Topics created by Nukchebi0

Interesting take.

Destroyers can be better then fighters, if you have combined arms, in that case.  Att/Def at 3 + Bombard @3 in opening fire.  Not too bad if Fighters are nerfed.

Though, I agree, fighters can defend on land and sea, that gives them flexibility.

@Craig:

@tekkyy:

Yeah I think over time the rules will become more logical.

Depend on which post you read (at harrisdesign) LHTR 2.0 was just short of some changes.
To me it should have been called LHTR 1.4 or something.

There are reasons (that will become quite evident eventually) why an thorough edit good was embarked upon and put forth as v2.0.

Craig

You know, I used the same reason at a bar posing as a government agent.

“Young miss, there are reasons - that will become quite evident eventually - why you must remove your underwear right here right now.”  8-)

“Orly?”  :?

“Yarly.  We is teh gub-mint.  We don’t lie.”  8-)

“Uhm, okay?”  😐

It equals 6, not zero.

Is the thing I tried to say…
I agree with you!

@Nukchebi0:

Out of lack of better location, I put this post here. Anyways,I think I have devised a great way to incorporate the cruiser into the game. A cruiser was, in essense, a battleship without armor. It had the same fire power (or nearly), but required less materials and production to build than a battleship. Since it was thinly armored, it was much more susceptible to torpedoes or dive bombers. Taking all these factors into account, a cruiser should be made a 12 IPC, one shot kill unit. It can bombard, attack on four and defends on a three, but is easily taken down.

Obviously, though, no one is going to buy a destroyer with a much better unit at the same price. Thus, the price of destroyers should be reduced to 10 IPC’s (or 😎 to encourage more purchases, and reflect on reality more (I believe the Navy had over 900 destroyers by the end of the war.) Perhaps the values could be changed, but at least the price should be altered.

Since it looks like heavy cruisers will be added in the new Axis & Allies Guadalcanal set, I will weigh in here on the subject.

I am not sure where you get the idea that a cruiser is a battleship without armor.  All of the WW2 cruiser designs were effected to a greater or lesser degree by the between war naval disarmament treaties, restricting cruisers to no more than 10,000 tons standard displacement.  The Italians, the Japanese, and the Germans all cheated on this, but even they could not get too carried away, so even their ships went no more that 15,000 tons.  The smallest true battleship built between the wars had a displacement of 35,000 tons.  That is a huge difference.  Armament carried by a heavy cruiser was limited to 8 inch guns, with a typical shell weight of around 250 pounds, with 8 to 10 guns being carried.  That give you a 2,000 to 2,500 pound broadside per cruiser.  The shell weight of the battleship guns used in the new battleships were as follows:  US-16 inch at 2,700 pounds for AP shell; British-14 inch at 1,590 pounds, 15 inch at 1,938 pounds, and 16 inch at 2,048 pounds; German-15 inch at 1,764 pounds; Italian-15 inch at 1,951 pounds; French-15 inch at 1,949 pounds; and the Japanese -18 inch at 3,320 pounds.  The lighest battleship gun projectile was over 6 times heavier than the 8 inch shell, while the heaviest were about 11 and 13 times the weight.  A battleship could very easily wreck a cruiser with one broadside, as the Italians discovered at Cape Matapan in 1941, while a battleship could take quite a pounding from a cruiser with moderate damage, see the South Dakota at Guadalcanal in November, 1942.  When it came to AA fire, the cruiser was closer to the battleship.

As for torpedo damage, a battleship had sufficient beam for a side torpedo protection system, which enabled it to absorb several torpedo hits before being crippled, depending on where the torpedoes hit of course.  A hit near the rudders, as happened to the  Bismarck, may not sink the ship, but still leave it helpless to further attack.  A cruiser lacked sufficient beam for a side protection system, and depended on good compartmentation to survive.  Normally, after one torpedo hit, a cruiser was no longer fighting the enemy, but fighting to stay afloat.  Two hits had a good chance of sinking a cruiser, and three almost certainly would.

Putting all of this together, what should be the characteristics of a heavy cruiser in Axis & Allies?  If you set a battleship at 4 attack on ships and aircraft, 4 defense on ships and aircraft, and two hits to sink, you can work backwards to the cruiser.  A cruiser should get 3 attack and 3 defense with 1 hit to sink, but only 2 attack on a battleship.  The destroyer should drop to 2 attack and defense on ships and aircraft, with a 3 attack and defense on subs.  Battleships and cruisers have an attack and defense of 1 against subs.  The IPC cost could be based on how long it took to build the different types of ships.  Destroyers typically took a year, cruisers and carriers two years, battleships three years, and subs maybe 9 months, but that implies a lot of prefabrication and a sub has much tighter tolerances than the normal ship, so figure the cost the same as the destroyer.  This would give the destroyer and sub each costing 8 IPC, the cruiser and carrier 16 IPC, and the battleship 24 IPC.  The destroyer gets a 2 attack on a battleship from the torpedoes that it carries.

I will be interested to see how this compares to the ships that will be coming out in the Guadalcanal game.

There was a LOT of discussion on this in the House Rules area during AAHRE (I think tha tis the acronym for it) development.  There are several threads in that area about coastal defense guns, “infrastructure defense” etc.

The gap in the turret IS the issue.

Most notably the overhang of the turret cokmbined with the gap.  Shrapnel, debris from moving through obstructions, etc. are going to be an issue, especially while in transverse since things can catch the bottom of the overhanging turret and be dragged into the tighter space between the main body and teh turret as it transverses back.

The skirting issue is 2 fold.

The first is that the back appears to have a different skirting configuration than the front, with a much longer skirt over the tread than is true in the front.  It has also been squared off instead of angled as it is in the front.  While this is good for treat protection (voering more tread with the skirt), it creates movement problems in uneven or boggy terrain when operating in reverse.

Second, the skirting is too squared off.  There is no deflection angle in the skirting.  This means you are either going to have to go with VERY heavy skirting in order to protect the treads, or you might as well leave the skirting off since it is vulnerable to even low-grade weapons like a LAW that could penetrate the skirting more easilly since the rounds can hit 'square" and penetrate to damage the treads beneath.  If you add a deflection angle, you reduce the force of impacts on the skirting by an order of magnitude, increasing your tread protection at no cost of weight.

Lastly, following up on the transverse overhang…  Imagine a simple IED going off next to the tank while the turret is transversed and the underside of the turret is exposed to the ground below…  Explosive force going UP and hitting what is certain to be a very thinly armored portion of the vehicle.  I’d call this an Achilles Heel on the modern battlefield.

My recommendations:
Angle the skirting
Re-engineer the rear skirting to allow for reverse movement in rough terrain (same config you used in the front would work)
Shorten the turret to elliminate the transverse overhang issue

try you tube for that

given that the reference site actually references the wiki site, it’s probably not so much plagerism . . . .

Gears is pretty cool.  I just don’t like how in MP you can shoot up an enemy with like 50 rounds and for some reason they will still be alive.  Its still a fun game to play.

I will be gone for two weeks due to a vacation and most likely won’t post.

i love the dogfight rules me and my boys have added to our revised games, i would like to add it to our online games. anyone else agree?

You also don’t have to take W. Russia you can take units around it and force Russia to attack you.

If you want to check out some real German airplane projects try www.luft46.com  that guy has compiled everything from diagrams to pics to photos of real models and test planes.

im also looking at chinese with interest, i want to learn it at some point. i like the idea of japanese first, because i will already know many kanji, which are the symbols used in chinese writing, but have also been adopted by the japanese. they read the same, but speak entirely differently. there are also two other alphabets in japanese, which are more like our alphabets, but larger. but i digress…japanese and chinese go well together.

@Imperious:

Yes the key to do that would have been to invade the Soviet eastern territories before they were transfered. The reality of a japanese “northern” solution was often discounded due to the huge defeat they faced in the border clash with the Soviets in 1939. Its hard to go against experience. My feeling is Stalin could have  ignored or buffered this huge area with a few troops playing for time until a decisive outcome could have been obtained against Germany. The japanese didnt posess enough troops at any point to even push even 500 miles into Soviet Territory. They had to commit too many in China in a war that could not have been decided for even another 10 years. Remember they fought them since 1931 with no decisive result.
The key was to keep bagging Stalins armies using proven tactics. But with the strategic outlook of true mobile army having the ability to retreat and reform for counterattacks once the Soviet offensive lost steam. This elastic approach was what Manstein favored, while Hitler kept his old WW1 ideas intact. Hitler allowing his generals to fight the war would have brought victory. That along with the extra month of time.

Yeah, that was the other thing.

He acquired all of Europe through a mobile army, then hunkered down in the worst place in the world at the worst time.

Everyone experiences something different.

Guess the point is, find a dicey you like and stick to it.  I personally hate DAAK.  It’s the most flawed dicey program I’ve ever encountered, when applied to massive dice rolls.  For minutia rolls it seems to do okay at times.  (Like if you want to find the result for 1 infantry, 1 artillery vs 1 infantry, you’ll win about 70% of the time.)  but it’s those massive battles that seem to go horribly wrong for me or my opponent on DAAK that scare me from using them.  Almost always it results in 33% accuracy with attacking infantry vs 40% accuracy with defending infantry.

So yea.  Use whatever system you want.  I like FROOD and Flames of Europe.  But DAAK’s the most popular on here.  (Maybe that’s why I massively harder time winning games from AA.org opponents on DAAK then I do on any other dicey?  The tactics are almost identical, only the dicey is different, yet the DAAK dicey always throws the battle to the attacker, not the defender.  And I’m a very defensive player, usually.  I’d rather force you to attack me, then move out to attack you (other then for territory trading) if I can.)

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

Yeah. The Soviets are worthless with them.

I was buying tanks only to match my friend’s purchases. The British were going KJF, and so was America, except for Operation Torch.

I continued buying tanks later because the board was wide open and I wanted the blitzing capability (I forgot to mention that I blitzed behind his lines before the attack on Berlin to stave off monetary disaster). I figured an eye for an eye, especially because I needed troops on the front lines quickly. I usually, though, buy whatever my opponent buys (our games tend to be tanks, battleships and airplanes. Very rarely is infantry or carriers bought).

Switch’s answer is correct for the LHTR, and many other revised rulesets such as Caspian Sub’s.  It is not correct for the out of the box rules however.  The official Avalon Hill/WOC FAQ spells it out pretty clearly:

@http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised:

Q-IPC loss from strategic bombing is limited to the territory’s income value. Is that per bomber or per turn?
A-Per bomber.

So in other words, if the US with three Bombers bombs Germany and rolls 4,6, and 5 it does 15 IPCs of damage to Germany, since none of the bombers invidually exceeded the territory value of 10.

Germany bombing the Causus with two bombers with rolls of 2 and 5 does 6 IPCs damage to Russia, since each bomber can only inflict a maximum of 4.   So the roll of 5 is downgraded to 4.

I’m also pretty sure that in the out of the box rules, Rocket attacks and Strategic Bombing attacks are resolved separately.  So, for instance, Germany can launch a Rocket attack vs. the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage and do a Strategic Bombing run on the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage per bomber all in the same turn.  Switch’s comment that the two are combined is correct for LHTR though.