment.  I’d make the logical extension from your statement that Combined Bombardment would be equally ineffective.  We may have to extend that protection to all Japanese forces on an island as well as letting the infantry defend at a 3 or less.  Otherwise, you may run into problems with BBs killing defending fighters because the infantry cannot be hit.  :evil:

    I’ve been thinking of some other changes.

    Russia: Replace Salvage (which almost never actually gets used) with Dug-In Armor.  Any armored unit on a red territory defends at a 4 or less.  This will allow Russia some relief against the German might.

    Russia: Siberian Railway.  Extend range to include Caucasus.  Still not hugely useful, but at least in the first round or two you can bring pressure to bear on Germany.

    Russia: Mobile Industry.  If the IC is moved then the territory it was moved to may build 2 units more then the land’s value.  For instance, Kazakh with a moved industry may produce 4 units.  Moved industry bonus only applies to red territories.  This does not effect income.

    Russia: Russian Winter.  No invading units on Red territories may move that round.  All previous benefits are lost.  No attacker may attack a red territory.


    Germany: Allow Stuka Dive-Bombers to have their ability at sea as well as on land.

    Germany: U-Boat Interdiction.  Same as rules, but U-Boats cost 6 IPC.  Kriegsmarine is still throwing good money after bad in the long run, but at least now your U-Boats will be a little more economical for purchase.

    Germany: Panzer blitz. Replace with Fortress Europe.


    England: Joint-Strike: Declare at the start of England’s turn, not at the start of Russia’s turn.  Put the fear of the allies in the heart of Germany!

    England: French Resistance: French forces make 1 rocket attack on Germany per turn. (1d6 damage).  Combined Rocket, French Resistance and SBRs on Germany may not exceed 10 IPC.


    Japan: Dug-In Defenders (Thanks to Trihero): Infantry on Orange/Yellow islands defend on a 3 against amphibious assaults, battleship and destroyer bombardments have no effect on defending units on Orange/Yellow islands.

    Japan: Banzai.  This was over powered originally, but now it’s underpowered.  Banzai is in effect for the first 3 rounds of combat.  I think that’s a happy medium.

    Japan: Tokyo Express: Japan may move one infantry without a transport from Japan to Manchuria, Borneo, E. Indies or Philippine Islands per turn.  Destroyers are no longer necessary.


    America: Fast Carriers, replace with Reinforced Carriers. (Got this idea from AARe).  American Aircraft Carriers take two hits to sink like Battleships and like Battleships automatically repair at the end of battle.



    Anyway.  Love to hear your criticisms.  Comments.  Ideas.  Accolades.  Any other changes you like, feel free to make.  The only thing I would like to avoid is people just attacking without well thought out reasons or without alternatives.  Just calling something stupid or silly or just saying no doesn’t help anyone.



  • At this point… why not try to make “AxisandAllies.org” NA???

    We may aim to do NA that have two features:

    • they are relly advantages;
    • thay are really nationals;

    The first one means that we may think to re-define NAs that seems not advantageous.
    The second one is that I like the idea of NAs as special rules strictly related to a nation, under the point of view of character, approach or technology.

    My ideas.

    Russia

    Russian Winter - I would change name: Russian Call to Arms. It seems strange that the head of Russian nation may “command” the weather… So it may be seen as a one shot special call to the arm. The effect may be infantry defend at three. Or Jennifer idea. I do not know, really I would mainly change the name.
    Non aggression may be as it is.
    Mobile Industry - always interdictive to me. Moving it and then losing the possibility of build 4 units. I like Jennifer idea. Maybe only 1 more than the territory IPC value?
    Salvage -> Dug in defenders or Tank Guards: Russian tanks defends at 4.
    Lend leas -> I think it may stay as it is in LHTR 2.0
    Trans siberian up to Caucasus.

    Germany
    As Jennifer said.
    Only changes
    Panzerblitz-> Heavy Panzer. German Panzer had the more precise aiming systems: panzer attack at 4 in the first cycle of combat. Always.

    England
    Radar and Enigma may stay. French resistance and colonial garrison I like how they were.
    Joint Strike? It is a strange NA: renounce to command! I do not know. Something of more British needed?
    Mideast oil? I do not like. Maybe: “England shipyard efficiency”. First ship bought every turn cost 2 IPC less

    Japan
    Nothing to say

    USA

    Nothing to say. Reinforced carrier is an useful idea but storically not realistic. USA and Japanese Carrier were really very fragile in order to have more space for planes. UK carriers had armoured deck, but carry less planes. but it may be considered.



  • Otherwise, you may run into problems with BBs killing defending fighters because the infantry cannot be hit.

    Hmm actually I think only infantry should be able to “dig in.” Not enough space in those tunnels for fighters  :evil:

    Russia: Replace Salvage (which almost never actually gets used) with Dug-In Armor.  Any armored unit on a red territory defends at a 4 or less.  This will allow Russia some relief against the German might.

    I agree that Salvage is basically worthless, it banks way too much on bad luck. Dug In Armor is cool, possibly too strong?

    Russia: Siberian Railway.  Extend range to include Caucasus.  Still not hugely useful, but at least in the first round or two you can bring pressure to bear on Germany.

    I think the Railway functions well enough as is, either in KGF or KJF. More useful in KJF, but it still does bring an extra 2 inf faster towards Germany, which is big.

    Russia: Mobile Industry.  If the IC is moved then the territory it was moved to may build 2 units more then the land’s value.  For instance, Kazakh with a moved industry may produce 4 units.  Moved industry bonus only applies to red territories.  This does not effect income.

    Hmm so if you move out of Caucasus and then move back it makes 6 units? 😛 same with moscow, up to 10 units? I think mobile is ok as it is, because it’s extremely annoying for the Russians to move it out right as Japan/Germany want it.

    Russia: Russian Winter.  No invading units on Red territories may move that round.  All previous benefits are lost.  No attacker may attack a red territory.

    Possibly too strong, unless you also stipulate that the Russians can’t move this turn too or something like that. A truly free turn for an NA is pretty darn strong. The current Russian winter can already do that, but at least you need infantry units there to do it.

    Germany: Allow Stuka Dive-Bombers to have their ability at sea as well as on land.

    Might as well really. Won’t hurt the Allies much since they usually have a carrier somewhere.

    Germany: U-Boat Interdiction.  Same as rules, but U-Boats cost 6 IPC.  Kriegsmarine is still throwing good money after bad in the long run, but at least now your U-Boats will be a little more economical for purchase.

    Sounds too strong. I think U-Boats is one of the most ridiculous NAs, but you can only use it when they’re going KJF and you have some time to build them. Allowing it to be used in KGF too is scary O_o

    Japan: Banzai.  This was over powered originally, but now it’s underpowered.  Banzai is in effect for the first 3 rounds of combat.  I think that’s a happy medium.

    Probably 2 rounds at the most, 3 rounds is a LOT of fighting 😮

    America: Fast Carriers, replace with Reinforced Carriers. (Got this idea from AARe).  American Aircraft Carriers take two hits to sink like Battleships and like Battleships automatically repair at the end of battle.

    O_O That’s strong! That pretty much counters Night Fighting O_o

    Russian Winter - I would change name: Russian Call to Arms.

    The name is cool enough, it refers to an actual happening although of course the Russians didn’t really “control” the weather.

    Panzerblitz-> Heavy Panzer. German Panzer had the more precise aiming systems: panzer attack at 4 in the first cycle of combat. Always.

    Panzerblitz owns! That would make it weaker ;/

    Mideast oil? I do not like. Maybe: “England shipyard efficiency”. First ship bought every turn cost 2 IPC less

    Mideast oil is indeed very weird. I don’t like it.



  • Dug In Armor would be only for Round 1, and would reflect the actual combat situation when tanks were on the defense in the war…

    Earthen redoubts behind which ARM were parked that gave them protection from enemy fire, and from which their fire range, etc. was pre-marked to the gunners so that their initial shot was highly accurate.

    Then, once the enemy ART and ARM know where those redoubts are, the ARM had to move or die, negating the advantage once battle was fully engaged and the ARM had to start moving around.



  • @trihero:

    Panzerblitz-> Heavy Panzer. German Panzer had the more precise aiming systems: panzer attack at 4 in the first cycle of combat. Always.

    Panzerblitz owns! That would make it weaker ;/

    Trihero now I have the doubt that I misundrstood this NA.
    It depends on my difficult with english grammar…  :oops:

    I quote the NA text:

    3. Panzerblitz
    THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE DEFENDERS.
    If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.

    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?

    For the other observation I agree.



  • 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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Good ideas.

    Okay, with the criticism of my version of Russian Winter, how about this:

    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 should prevent Russia from getting two attacks to whittle down a defense and hit high priority targets while still giving Russia a reprieve.  Basically, it is a restricted Russia for Russia, but halts the axis a full turn.

    As for mobile industry, I think I was misunderstood.  You only get the bonus units if you move out of the starting territory and it only effects ICs that start with the game and only on red territories.  So moving out of Caucasus to Kazakh and then back to Caucasus would have a null effect.  I just wanted to make it a little more useful to move those ICs around instead of shooting yourself in the foot, production wise.

    Reinforced carriers for America.  Understood.  Carriers were flimsy enough that a solitary Zero could crash through them and sink them.  Gotcha.  How about Reinforced Carriers: American Aircraft Carriers may carry 3 Fighters, or 1 Bomber in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean ONLY.  America did launch bombers from Carriers in WWII and the American Carriers were superior to the Japanese Carriers (I presume since our carriers won.)

    I like the Panzer idea.  Attack 4, Defend 3.  I’d limit that to Europe and Asia, possibly.

    As for the U-Boats, Germany’s not going to be spending a lot on navy anyway.  But a little extra could be nice, considering Germany did have quite a bit of U-Boats out there in WWII.



    For those who do not like Mideast Oil is that because you’ve never really thought about how it can be used well?  It’s not overly powerful, but it will get your equipment around the world in a single turn if you want it too.  Kinda nice for KJF.  IMHO.  Not much use against Germany I agree.



  • 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?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I could go that route, but it might over balance the British navy.  Have to test it out.



  • 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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I used to fit three fighters on a carrier with the physical board.  Bomber I never tried, but I got three fighters to fit.  It’s tight though, and moving it is a real B*TCH.  Then again, moving it with 1 or 2 fighters is too. 🙂

    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?



  • 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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, but as opposed to having 2 hit aircraft carriers where you do no damage when you hit once, at least with 3 fighters each every hit you make on them kills something, right?

    Besides, I like that idea better then, say, War Economy.

    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.)



  • 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!


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I dunno either.  But Fast Carriers except in some very off the wall situations, really isn’t much of a boost.  How often do you want to send your carrier an extra space away from your fleet?  And it doesn’t help your fighters any.  3 Out + 1 Back is still 4 Spaces.  If the carrier moves 3 spaces, you can bring it as fodder, but it doesn’t let you move 4 Out and 1 Back, right?

    But I had remembered that I could, physically, get 3 fighters on a carrier (looked neato too!) so why not go with the 3 fighter carrier?  1 Bomber could have it’s uses, but not as much as 3 fighters.



  • 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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

    1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
    2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

    But how often does that happen?

    How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 26
  • 11
  • 18
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 14
  • 42
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

99
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts