Lets Talk Heavy Bombers!

@Tigerman77:

This was my idea exactly for my 39 setup. All nations start out with medium bombers and have to develop heavy bombers….so if Japan and Germany want to skip this technology for another they can. These new pieces are going to open the games for more house rules…isn’t that what we want? It’s what I want…! I think making Heavy bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB heavy and making medium bombers for the countries that don’t have an OOB medium is the smart thing to do.

I agree with you here on the possibility of house rules.  In my house rules version major warships already get 2 attacks, one for primary and one for secondary armament, so giving heavy bombers two chances to hit isn’t much of a stretch, any more than having 2-hit warships (or in my case, even 3-hit ones, though I haven’t quite settled on whether the 3-hit ones should be rare “super-BB’s” or standard BB’s, giving BC’s and carriers 2 hits…)

As far as making it a tech, you could also make certain techs be already awarded to certain nations as a national advantage: e.g., Germany could automatically get Heavy Tanks whereas the US & UK could automatically get Heavy Bombers, which to some degree reflects the realities of the war and of each nation’s research priorities in the early-war period up to 1942 (when some game scenerio’s begin, after all…)

Giving the oob 4-engines a “tech” status, though (even if it’s automatically awarded to the US, say) does somewhat push the B-29 out of the picture as an “upgrade” options, though… but this may become a non-issue, as I have yet see anyone firmly commit to doing a B-29 piece… (Other than TT’s old piece which is maybe too small…)

@Tigerman77:

Keep It Simple Stupid.  Lol I heard it alot in the Navy!!

AAAAAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAaaaaaa!!!  Okay, got it!  I had seen it in a number of posts but just hadn’t heard what it meant.  I thought it was something directly related to the game.

By the way Tigerman, is that map in your little picture of Sicily?

That’s right!

1 mine per turn. That’s it.
If your mine sink a ship, its removed from the gameboard.

You cannot put a mine a sea zone if you’re not at war

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

And another question if they were in a formerly Neutral territory would they be “bipartisans”?

let them land where-ever, but you could base their attack/move values on where they take off from.  if from a carrier, they act like a naval fighter, if from land, then a normal air force fighter….

enough space, but not enough money from WOTC to develop both.

With the above post in mind, I propose the following for both Escort Carriers AND Naval Fighters.  Also, with Naval fighters being slightly weaker than their land-based counterparts, I propose that the regular aircraft carrier’s IPC cost be slightly tweaked.

Regular Aircraft Carrier

1    Attack
2    Defense
2    Movement points
11    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 10 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    May  hold up to 2 naval fighters.

Escort Carrier

1    Attack
1    Defense
2    Movement points
7    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 6 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
-    May only hold up to 1 naval fighter.

Naval Fighter

2    Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3    Defense
3    Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters MAY be used on land.

Regular Aircraft Carrier + 2  naval fighters

5    Combined attack value
8    Combined defense value
3    hits
27  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

Escort Carrier + 1 naval fighter

3    Combined attack value
4    Combined defense value
2    hits
15  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

These stats seem to fit a little better into the naval chart.