| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
| Arcos wrote: | Just out of curiosity, would you rather have an anti-air cruiser like the UK's Dido class, or a land based fighter? I think I would actually rather have a Flakschiff like the Niobe than land based fighter to protect my Bismarck. It's a shame the Italians didn't make an AA cruiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_anti-aircraft_cruiser_Niobe |
I think the land-based fighter is the better 'first' option in this game. Fighters seem to be more durable than cruisers. They get aborted a lot, but actually destroying them is pretty tough. Plus the fighters are needed to escort the Sm 79 torpedo bombers. These units make playing a 'pure' Italian Navy a viable option now.
Now we can play the 'fantasy what-if' the Italian Air Force actually provided coordinated air support for the Reggia Marina. 
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
 Mon May 05, 2008 2:35 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Fabikaze wrote: |
No italian AA cruisers were in service at the end of the war for the Regia Marina on 08/09/43, date of italian shame surrender and "change of ally", with Regia Marina that had to go to Malta and run aground his beaches, but they was building them. |
Hmmm. As a third generation Italian-American I prefer to look at it as a 'day of intelligent pragmatism.' When I was a kid I asked my dad why the Italians did so poorly in WWII. He answered "Italians are lovers, not fighters." (My dad was a career USN officer by-the-way.)
| Fabikaze wrote: | Like the Aquila carrer was not ended, they were building two AA cruisers, the Etna and Vesuvio.
|
These sound like excellent units for Richard to bring out around Set IV or V. They will make good escorts for the Aquila after it comes out in Set III. 
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 2:45 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 1466
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Fabikaze wrote: |
No italian AA cruisers were in service at the end of the war for the Regia Marina on 08/09/43, date of italian shame surrender and "change of ally", with Regia Marina that had to go to Malta and run aground his beaches, but they was building them. |
Hmmm. As a third generation Italian-American I prefer to look at it as a 'day of intelligent pragmatism.' When I was a kid I asked my dad why the Italians did so poorly in WWII. He answered "Italians are lovers, not fighters." (My dad was a career USN officer by-the-way.)
| Fabikaze wrote: | Like the Aquila carrer was not ended, they were building two AA cruisers, the Etna and Vesuvio.
|
These sound like excellent units for Richard to bring out around Set IV or V. They will make good escorts for the Aquila after it comes out in Set III. |
Bring in more nations before we go with tons of Fantasy units.
C'mon Flower Class Corvettes
_________________
Trade List
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about886.html
 |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 2:52 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| campbjj wrote: |
Bring in more nations before we go with tons of Fantasy units.
C'mon Flower Class Corvettes |
Wow. Took the bait hook, line, and sinker! I wish my real fishing trips were this productive. 
I want a Flower corvette too. I assume you want the Sackville?
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 3:20 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| campbjj wrote: |
C'mon Flower Class Corvettes |
"Didn't we learn anything from the sub-chaser?" said Swarbs hoping for a bite.
_________________
 |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 3:24 am |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah--it's called "HOUSE RULES!" time...
Like, say, cut the Type 13 to 1/2 ship for stacking, and make its point cost be for 2 or 3 SC's as a "package"...
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 3:34 am |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Besides, a Type 13 was about the size of a small gunboat, a Flower was almost the size of a DE, IIRC...
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 3:39 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | | campbjj wrote: |
C'mon Flower Class Corvettes |
"Didn't we learn anything from the sub-chaser?" said Swarbs hoping for a bite. |
"The Allies need something equivalent to counter the Type 13 menace for a fair fight!" said Weedsrock2 biting and then spitting out the hook. 
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 6:16 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 944
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah I hope all our (legitimate) bitching about the Type 13 isn't interpreted incorrectly by WotC - that we don't want small craft, which I think is manifestly not true.
Perhaps Type-13 is TOO small/slow for WAS, but as we've often discussed, with the right cost and SAs even Type-13 would have been useful.
But more importantly, there are lots of slightly more capable small escorts I'd love to see in the game.
- Flower class
- Mid/late-war Japanese "escorts" (~1000 ton/20kt)
- German "flottentorpedoboots"
- French Bougainville-class sloops (?)
- Italian "torpedo boats"
Generally I believe these ships would have useful combat abilities and enough speed to get into the fight. They should get SAs to allow them to get into play, such as Lead the Attack, Close Escort, Sub Hunter and the like. And be costed appropriately |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 6:56 am |
|
|
Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1888
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
my biggest gripe with the sub chaser is the speed thing. If it could keep up with the line then I would find a place for them. Any AAA is better than no AAA...
_________________
An appeal to fear never finds an echo in German hearts.
Otto von Bismarck
http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/forum3.php |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 11:31 am |
|
|
WAS Axis player
Posts: 123
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Fabikaze wrote: |
No italian AA cruisers were in service at the end of the war for the Regia Marina on 08/09/43, date of italian shame surrender and "change of ally", with Regia Marina that had to go to Malta and run aground his beaches, but they was building them. |
Hmmm. As a third generation Italian-American I prefer to look at it as a 'day of intelligent pragmatism.' When I was a kid I asked my dad why the Italians did so poorly in WWII. He answered "Italians are lovers, not fighters." (My dad was a career USN officer by-the-way.) |
Mmm nope xD
We did a lot of wars by roman empire to WW2, in last two centuries we did 3x independece wars, some minor wars like Crimea or Cina expeditions, 3x colonial wars, WW1 by start (not 1914, but on 1915, not like americans in 1918) and WW2 only becouse Mussolini join the war thinking that the war was over.
In WW2 our men were ready, both soldiers both pilots both sailors, but they had few equpment, old tanks, old planes, and few oil and few steel for factoryes to have massive productions. For last we spent a lot of resources in last colonial war in 1935 and we had sanctions by that year. And some our units did Spanish civil war too, so other resouces spent few before war.
We were not ready to fight in WW2 on 1940. On 1942 maybe. |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 11:49 am |
|
|
Posts: 162
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Diamondback wrote: | Yeah--it's called "HOUSE RULES!" time...
Like, say, cut the Type 13 to 1/2 ship for stacking, and make its point cost be for 2 or 3 SC's as a "package"... |
Just change the stacking limits for small units and problem fixed across the board.
Anyone remember the stacking limit idea I posted on the old forums ?
Where stacking should be more of a point based system but air remains the same.
_________________
 |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 1:47 pm |
|
|
Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1888
|
|
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 4:11 pm |
|
|
Posts: 162
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mad Ghost/0331 wrote: | | I don't recall it, could you repost if it isn't too much work? |
Sure thing, might take some time to find it again.
It got limited attention, but the response and attention it got was rather positive.
opps I forgot the old forums were destroyed lol.
anyway, the idea in its simple form, each sector is a 4 point sector (5points for a more realistic game).
and it worked off of the standard ship classification in WaS.
Battleship: 2 points (3 points for more realistic approch) (and carrier with cap 3 is here)
cruiser: 2 points (carrier with cap 2 is here)
Destroyer: 1 points (carrier with cap 1 here)
the others are a bit of a own discretion sort of deal. MTB and PT-boats can be like 0.5
So it kind of works off the ships "size".
In my opinion it increases the use of cruisers in strengthening destroyer formations so on, and gives destroyers protection by using a stronger AA ship like a cruiser to protect them.
Of coarse it does raise one complication and that is close escort SA. But the SA doesn't really change that much, the SA is one extra ship in a sector pretty much and can remain the same even with this idea.
So just for an example, I can have in a single sector;
1 cruiser
2 Destroyers
or 2 cruisers
or 1 battleship and 1 cruiser
or 1 battleship and 2 destroyer escorts
it is a just a brief example. But hopefully I explained it enough to give an idea of what i ment.
PS. Air stacking limits and sub stacking limits remained the same.
_________________
|
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 5:41 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Mogami rule...
you can overstack any square as much as you want. However every movement phase requires a 2d6 roll for each ship entering into an overstacked square, staying with an overstacked square, or leaving from an overstacked square. On a roll of "snake eyes" (2) that ship recieves 1 damage. If 4 ships in a sector than damage occurs on "3" or less.
_________________
formerly Polish_Horsy on A&A minis website
my trade list |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 1048
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Polish_Cavalryman wrote: | Mogami rule...
you can overstack any square as much as you want. However every movement phase requires a 2d6 roll for each ship entering into an overstacked square, staying with an overstacked square, or leaving from an overstacked square. On a roll of "snake eyes" (2) that ship recieves 1 damage. If 4 ships in a sector than damage occurs on "3" or less.
|
lol, funny guy XD!!!
_________________
WKFC
IJNCVLF needs YOU! join the crusade; sign up TODAY! |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 7:56 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 330
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Woohoo! Bring on the Dunkerque! We will almost have enough ships to do Mers El Keb (or however it is spelled).
I think the Macchi 202 was picked for carrier duty as well. There was a plan to convert the heavily damaged Bolzano to a aircraft ferry & AA cruiser, with a squadron of 202's aboard.
Mike L. |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 9:54 pm |
|
|
Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1888
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Polish_Cavalryman wrote: | Mogami rule...
you can overstack any square as much as you want. However every movement phase requires a 2d6 roll for each ship entering into an overstacked square, staying with an overstacked square, or leaving from an overstacked square. On a roll of "snake eyes" (2) that ship recieves 1 damage. If 4 ships in a sector than damage occurs on "3" or less.
|
lol. wonder how that would play out though...
thanks lone, have to think on that a bit, maybe even play it out some...
_________________
An appeal to fear never finds an echo in German hearts.
Otto von Bismarck
http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/forum3.php |
|
| Mon May 05, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 162
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mad Ghost/0331 wrote: | | Polish_Cavalryman wrote: | Mogami rule...
you can overstack any square as much as you want. However every movement phase requires a 2d6 roll for each ship entering into an overstacked square, staying with an overstacked square, or leaving from an overstacked square. On a roll of "snake eyes" (2) that ship recieves 1 damage. If 4 ships in a sector than damage occurs on "3" or less.
|
lol. wonder how that would play out though...
thanks lone, have to think on that a bit, maybe even play it out some... |
nps, just the basic idea.
I personally like the idea (no surprise there), main concern is that in the idea I keep air limit the same 4 per sector, so might reduce the use of air, if it does to much just have air work off the same idea lol eash sqaud = 1 point
_________________
|
|
| Thu May 08, 2008 4:00 pm |
|
|
Posts: 448
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
mogami rule....  
but then we might need to have an rule to represent that british cruiser that torpedoed itself....
_________________
"my enemy has six sides and presents multitudes..." |
|
| Fri May 09, 2008 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
