Long Range Air (LRA)

Regarding the heavy tanks, its the ability to cancel a hit that you’re paying for. Don’t underestimate how powerful this can be; many people insist that tanks in 1914 are broken until they actually buy some and use them to breakthrough the enemy lines.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

@Uncrustable:

Tac bombers need something, they are rarely produced relative to fighters and strat bombers

I would also suggest letting tanks roll a 4 for each tac bomber present if air supremacy has been achieved, that is for each tac bomber one tank rolls at 4 instead of 3. Tac bombers do not change
This even further increases air buys and also gives tanks a buff which they need

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Air supremacy is checked for each round of combat, before any dice are rolled for that round

These rules will magnify both fighters and tac bombers buys as well as tanks, and also promote a combined arms approach to purchases similar to artillery and infantry

You want enough fighters to achieve air supremacy, but also a good even amount of tac bombers and tanks to maximize air supremacy when you do achieve it

This kills multiple birds with a single stone
It should reduce somewhat the infantry/mech spam with sprinkles of artillery that we see now
It also indirectly buffs AAA as each AAA adds 3 more dice to the air battle in defense, and increases your chance of gaining control of the skies

Very thoughtful ideas. I like them.
However my first impression is your HR change much more the balance.
I’m looking for just small changes.
I will come back on this.
You have some compelling reason like this one:

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Thank you very much for your challenging ideas.

@userx:

@Baron:

I would rather prefer to limit them to their role of AA gun but, specialy for Germany, it seems they used a lot their 88mm AAA as antitank gun (El Alamein battle, i.e.).

I like that because you are correct, in Real Live, AA was just high-velocity ammo pointed at the sky, point it at a tank like the Germans did, it became an effective anti-tank.

I like the idea of taking out tank and/or armor for the pre-combat AA roll.

I don’t know if it would be unbalanced but I think I will try this next game

Thank you

I just learned that Germans put their Flak 88 on tracks and plates so it becomes the Tiger (Mark VI) and deliver them for the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
This gun seems quite an invention.

@knp7765:

Personally, I think it’s pretty cool that each country’s elite troops have different names (USA = Marines, Germany = SS, Russia = Guards, UK = Commandos, etc.)

The different names reflect the fact that the forces you mention had different roles and origins, and in many ways weren’t equivalent.  The US Marines and the Royal Marines both originated in the days of sailing ships when those navies, in addition to having sailors who manned a ship’s guns, needed sailors who were trained for infantry-type combat – for example for boarding operations.  The Commandos originated, I think, with Mountbatten’s Combined Operations Directorate and were intended to conduct hit-and-run raids in occupied Europe.  I don’t know enough about the Guards to know why the Russians used that name.  The SS – specifically the Waffen SS – were a military extension of the Nazi Party’s secret police force; in many ways, the Waffen SS were a private army under the control of the Nazi Party, operating parallel to the regular (Wehrmacht) German Army.  I doubt the US Marine Corps would approve of being viewed as an equivalent “elite” to the Waffen SS, whose training included a substantial dose of indoctrination in Nazi ideology.

Almashir mentioned the US Army Rangers, which illustrates the point that some countries had several types of elite units.  The British SAS (which originated in WWII) are another example.  I think the French, German and Italian armies all had some  mountain troop units which were considered elite forces.  Paratroopers are also often put into that category.

@orion-21:

I think air is the key to winning the war.

I’m thinking any rule(s) that makes it that decisive needs serious revision. Douhet was wrong.

@oldsalty:

The way our group plays this is fighters (without attacking land units) are allowed to attack defending land units at an attack value of 1.  Fighters are then allowed only one round of attacks.

your group’s interpretion of the rule is correct

the idea is that defending land units have nothing to fight so they stay in bunkers and what not
attacking air units in excess of attacking land units can still do damage, but at a reduced rate

I think its ok, unless there is a problem I am not seeing

@Imperious:

The rules already cover the idea of planes flying over to just engage other planes. Lets look at them:

think you misunderstood oldsalty
he is not talking about counter-air

IT USED TO BE IN THE FILE UNDER COUNTER-AIR. Now the section has been changed yet again and CA is not explained.
Tekkyy??? why?

yeah I got your PM
repeating my reply for others:

the paragraph “Counter-Air” merely explains the effect unique to Counter-Air
hence it looks a bit short
rules common to all air missions are written under the paragraph “Air Missions”

Counter air is one round of air combat using air values. It allows just air to air units to hit to model the control of the sky thing.

you can already perform an attack with only air units like in OOB/LHTR
air units then engage enemy air units

what Counter-Air is, is that it stops the defender from running (via air unit relocation rule “Defensive Air Support”) from the Counter-Air attack

ok agreed. make it so.