Tech with planes seems just way to over powered.



  • @wodan46:

    Here are my revised versions of the two replacement Naval Techs.

    Mobile Fleets: Your ships may move 1 during the non-combat phase in addition to their regular movement/attack.
    Capital Ships: Undamaged Battleships now roll two dice in Naval Battles.  Cruisers Attack and Defend on 4s.

    I like the idea of BBs having an AA gun, but only 1 gun per sea zone may fire (i.e. multiple BBs don’t help with AA).  I really like that idea a lot as it would make BBs worth buying over a CA/DD.

    As for your 2 dice idea… If both dice hit the BB player has the choice of allowing his opponent to select 2 casualties as normal, or may spend both hits to choose a single casualty of the BB player’s choice.  The selection can be anything but a CV, a CV may be selected only if their are no other surface ships (i.e. not counting transports or subs) present.



  • @Danger:

    Other than that Heavy bombers are here to stay and Battleships with AA guns?? I’m sure the guys at Pearl Harbor wish they had that much firepower also.

    Or more Cuba Gooding Jrs.



  • The enemy won’t want to trade fighters and bombers for subs and therefore won’t attack your fleet to begin with. Subs can’t attack planes thats the problem! you can;t let subs take hits from planes… if they could that would be great!



  • Your oppenent isn’t likely to be all that excited about trading fighters and bombers for your subs.



  • That’s just it (unless I’ve read the rules and errata and several other discussions about subs incorrectly) the point to this topic is that if a large attack force made up of only air units attacks a fleet heavy with subs and just a few “capital ships”, subs (and transports) are useless for defense.  Subs can’t be taken as hits UNLESS the attacker has a destroyer in their attack force.  The new “bullet catchers” at sea are the destroyers as they are the cheapest surface war ships that can get hit by an attack force made up of only air units followed by fighters as the next “cheap” bullet catcher.

    With the new rules fleets NEED to be “built” differently, much along the lines that Kavik Kang mentioned. Players cant depend on transports and subs anymore to protect the more expensive units form being hit by aircraft.  And unless I’m mistaken, the “regular/widespread use” of bombers attacking “fleets” in WW2 didn’t happen.  Air units now have a “lethal power” against surface war ships.  Thats why I proposed follow the “enhanced realism rules” that make it so bombers CANT attack sea units…ever.

    But, regardless of the use of that rule or not, fleets are much more vulnerable to attack by air units (as they should be…IMO).  This makes carriers and islands much more valuable (as they should be…IMO).



  • @packrat76:

    The enemy won’t want to trade fighters and bombers for subs and therefore won’t attack your fleet to begin with. Subs can’t attack planes thats the problem! you can;t let subs take hits from planes… if they could that would be great!

    No but they can attack the floating landing field the planes land on…everyone talks about how subs can’t hit planes like its a weakness -its a strength- being able to force my enemy to take hits on ships instead of realitively cheap fighters is a plus!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 2
  • 16
  • 3
  • 68
  • 137
  • 7
  • 23
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts