Land Fighter-Bomber - This unit can't be based on a Carrier, and it can't benefit from the Expert Dogfighter or Expert Dive Bomber bonuses
Fighter-Bomber - When you place this unit during the Air Mission phase, declare whether this unit's type will be Fighter or Dive Bomber this turn. It can make Bomb attacks only while it's a Dive Bomber. While a Dive Bomber, reduce its Armor and Vital Armor each by 1.
We have been doing some work in the Dev thread that has highlighted to me that this aircraft should not be a bomb 9. The P-38 was not optimized to be a bomber, and a bomb 9 score on a fighter in 1942 is power creep in this game. I think we should back it down to bomb 8.
First, a reminder that this should be a bomb 8, not 9.
P-38F Lightning Maker: Lockheed Introduced: February, 1942 (P-38F) Wingspan: 52 ft Length: 37 ft, 10 in Speed: 414 mph at 25,000 ft Forumini Speed: 24 Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft Armament: 4 x 0.5 in MG, 1 x 20 mm cannon, up to 3,200 lb (1,451 kg) of bombs Range: 475 miles no tanks, 1,300 miles with drop tanks
Land Fighter-Bomber - This unit can't be based on a Carrier, and it can't benefit from the Expert Dogfighter or Expert Dive Bomber bonuses
Fighter-Bomber - When you place this unit during the Air Mission phase, declare whether this unit's type will be Fighter or Dive Bomber this turn. It can make Bomb attacks only while it's a Dive Bomber. While a Dive Bomber, reduce its Armor and Vital Armor each by 1.
As a stand alone fighter or bomber the USN has better, together you have some flexibility,
just seems more could have been done with it, as was with all the other Fighter Bombers.
I get what you are saying, but I am not sure what else we would do with it.
It does have the distinction of being the only US land-based fighter-bomber. And flexibility is indeed the key attribute of these aircraft. The other US choice is the expensive (and uber-powerful) USN Corsair.
What it will replace for me (some of the time) was putting a P-38G on a Forward Air Base to get that flexibility (plus use every turn). The cost will be a little better with the "F." Two of these on the land base is better than one P-38G on the FAB even if the "G" was 8 points. However, that only works if you have space on the land base.
The Forward Air Base was mostly conceived as a way to give "non-carrier" nations a way to expand their air game a bit. It can't take an objective, but it has the armor stats of a CV for the cost and capacity of a CVE. And it is "immune" to torpedoes.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
As a stand alone fighter or bomber the USN has better, together you have some flexibility,
just seems more could have been done with it, as was with all the other Fighter Bombers.
I get what you are saying, but I am not sure what else we would do with it.
It does have the distinction of being the only US land-based fighter-bomber. And flexibility is indeed the key attribute of these aircraft. The other US choice is the expensive (and uber-powerful) USN Corsair.
What it will replace for me (some of the time) was putting a P-38G on a Forward Air Base to get that flexibility (plus use every turn). The cost will be a little better with the "F." Two of these on the land base is better than one P-38G on the FAB even if the "G" was 8 points. However, that only works if you have space on the land base.
The Forward Air Base was mostly conceived as a way to give "non-carrier" nations a way to expand their air game a bit. It can't take an objective, but it has the armor stats of a CV for the cost and capacity of a CVE. And it is "immune" to torpedoes.
Nice reply thanks; I'm not going to beat a dead horse here; the cards done it is what it is.
I was in the camp a little extra could have been given at no cost, just me.
We like to talk a bit about comparing the F4u-1d Corsair as a fighter bomber to others,
but when you look at both spectrums of the Corsair it is worth the 3 points over the 190A3 as a land based plane and the 3 points of the Firefly f mk1 as a carrier based plane.
Don't know how those point cost came to be, but it looks right to me.
To me, I see a solid utility unit that will effectively help with the air placement game. It's going to be strong against cruisers and under as well as patrol bombers. It'll help free up your stronger air units to be effective elsewhere while itself being a thorn in the side.
It's not going to get the glory, but it'll definitely be an unsung hero
I'd say it's ready for play testing
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea