Are we going to give this the target-of-opportunity 2-dice ASW attack once per game?
Did they attack surfaced subs? If so I would be fine with it.
ASW Air Patrol 2 - Once per game, instead of making another attack this turn, this unit may make a 2-dice ASW attack in the Air Attack phase. (Mavis, FM2 Wildcat)
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I don’t know if they did or not, just a suggestion that has gotten common.
Actually, the Mavis should have been given a permanent ASW attack, but I could only find one obscure reference to them being used to attack subs. Recently a book on Japanese ASW came out confirming it was used for ASW. Too late.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
It’s hard to find thAt sort of information. According to written sources. They were based close to the sea so they could cover land and naval operations They did attack naval targets, in at least 1 occasion they straffed with the Ikaria 20mm before dropping their bombs. The started the attack in this fashion at 600-1000 metres
My point is there is no other Patrol Bomber with a 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, or even 1943 start date that has 5 armor. There have been more than enough cards completed now so that we don't need to give an out-of-boundary stat to a card for game balance unless there is something still wrong that needs to be balanced. I don't see that issue here with a Romanian early war Patrol Bomber.
4/7/1 with LDA should be just fine for that time period.
The Peggy is the only other Patrol Bomber (so far from this project) with a 5 vital armor and it has a 1944 date. RB never gave another Patrol Bomber a 5 vital. Another "Set II anomaly."
Aircraft evolved much, much faster than ships and subs during the 6 years of WWII. I think a lot of the imbalance in aircraft comes from a failure to keep stats within a consistent envelope within a two year period or so. Neither high vital armor/armor or high AA aircraft should be in the game with 1939 to 1941 start dates IMO. That has obviously been broken in a lot of ways, but I see no need to mess this one up when the rest of the Patrol Bombers in this time period stay within bounds with the one exception. Why make it worse when we don't have to?
Last Edit: Sept 16, 2020 23:11:00 GMT by weedsrock2
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
My point is there is no other Patrol Bomber with a 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, or even 1943 start date that has 5 armor. There have been more than enough cards completed now so that we don't need to give an out-of-boundary stat to a card for game balance unless there is something still wrong that needs to be balanced. I don't see that issue here with a Romanian early war Patrol Bomber.
4/7/1 with LDA should be just fine for that time period.
The Peggy is the only other Patrol Bomber (so far from this project) with a 5 vital armor and it has a 1944 date. RB never gave another Patrol Bomber a 5 vital. Another "Set II anomaly."
Aircraft evolved much, much faster than ships and subs during the 6 years of WWII. I think a lot of the imbalance in aircraft comes from a failure to keep stats within a consistent envelope within a two year period or so. Neither high vital armor/armor or high AA aircraft should be in the game with 1939 to 1941 start dates IMO. That has obviously been broken in a lot of ways, but I see no need to mess this one up when the rest of the Patrol Bombers in this time period stay within bounds with the one exception. Why make it worse when we don't have to?
Starting to look like a 7 point PB to me (which might be just fine). Low bomb score. One ASW attack. Better defense than a Betty, but certainly no Ju-88. Every time I look at it, I think "meh", but then I remind myself that this a Romanian minor that's not going to see a ton of play anyway. C'est la vie.
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
The bomb load is higher than most bomb 6. I am thinking bomb 7 And the opg ASW 2 4 7 1 LDA. Points 7-8
The stat guidelines are useless because bomb 6, 7, and 8 for patrol bombers are all examples around 2,000 - 2,200 kilos. This bomber is 1,500 kilos.
However, when I sort Hap's spreadsheet on patrol bombers with a bomb load around 1,500 kilos (3,300 lbs) there are some with bomb 6 and some with bomb 7. So I would be fine with 7.
RAEVSKI's proposal looks good to me. I wouldn't go higher than a cost of 7. There is a case for 6 just looking at Hap's spreadsheet. (LeO 451)
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2020 22:43:22 GMT by weedsrock2
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!