AA50: Sea Units should less. Alternate pricing

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

Hello ;)

I’ve been seeking around since a while and couldn’t find anything to answer my (basic) question : is there a (balanced) way to use the new units (or at least, their sculpts : tactical bombers and mechanized infantry) in the Anniversary edition?

Thanks!

Right. The ordinance they dropped was substantial by the standards of those days, but the effect was to reduce the morale of the populations: effect was to reduce IPC by effecting the will of the people to continue the fight.

So allow them SBR capability.

Additionally, they were good fighters in the air and air units could not even reach them till latter in the war if they conducted high altitude attacks. Basically their biplanes were very slow at climbing and had a limited ceiling.

I personally like to keep with the idea of allowing each nation to have the possibility to access each of the new units, because Even Japan and Italy had some heavier tank designs and prototypes, but they just never had the production to actually put them into full production. With the research system proposed however it does accomplish your goal to an extent. Since each research would be 4 stages to progress through, if a country has no bonus to what stage they start on it can take quite a few turns and money to get some researches especially if one has to roll a 6 or a 5+ with one die to progress one stage. Italy does not have the money to spare, and Japan probably wants to spend more money on ships and taking islands and tank upgrades wont suit them unless they are trying to crush Russia. I could also add another research of mass production which the US, and probably Russia has a bonus in, and it will reduce the cost of all of their units by one IPC.

You can find some good light tank pieces on Historical Board Gaming, they are about 0.65 cents per piece

Thanks for the inputs I think I will go with the advanced mediums, and I am currently taking a look at the board to see how some of these could be included in the starting setup

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

@Pjor:

The second unit is Heavy Tank. A:3 D:3 M:2 cost: 9.
This unit will represent the heavy late-war tanks. Examples are the Soviet Josef Stalin tanks, British Churchill and German Tiger tank. Aside that it function as a normal tank it will rise it’s attack value to 4 if it’s combined with a mechanized infantry OR tactical bomber.

Tanks already Attack @3, Defend @3 and Move 2 for a cost of 6 IPCs. “Heavy” tanks should attack and defend @ 4 if they will cost 9 IPCs.
Also, there has been discussion in other threads that “Heavy” tanks should only move 1, or at least can not Blitz. This is due to the fact that they are so big and heavy. For example: The King Tiger tank was a very tough tank but was also kind of big and cumbersome. Part of that problem was that the engine was underpowered so they just couldn’t go very fast at all. However, if the movement is cut down to 1, perhaps the cost should also drop to 8.

One member came up with a pretty good formula to figure out the cost for land units: Attack + Defense + Movement - 1 = Cost.
For an example, say Heavy Tanks at 4-4-2-9. This works out perfectly. Attack 4(4) + Defense 4 (8) + Movement 2 (10) - 1 = Cost 9.
Now try Artillery: Attack 2 (2) + Defense 2 (4) + Movement 1 (5) -1 = Cost 4.
It actually doesn’t work for tanks since they changed the values to 3-3-2-6. By the formula, tanks should cost 7. Some have argued that OOB tanks should be considered “Medium” and should only defend at 2, which would fit the formula 3+2+2-1=6. Unfortunately, others say if you lower the defense to 2, then cost should go down to 5, which screws up the formula again.
Personally, I would be fine with Medium tanks at 3-2-2-6 because it also allowes for Tank Destroyer units (currently being put out by HBG) that would switch Attack/Defense values (2-3-2-6).

By the way, this formula does NOT work for aircraft or naval vessels. I don’t know if anyone has figured out a formula for them yet.

Yea,  they are great replacements.  Snipers, or like you said, just a cool pose.

@Imperious:

The OOB rules for AAE describe fighter escorts and defense.

Jet fighters is another matter altogether, not in AAE

I was talking ONLY about how it was done in that game, while ADDING the part of jet fighters so they have an advantage by a factor of 1 in both cases.

uh yeah but your post actually referenced rocket attacks which do not appear in AAE, verbatim or otherwise, hence my confusion

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.