• I have a question about one of the Air/Naval Techs:

    "Jet fighters - fighters now attack at ‘4’ "

    I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

    Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?


  • If anything, the only benefit to attacking that jet fighters should provide, is an immunity to AA fire.


  • @Admiral:

    I have a question about one of the Air/Naval Techs:

    "Jet fighters - fighters now attack at ‘4’ "

    I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

    Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?

    Hi Admiral T,

    I completely agree with your assessment of “Jet Fighters”  🙂
    Their limited fuel made them more defensive in nature, and more useful as “interceptor” aircraft

    My interpretation of Jet Fighters would be…

    Your Jet FTRs now defend at 4.  They also gain the ability to intercept SBR and Rockets.  For each Jet FTR in a territory under SBR or Rocket Attack, roll 1 die @1.  For each hit, 1 incoming BMBR or Rocket is destroyed prior to doing damage.

    This is actually the interpretation we use in the Revised variant AAR: Enhanced.  Not only is this more historically appropriate, it is also strategically appropriate.  The big gripe in Revised out-of-the-box, and it would appear AA50 as well, is that there is nothing a defending player can do about massive SBR or Rocket attacks.  It would have been nice to see the interceptor ability added onto Jet FTRS in AA50 as it would have been a simple fix for this annoying problem.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft.

    Thats not true. Hitler designated the Me-262 as a tactical bomber and latter it was used for defense in early 1945, HE-162 came out much latter, but was a dedicated interceptor, while ME-163 was designed to shoot down bombers ( interceptor). The British didn’t really get their own Gloucester Meteor in service for any purpose. American Lockheed Shooting Star also didn’t see service till after the war.

    The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s,

    Not true at all sorry. Piston planes did this. V-1 was very slow glider type of rocket.

    and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel.

    well 650 miles range for Me-262… not exactly a “few minutes”

    So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

    The game allows a player to employ full use of its developed technology. If the plane because a 3-5 plane, it would lack the utility of multi-purpose value for offensive and defensive assignments. Hitler used it as a tactical bomber to go after say tanks, much like a stuka was used. Thats why it needs to have BOTH a higher attack and defense value.

    I see them as a 4-5 unit. A dedicated technology slot for “jet-fighters” needs to actually have some iron in the glove with at least a +1 in BOTH attack and defense. That would represent historically its ability to attack planes with greater efficiency and defend if it chooses against SBR. The movement needs to stay because it would disrupt the units value to reduce it to say 2 movement points. Players don’t really have 15 planes on the map, and at most its like 5-8 planes. The  4-5 jet would have some nice attributes that give it value and it can turn around a players game, but just a little bit which is what tech does.


  • Some of you say that the Jet Fighters should get immunity to AA fire.  I somewhat agree with you, but I think that instead of immunity, the Jet Fighters should get a -1 to all AA rolls against them which gives them immunity to non-Radar AA rolls, but if an opponent has Radar, then instead of him hitting on a “2”, the Jet Fighters would lower it by 1 to a “1”.  I don’t think blanket immunity is a good thing, but considering how often Jet Fighters will be attacking Radar, it will almost be immunity.

    As far as raising Attack to a “4” or Defence to a “5”, I feel that either would be okay, but having both would be too strong.  I feel that raising defence is probably more appropriate, but raising Attack is more fun, in that if I were rolling tech, and I got Jet Fighters, then I would probably always be more happy about a raise in Attack rather than a raise in defence.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Some of you say that the Jet Fighters should get immunity to AA fire.  I somewhat agree with you, but I think that instead of immunity, the Jet Fighters should get a -1 to all AA rolls against them which gives them immunity to non-Radar AA rolls, but if an opponent has Radar, then instead of him hitting on a “2”, the Jet Fighters would lower it by 1 to a “1”.  I don’t think blanket immunity is a good thing, but considering how often Jet Fighters will be attacking Radar, it will almost be immunity.

    I forgot to mention this. AA guns could never shoot down these planes. Not until technology outside the war was produced. AS far as radar is concerned that is just having the time to react to enemy movements. Its silly to make AA guns better and call THIS radar…. Different existing rules have been devised to fix this problem. The Radar thing makes it very hard to buy fighters and use them to attack with a 2 or less staring at you. I would have made radar as allowing adjacent planes on defense available to be placed in the attacked territory as part of a reaction force. But thats too hard of a rule to swallow for AA purists. But if your not concerned with reality I suppose the RADAR effects would be -1 for against jet technology.

    IN the real war A TOTAL of 10% of plane damages and loses during SBR and flying over flak artillery were attributed to these guns, So its easy to see when you fly 6 planes over a lose one plane you have in one battle lost 1 out of 6 rather than 1 out of ten and thats in one turn. In the game you lose like 2-3 planes out of 12-18 sorties…which is at least 17% rather than 10%

    As far as raising Attack to a “4” or Defence to a “5”, I feel that either would be okay, but having both would be too strong.  I feel that raising defence is probably more appropriate, but raising Attack is more fun, in that if I were rolling tech, and I got Jet Fighters, then I would probably always be more happy about a raise in Attack rather than a raise in defence.

    how would you like to spend perhaps 15-30 IPC to get your five or so planes a +1 on defense?

    I would rather buy more tanks and get 6 threes instead. It makes the technology too weak IMO.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I like raising their attack value to equal their defense value and making them immune to AA Fire.

    Just my opinion though.


  • IL,
    I do agree with you that if the Jet Fighter tech were to only raise the Fighter’s defence by 1, then it is much too weak.  That’s why I think it would be more appropriate if the Jet Fighter tech in addition to the +1 to defence, giving them -1 to AA fire seems to “balance” the tech so that if I get this tech, then I won’t feel so disappointed.  I would also be okay with raising the attack by +1 instead of defence but still with the -1 to AA fire.  Players would probably be more happy about gaing +1 to attack than to defence.  I just feel that giving them +1 to both attack and defence is a little too strong.

    I had another thought.  Considering the speed of the Jet Fighters, why not keep their attack and defence the same, but give them 2 shots on defence, similar to heavy bombers 2 shots on offence.  I personally would rather roll 2 “4’s” on defence than 1 “5”, and even though it would be strong, I don’t think it would make it too powerful.  What do you think?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Fire twice or two hits type of thing is possible, but the price would have to go up because you have doubled the units effectiveness. I dont think the AA thing is a big deal as long as its clear that jet fighters need to be built rather than all of a sudden all your built fighters are magically converted to turbojets out of thin air. The technology would be +1 on both attack/defense and no aa fire…BUT its only for new built planes…

    Like the naval technology for -2 cost for carriers is for future builds and NOT whats already on the map. All technology should effect new units and not old units.


  • I chose jet fighters attack 4 because defense would be to high, and immune give me a brake immunity should not happen at all so all who put that for immunity to aa guns x that out you people chose the worst decision ever. fighters should be vunerabel to aa guns no matter what! :evil:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, italians, you may want to try out a variant called AAR:Enhanced.  Jet fighters are immune from AA Fire in that game, but it really does not have any adverse effects and actually does slow some nations down as they focus on trying to get the tech before major pushes.


  • The German High Command intended that Jet fighters be used to defend the Fatherland. It would be likely most appropriate to increase their defense to 5, at least to me.


  • I don’t know about the rest of you, but to me this topic is another example of “overcomplicating” a “simple” A&A game piece. (Notice the emphasis on “A&A game piece”.) How to represent what boils down to a “technological advantage” such as the “jet fighter” in A&A is an exasperating endeavor, especially when you look at just some of the “historical facts” about “jet fighters” as a whole, not to mention all of the individual details of each prototype of the individual aircraft such as armament, speed, weight, maneuverability, reliability, flight range etc, etc, etc…
    Here are just SOME examples of the “details” (for those that are interested):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-59_Airacomet
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262
    http://www.aviation-history.com/messerschmitt/me262.htm
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/me262/
    http://www.atlantikwall.org.uk/new_page_69.htm
    http://www.warbirdalley.com/me262.htm
    http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Gloster_Meteor.html

    So it seems to me, once again (as with most topics revolving around the “historical accuracy” of the A&A game pieces) that we are forgetting what kind of game A&A is. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of the “detailed and historical” points that have been mentioned are great and really interesting to me, and they have gotten me to look up and learn more about the topic of jets in WW2, but as far as applying all of those details to the game of A&A, I think its all way too much detail.  A&A is not, nor has it ever been, nor do I ever think that it will be a game that is that detailed.  Thank god…can you imagine how dang long it would take to play one game if it was THAT detailed?

    Any way, I also think it is real important to keep the basics of gaming in mind when talking about the “historical accuracy” of A&A.  Any game, other than the most basic ones such as go fish or shoots and ladders are trying to take real world “things” and convert them into “game pieces”.  Game pieces in their simplest form are just an interpretative “mathematical representation” of some real “thing”.  There interpretive because everyone has their own opinion/idea/view/understanding about how something should be reduced to a number when compared to some other game piece.  There is NO definitive answer to how a real “thing” converts into a mathematical representation of it, in any game.

    The type, amount, depth, breadth and width of the mathematics used in a game all combine to make up what is referred to as a games “mechanics”.  Generally speaking the more types of dice, types of charts, types of bonuses, types of pieces, etc, etc, etc, that are in a game the more complicated (oops… “Detailed”) the mathematics are and theoretically the more convoluted (oops…“(historically) accurate”) the game will be.  Also, generally speaking, the fewer there is of all that, the simpler the mathematics and the more “streamlined” the game is.  The more streamlined a game is, generally speaking, usually determines how long it will take to play that game and to some degree determines how “simple” of a game it is.

    Unless I’m over looking something, since A&A only uses one d6 and no charts or bonuses to represent the “capabilities” of each piece and since there is only so much “detail” that can be put into a single six sided die, A&A is not THAT detailed of a game.  If we only looked at the mechanics of the game, I’d say it’s a pretty… “simple” game.  But as all of us who play it know, it is NOT a simple or EASY game to play. In fact it’s pretty dang hard even as streamlined as it is. So anyway…keeping all that junk in mind…

    I think most players would agree that “historically” speaking no nation started the war with “functioning” jet aircraft.  I think we also would all agree that every nation involved in WW2 thought of or would have thought of a “jet fighter” as a national advantage over any Power that did not have “jet fighter technology”.  So I think we all agree that the ability to developed jet fighters is a good logical idea of a national advantage to have in the game.  No argument there?

    But since there is only so much detail one can squeeze from a d6, how much of a mathematical “advantage” should the national advantage of “jet fighters” be when compared to other units of its type is the real question.

    Notice I said of its type?  When looking at “technological advantages” which is what a “jet fig” would be, I think its very important to keep that in mind, otherwise we run the risk of thinking that an advantage to one type of unit is nothing more than a less expensive or under glorified version of another type of unit. Some might even argue that Hitler made that mistake when he thought “jet technology” would serve him better if it was on a bomber/fighter instead of just a fighter.  For instance, if a fighter was to have its attack increased to a 4 as a jet fig, the same as a bombers standard attack, one might jump to the conclusion that it is just a cheap bomber.  But when one keeps in mind the subtle differences of the figs capabilities when compared to the capabilities of the bomber, you would see that such a mathematical comparison of different types of units is not an accurate understanding of the intended use of each unit.

    We all know that one bomber costs 15 IPC and one jet fig would only cost 10 IPC.  And when you take into account that for 30 IPC, 2 bombers would be able to attack with 2 4s, but for 30 IPC, 3 jet figs would get you 3 attacks of 4, we all know when you compare those items 3 jet figs on the attack is a bigger “bang for the buck” to have than 2 bombers on the attack.  (Jet Figs sure look like a “cheap bomber” to me).

    But figs can’t bomb ICs for IPC loss!  This “small” difference is important to keep in mind, but I think this difference is hard to see with only using a single six sided die for each piece, but, that’s the kind of game A&A is.  It’s streamlined to the point that you can only adjust the mathematics of a unit by 1/6th increments, or 17% at a time.

    So for me an increase of 1 to a figs attack or defense is a reasonable amount for the kind of game A&A is.  But the question of if it should increase both attack and defense or just attack or just defense, that’s up for debate.

    Some might argue that the “first jets” which is what the “national advantage” of “jet figs” would be in the game, might have been faster, but they could not maneuver the same as the other figs, some would argue they could not carry as much, some would argue they could not go as far, or they had more or better weaponry or etc, etc, etc.  And I’m sure everyone could find their own “proof” to support what ever it was they gleaned from a certain prototype of a certain jet to support their “idea” of how that should be portrayed in the game. But for me, the advantage of “jet figs” boils down to one fact and one fact only…generally speaking, they are faster than the “planes of the day” no matter if they are used in offence or defense, that is what the advantage of jet figs in my opinion is representing…SPEED, nothing more.

    So I think an increased attack or defense of 1 sounds…fair…and a good way to represent jet power on a six sided die.  After all, they would only be 17% better on the attack or the defense and they would only be 34% better “as a whole” over the standard figs if they had an increase of one to both attack and defense but should they be “immune” to AA guns?  No way.  They might be harder to “hit” because they are faster but they can still be hit.

    I personally believe the question of “immunity to AA guns” is not so much a question of a jet figs ability affecting the way AA guns work, it’s more of a question of if the way AA guns “work” are “represented” with good gaming mechanics when compared to what they are trying to represent in the real world.

    AA guns are one of the few pieces in the game that need to be rethought in my opinion because they do a…poor job…at best…of representing what a nations “air defense” really was (is).

    AA guns are the one piece in the game that is trying to represent two things, “detection” of an “air threat” and “elimination” of an “air threat”.  Calling them AA guns is the first problem, just the name alone is a bad explanation of what they are, but to define them as “gun batteries that shoot down invading air units” is a real bad definition of what they are trying to represent.  Its no wonder most players think they are a joke, with this definition they are nothing more than a “glorified” piece of artillery that some one pointed in the air and called an AA gun….come to think of it that’s all some AA guns were.  But “air dense” is much more than some dudes on the ground shooting at low flying air craft as they zip over head with an 88.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    but as far as applying all of those details to the game of A&A, I think its all way too much detail.

    Yea +1 for attack and defense and AA immune is WAY too complicated and dramatic a shift from +1 defense. Your right.

    In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game . Its too complicated.

    The more streamlined a game is, generally speaking, usually determines how long it will take to play that game and to some degree determines how “simple” of a game it is.

    And to facilitate this the game only needs infantry units, one plane unit, and one naval unit to keep things as reductionistic as possible and preserve the elegant math of the game.

    Unless I’m over looking something, since A&A only uses one d6 and no charts or bonuses to represent the “capabilities” of each piece and since there is only so much “detail” that can be put into a single six sided die, A&A is not THAT detailed of a game.

    They do have games like flames of war that use D6 and have 200+ pages of rules the dice has nothing to do with detail limitations and to make that jump in reasoning is premature.

    I also think it is real important to keep the basics of gaming in mind when talking about the “historical accuracy” of A&A.

    Keep in mind AA is a game based on History its not chutes and ladders. It has to have some degree of veracity in dealing with the second world war as a light wargame. This includes historical reverent points in its design as AA50 seems to have. If Larry did as you asked everybody would start out with exactly the same number of pieces like risk or stratego because that’s balanced. A historical game has give and take because it has to measure up to the reality of the times because its modeling history. If it had no revelance to the war WW2 was fought these games would not have lasted this long.

    For instance, if a fighter was to have its attack increased to a 4 as a jet fig, the same as a bombers standard attack, one might jump to the conclusion that it is just a cheap bomber.

    Jet fighters represent Jet technology, which includes bombers. The Germans had jet bombers (AR-234). To allow them a +1 on attack makes them active technology so you can buy them to attack enemy planes etc, while to allow only a defensive benefit makes it a passive value and this does not bring enough ‘juice’ to the fun factor.

    Who is gonna spend and try to get a 1/36 chance of getting a +1 on defense for a few fighters? The money can be spent on other things, only proving that its a useless technology. It has to have enough juice not only historically but in terms of mechanics to make the investment worthwhile. As its currently written its not doing that under the AA50 system.

    And when you take into account that for 30 IPC, 2 bombers would be able to attack with 2 4s, but for 30 IPC, 3 jet figs would get you 3 attacks of 4, we all know when you compare those items 3 jet figs on the attack is a bigger “bang for the buck” to have than 2 bombers on the attack.  (Jet Figs sure look like a “cheap bomber” to me).

    Bombers dont require technology to get the 4 attack rating. Also jets cant SBR, so bombers have a step up on this as well. Lastly, to get to the point of even having jet technology means the game is near its conclusion ( for the most part) and future “jet” purchases VS. bombers would have small impact.

    Lastly, Technology is an optional rule to allow for more historically based results and modeling of actual WW2 weapons that could have turned the war. If you look it up its a common conception that if Hitler had the ME-262 in say 1943 the allied bombing campaign over Germany would have been a bust. Its basically a fact and the game should represent that reality. Especially considering its 1/36 chance of getting something.

    AA guns need to be removed from the game. Factories and certain territories need built in air defense, because a flak battery does not represent the same equivalence in the game as a piece does. A piece is an army of say 100,000 men and flak artillery is a field of fixed air defenses. AA is the only game that raises flak artillery to the level of a ‘piece’ and considering its a light wargame that’s a surprising conclusion.


  • I voted for 4/5 and immune to AA-fire.

    Only two votes for that. Wonder who the other guy is ?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ? 😄


  • Wow! According to the poll, there is quite a wide range of opinions on how jet fighters should work. I didn’t expect such results!

    Hey IL, I did my homework after your first reply to this post. I indeed overlooked a few details regarding jet fighters, and it seems that you were right about a few things. However, I would like to point out that you are sorely mistaken when it comes to the British Meteor. The V-1s were a massive headache for the British government, and they input massive amounts of resources to counter them. You rightly pointed out that piston driven airplanes were utilized to combat the flying bombs, but with great difficulty. The V-1’s flew much faster than any propeller craft, so the airplanes had to be heavily modified and commit to unique maneuvers in order to nudge the V-1’s of course or to shot them down. Both tactics proved risky and difficult. Thus, in an effort to improve the defense against these weapons, the British designated the Meteor to help intercept V-1’s. Consequently, in the summer of 1944, the jet aircraft saw combat in that endeavor.  While the Meteor didn’t participate in the defense from the Vengeance weapons for long due to its late introduction, it was still used nonetheless.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    You made it seem that the only way to shoot down the V-1 was by the Meteor. RAF employed all sorts of means to do this with success and since they didn’t want to have their new jet crash over france and dissected by the Luftwaffe they did employ them as other means to shoot at V-1, but their is no link from the jet plane in terms of this duty any more than other means:

    http://www.patriotfiles.com/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=8973&page=1

    Countermeasures
    The British defence against the V-1 was codenamed Operation Diver. Anti-aircraft guns were redeployed in several movements: first in mid-June 1944 from positions on the North Downs to the south coast of England; then a cordon closing the Thames Estuary to attacks from the east. In September 1944 a new linear defence line was formed on the coast of East Anglia, and finally in December there was a further layout along the Lincolnshire-Yorkshire coast. The deployments were prompted by the ever-changing approach tracks of the missiles which were in turn influenced by the Allies’ advance through Europe.

    Anti-aircraft gunners found that such small, fast-moving targets were difficult to hit. At first, it took, on average, 2500 shells to bring down a single V-1. The average altitude of the V-1, between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610 and 915 m), was in a narrow band between the optimum engagement heights for light and heavy anti-aircraft weapons. These low heights defeated the rate of traverse of the standard British QF 3.7 inch mobile gun, and static gun installations with faster traverses had to be built at great cost.

    Barrage balloons were also deployed against the missiles, but the leading edges of the V-1’s wings were equipped with balloon cable cutters and fewer than 300 V-1s are known to have been destroyed by hitting cable.

    Fighter defences had also been mobilized as part of Operation Diver. Most fighter aircraft were too slow to catch a V-1 unless they had a useful height advantage. Even when intercepted, the V-1 was difficult to bring down. Machine gun bullets had little effect on the sheet steel structure, and 20 mm cannon shells had a shorter range, which meant that detonating the warhead could destroy the intercepting fighter as well.

    When the attacks began in mid-June of 1944 there were fewer than 30 Tempests in 150 Wing to defend against them. Few other aircraft had the low-altitude performance to be effective. Initial attempts to intercept V-1s were often unsuccessful but interdiction techniques were rapidly developed. These included the hair-raising but effective method of using the airflow over an interceptor’s wing to raise one wing of the Doodlebug, by sliding the interceptor’s wingtip under the V-1’s wing and bringing it to within six inches (15 cm) of the lower surface. Done properly, the airflow would tip the V-1’s wing up, overriding the buzz bomb’s gyros and sending it into an out of control dive. At least three V-1s were destroyed this way.

    The Tempest wing was built up to over 100 aircraft by September; Griffon-engined Spitfire XIVs and Mustangs were polished and tuned to make them almost fast enough, and during the short summer nights the Tempests shared defensive duty with Mosquitoes. Specially modified P-47 Thunderbolts (P-47Ms) with half their fuel tanks, half their 0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, all external fittings and all their armour plate removed were also pressed into service against the V-1 menace. There was no need for radar ? at night the V-1’s engine could be seen from 16 km (10 miles) or more away

    In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone between London and the coast was declared in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. One Tempest pilot, Joseph Berry, downed fifty-nine V-1s, another 44, and Wing Commander Roland Beamont destroyed 31.

    Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from a readily-jammed cannon and accounted for only 13.

    By mid-August 1944, the threat was all but overcome ? not by aircraft, but by the sudden arrival of two enormously effective electronic aids for anti-aircraft guns, both developed in the USA by the Rad Lab: radar-based automatic gunlaying, and above all, the proximity fuse. Both of these had been requested by AA Command and arrived in numbers, starting in June 1944, just as the guns reached their free-firing positions on the coast.

    So your plane shot down 13 V-1’s and hardly worth notation as any pertinent influence on the matter. Four other planes proved greater worth in this capacity.


  • Ok! i just dont want fighters immune to aa guns 5 d or 4 attack i dont care as long as never immune


  • Thanks for the support Craig but I took no offence to any of it.  It’s hard to catch in text but I just took it as friendly sarcasm…its all cool. 😄

    But that entire earlier…lengthy…opinion of mine was partly done to prove a point… “T M I”. (Too much information) :?

    I dont see A&A taking into account individual specific air craft, ships, tanks or artillery pieces.  As I understand it, each unit is a conglomeration of THAT ASPECT of warfare during WW2.  A tank unit represents EVERY tank ever created and used during the war years, as does a fig, bomber, art, transport, sub, etc…

    Just because the units are molded in different aircraft, or ships or tanks of the day…which is cool  :-D…they don’t work differently.  The molds of the Zero work just the same as the mold of the Spitfire and the mold of the Sherman tanks works just the same as the mold of the Panther tanks when it comes down to the gaming mechanics…it’s a streamlined game…no charts, tables adds, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…just one d6 for each unit.

    So IMO, advancements are just an improvement to that ENTIRE ASPECT of warfare.  A jet fig is just a faster fig.  A heavy bomber is jsut a bomber that can carry more bombs.  And since each unit only uses a single d6 there is only so much “improvement” that can be done to any one unit, one die point (17% at a time)  Alot of those “real world details” are bound to be lost on a single d6…but at the same time, I’m really glad that only a d6 is used…the game takes a long time to play as it is…could you imagine if each unit had a 5 page list of rules for it…SHNICKY would that take for ever to play. (unfortunatley i have to go to work every day instead of playing this cool game all day everyday!)  😢


  • Builder chris i am not after you at all.
    I just do not want immune to aa guns if anything else happens i will be cool with that but immunity! (not how i take stuff)

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I did support my points. I also took a ‘swipe’ ( to use a Gordon Ramsey phrase) but it was really a minor point among a much larger body of supporting points.

    OK Builder Chris i think we both know i meant no harm with the sarcasm. Apologies.


  • Anyways this poll about jet fighters is everywere not 2 spots are sticking out its unexpectedly almost balanced

    Though i will say they will never be immune please do not allow it to be immune comone dice roll 6 its immune 1-5 it is not
    “6” no why did it go to 6.
    Anyways all i will say voting for immunity to aa guns is horrible thing to do


  • Greetings,

    Great thread. 
    Excellent delivery and point made by Builder_chris on game pc representation.
    Loved how you presented it, nice long delivery to labor the point of complexity. 
    In spite of your last post Chris; you noted a general abstraction of all FTRS, and Jets represent an improvement for the whole class of the unit. 
    Let me wave my arms at the sky, having spent most of my adult life with jets.
    I could argue a strong technical perspective, I will not take you down the edged path of techno merit.  I will provide general strokes, I hope stand out; 
    item:munitions were the determining offensive punch factor, not much change really. 
    item:Those early jets had a very limited range, as stated previously.
    item:The speed factor, gave the fighter certain immunity against interception, fine for offense. 
    item:If, given strong offensive value, then the abstraction could reflect a more limited range, move of only 2 spaces, thats not going to be popular. 
    item:In the defensive role-Dogfighting mainly, poor turn radius (more important then dive speed, IMHO, yes its arguable, jets had good climb rate) and no loitering time (also factor for ground support,)
    are strong defensive requirements lacking in jets. 
    These low defensive values for early jets, argue against a strong defensive abstraction on Tech alone.   
    Item: Air doctrine was poorly concieved on how to deploy the technology and coordinate, again important factors for area defense
    ( War college would need several thousand sorties to build a model, each war took time to find a techs place for proper deployment( prime EX:korea-jets evolution.)
    Item:This game does not model interception, less house rules. 
    Extra-Maybe thats the point, the tech could add interception to the game, new tech, new game mech-yea facing complexity again(KISS.)
    Sum:Jets are simply not a good defense value for this game, take an offensive abstraction, Larry got it right.
    In the end, I agree with IL, jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
    added note:
    I love those old WWII fighters, those pilots and crews had a special moment in time.  You can see it in their eyes today, years later. 
    To those who fell, I salute.


  • You know, after all this talk I’ve come to the self realization that ultimately I must agree with IL and Bluestroke when both of them say…

    IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game

    Bluestroke…jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.

    Because after about my fifth game or so of getting the jet fig development, I don’t develop jets any more.  They never proved to make that much of a difference in the game and they never seemed to be worth the IPC and time it took to get the tech.

    Oh, and IL…don’t fret over the earlier sarcasm …the Seabees and civ construction workers (and my wife come to think of it) are full of it  😮 (sarcasm that is) :lol:.  I guess that’s why it’s no big deal to me.  It’s all 8-), besides that’s what makes debates fun… “It’s not personal…its buisness”.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 10
  • 22
  • 2
  • 19
  • 15
  • 8
  • 32
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

37
Online

15.3k
Users

36.5k
Topics

1.5m
Posts