Combined arms suggestion

[Gargantua]

Ultimately we are all playing a game.

And as a game mechanic - combined arms should only reward the side that has combined arms. (So as to encourage its use).

Implementing rules to discourage fundamental activities is generally a poor practice.

Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.

Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.

Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchas3 with powerful capabilities.

[Narvik]

@Tamer:

thus each plane can only represent approximately 32 planes, a decent sized squadron.Â

Now that is some expensive planes, 10 IPC for 32 planes, while you get a Panzer Corps with 500 Tanks and 50 000 men for 6 IPC. And if you are correct, I think the game start set up is short of some hundred aircraft units, since a power like Germany had more than 10 000 planes when the game start in 1940. I figure a fighter unit represent something between like 250 or 500 planes, and a Bomber unit maybe 50 units, or I could be wrong of course

[Caesar-Seriona]

@taamvan:

How do you know that a carrier piece doesn’t represent an entire carrier group of fleet carriers, escort carriers, seaplane tenders, tankers and destroyer escorts, and that then, the fighter is more like dozens and dozens of operational aircraft of various types?

Step 7, deploy imagination :D

I always pictured ships being 1 for 1 with the exception of transports. An aircraft piece to me is a wing.

[knp7765]

@Gargantua:

Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.

Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.

Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchas3 with powerful capabilities.

I lobbied for an AA ability for cruisers when people were discussing the worth of cruisers vs. their cost. This would give each ship class a certain ability and maybe make cruisers more worth the 12 IPC cost.
Submarines = surprise strike and convoy raiding
Destroyers = ability to cancel submarine abilities
Cruisers = anti-aircraft ability and shore bombardment
Battleships = 2 hits to sink and shore bombardment
Carriers = 2 hits to sink and carry planes

Any time a naval force that includes aircraft attacks an enemy naval force that includes cruiser(s), the cruiser(s) act like anti-aircraft guns and roll 1 die per attacking aircraft and hit @ 1 before regular combat round. Any hits are immediately destroyed.
Also, you could limit each cruiser like the AA guns on land to only 3 shots per cruiser.

[Ichabod]

@knp7765:

@Gargantua:

Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.

Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.

Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchas3 with powerful capabilities.  Â

I lobbied for an AA ability for cruisers when people were discussing the worth of cruisers vs. their cost. This would give each ship class a certain ability and maybe make cruisers more worth the 12 IPC cost.
Submarines = surprise strike and convoy raiding
Destroyers = ability to cancel submarine abilities
Cruisers = anti-aircraft ability and shore bombardment
Battleships = 2 hits to sink and shore bombardment
Carriers = 2 hits to sink and carry planes

Any time a naval force that includes aircraft attacks an enemy naval force that includes cruiser(s), the cruiser(s) act like anti-aircraft guns and roll 1 die per attacking aircraft and hit @ 1 before regular combat round. Any hits are immediately destroyed.
Also, you could limit each cruiser like the AA guns on land to only 3 shots per cruiser.

This is off topic of YG’s post. But I see the cruiser AAA idea as always coming back.

It’s really hard to overcome Naval superiority and achieve a good outcome as an attacker. In order to win naval battles, you have to tip/take carriers as casualties to preserve the dice throwing units for the 2nd/3rd battle round. It’s hard to determine the amount of lost planes (carrier casualties) is the right amount or not. If play aggressive on your attack to ensure you win the battle, you could lose a ton of planes (pyrrhic). If you attack conservatively, you could maybe lose the battle because you were taking dice throwing units as casualties rather than 2 hit points per carrier.

Therefore, if I were playing that house rule idea of the cruisers getting up to 3 @1 dice AAA shots, I’d want it as a defender AND attacker.

PS:  Ironically, destroyers, carriers, battleships, and cruisers are the ships with the most/best effective AAA in real life in that order (cruisers lest effective AAA).

[CWO Marc]

@Ichabod:

PS:  Ironically, destroyers, carriers, battleships, and cruisers are the ships with the most/best effective AAA in real life in that order (cruisers lest effective AAA).

I’m having trouble grasping the rationale for that description.  On an individual-ship basis, and talking about the real WWII rather than the A&A rules, battleships would arguably be the best (because carried the greatest number of AAA guns), destroyers would arguably be the worst (because carried the smallest number), and cruisers would be somewhere in the middle.  On a collective basis, and still talking about the real world, destroyers would arguably be the best and battleships would arguably be the worst (and cruisers would be somewhere in the middle) because destroyers were cheaper to build (and thus could be built in larger numbers, and deployed in a fleet in larger numbers) than cruisers, with the same relationship applying between cruisers and battleships.  So from both perspectives, cruisers are in the middle of the AAA effectiveness scale rather than at one end of it.

Actually, that could perhaps be an angle to use to solve the A&A cruiser problem: create for destroyers, cruisers and battleships some kind of two-factor relationship (how much each unit costs and how much AAA firepower each unit has) which, when the two factors are put together, results in cruisers having an AAA cost-benefit ratio which is superior to the destroyer AAA cost-benefit ratio and the battleship AAA cost-benefit ratio.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

When developing Radar in my R&D rules, Cruisers also get the ability to use radar. I don’t give them AA shots though because that’s not how radar worked backed in the 1940’s. The technology didn’t help you target the enemy it just showed you where they were. So the way it works in my game is if you have developed the tech then the presence of your cruiser (either offence or defence) in a sz means that all enemy aircraft are -1 in the first round of combat. This is to simulate the loss of effectiveness in that they don’t have the element of surprise on their side. It is assumed that they would communicate the location of the planes with the other ships in their group just just a Destroyer would with the presence of a Submarine. All Cruisers have the ability to transport my Special Forces Units as well so the cost at 12 IPC’s is worth it.

[CWO Marc]

@GeneralHandGrenade:

When developing Radar in my R&D rules, Cruisers also get the ability to use radar. I don’t give them AA shots though because that’s not how radar worked backed in the 1940’s. The technology didn’t help you target the enemy it just showed you where they were.

Actually, radar was used for targeting purposes in some WWII-era gun-fire control systems.  An example would be the Iowa class battleships, whose 16-inch guns were controlled by three MK 38 Gun Fire Control Systems, and whose 5-inch dual-purpose (anti-air and anti-surface) batteries were controlled by four MK 37 Gun Fire Control Systems (whose radar technology was upgraded a couple of times during WWII).  The radars of these GFCS didn’t just show where the enemy was; they provided some of the data from which fire-control solutions were computed, solutions which in turn were used to target the guns accurately.

[Ichabod]

@CWO:

@Ichabod:

PS:�  Ironically, destroyers, carriers, battleships, and cruisers are the ships with the most/best effective AAA in real life in that order (cruisers lest effective AAA).

I’m having trouble grasping the rationale for that description.�

I don’t know exactly myself; but I’m regurgitating information from a retired Navy Sailors I trust who served on the same kind of destroyers from that era. Destroyers, were the main ships for the defense of carriers; hence more AAA guns per the size of the ship. Cruisers were shore bombardment mainly, battleships were designed to slug it against other surface warships and withstand returning punishment. Sorry if you can’t grasp that. All ships have AAA guns.

[CWO Marc]

Focussing mainly on the US Navy for the sake of brevity: battleships, cruisers and destroyers all had multiple functions, and within each of these three types of ships there existed a variety of designs optimized for different functions.  To start with the most relevant example: the USN (as did the Royal Navy) had a number of specialized anti-aircraft cruisers (CLAA) such as the Atlanta class, which carried no 6-inch guns (as did light cruisers) and no 8-inch guns (as did heavy cruisers); instead, the Atlantas carried 16 x 5-inch guns, 16 x 27mm guns and 6 x 20mm guns, which is more AAA firepower than a conventional US light cruiser of the time carried.  So it has to be kept in mind that the word “cruiser” covers at least three different types of ships (light, heavy, and anti-aircraft), and arguably five or more types of ships if you add ultra-light Italian-type “destroyer leader” cruisers at the low end and the various types of battlecruisers and super-heavy cruisers at the high end.

The roles you describe for the three ship types were indeed one part of their respective function, but not their only (or even their defining) function.  Destroyers were “maids of all work”: they were used for anti-aircraft defense, but they were also used for ASW (anti-submarine warfare), as shore-bombardment vessels (example: the USS Corry, DD-463, was sunk on D-Day in a duel with a German shore battery), as convoy escorts and so forth.  At the opposite end: battleships were originally designed and intended for surface slugging matches against other battleships, but by WWII that role was being overtaken by events; in WWII, they spent more time fulfiling other jobs.  Fast battleships, for example, got used a lot in the USN as escort vessels for fast carrier task forces, while slower battleships were used as shore-bombardment vessels to support amphibious landings.

[Loose Moose]

While I do not play any of the global games, and do play a lot of Pacific 2001 version, I do have a comment.  We have added a “cruiser unit” to the game…cost is 14…attacks and defends at 3…the cruiser and the battleship have anti-air capabilities.  We allow them to roll 1 die that hits at 1 for each attacking aircraft ( max 3 die per ship).  This roll occurs first, and any aircraft losses are removed from play immediately with no chance to return fire.  This AA roll occurs in the first round only.  Everyone seems to like it.
Adding the cruiser to the lineup did require us to lower the cost and capabilities of the destroyers however.

[Fiera]

We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Fiera:

We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=10&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=10&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=7&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=7&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

[General 6 Stars]

Do your 3 hit battships get reduced in A D values ? Like I’m assuming yr using D6 die in game, so a battleship with 1 hit A3 D3, with 2 hits it A2 D2 ?

I kinda like the 2 hit cruiser. What u think of these values ?

Battleship = C18 A4 D4 M2 takes 2 hits and gets a AA shot at up to 3 planes or 1 plane.
Or just remove the AA shot.

Cruiser = C14 A3 D3 M2 takes 2 hits.

The game does need more cruisers in it.

Now I play with D12 in my games and that gives u more flex abilities towards A D values.
I could make both ships drop 1 or 2 in A D values per damaged hit.

Like Battleship goes to A7 D7 on 1 hit and A5 D5 on 2 hits.

Cruiser goes to A4 D4 on 1 hit.

What if u tried your C12 cruiser went to A2 D2 on 1 hit for D6 ?

May have to agree with Baron on maybe 3 hit battleship is to strong for C20.
We do have in one game where Japan can build only 1 Yama Battleship with 3 hits starting on Turn 3  and A9 D9 and costs 24.

[baron Münchhausen]

I prefer to always give same combat values, even if damaged. Less complexity.
If I introduced 2 hits Cruiser, it would cost 15 IPCs, to be better than DD in pure combat but not too much. (68% vs 31% odds of survival)

To solve the 3 hits OP BB issue, I would play it that way:
1 hit damaged BB, same as OOB.
2 hits crippled BB, next time a hit is allocated to a BB this unit must be taken as casualty.
Considered this one as a smoking target painted with a red cross, all enemies want to sink her at all cost.
That way, the additional hit get less impact on overall combat.
At 14 IPCs, Cruiser would be even in combat with 3 hits Battleship as above, that’s why it needs also to be put at 15 IPCs.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=14&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=14&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-dBat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

When 20 Cruiser A3 D3 C15 2 hits vs 15 BB A4 D4 C20 3 hits (crippled is first target):
17% vs 82%  for BB,
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=15&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=15&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-dBat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
it is less unbalanced than the OOB usual casualty selection at 9% vs 90%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=15&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=15&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

According to these given conditions, padding a fleet with DDs when you can afford BBs as backbone will not be a good choice. It seems to place warships according to their sturdiness, DD is cheap but a tin can, Cruiser is better but if you can pay 5 additional IPCs you get the best out of a Battleship.

And Submarines remain very cost effective against 3 hits BBs and 2 hits Cruiser while DD is still the ASW.

As soon as I get a chance, I will try it.
In addition, there is no need to give AAA to Cruiser and BB because their combat values has radically improved against Fighter at 10 IPCs.

[Fiera]

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Fiera:

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

If keeping 14 IPCs Cruiser and full 3 hits BB, I would suggest to put Destroyer at 7 IPCs and Subs at 5 IPCs.
That way DD vs CA will be 50% odds. And 3 hits BB remains better than DDs.
So, if you need ASW you buy DD, if you want ShoreB and more hits, Cruiser or BB.

Sub A2 D1 C5 may compensate for less useful surprise strike, but 6 IPCs is still good price.
Also, this C5 may increase action in Atlantic for Germany more willingly use Subs as fodders for Air raid against UK and US fleet.

TcB should be lowered to 10 IPCs to slightly compensate for the high increase in strength of CA and BB vs aircrafts.

Might be fun this roster with heavier warships. :-)

SS A2 D1 C5, 1 hit (or C6)
DD A2 D2 C7, 1 hit
TP A0 D0 C7, 1 hit
CA A3 D3 C14, 2 hits, SB @3
CV A0 D2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
BB A4 D4 C20, 3 hits, SB @4

TP might be lower to 6 IPCs. And this will totally increase action in water without adding too much heavier ships such like Advanced Shipyard Tech would.
You built sturdier but still a high cost.

[General 6 Stars]

@Fiera:

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

Yes for UK, Italy and Anzac it will make the cruiser better. I like it. Now instead of buying a carrier in are game and place on west side of S Africa and send to Anzac for Anzac figs to give them a boost for island take over.
Will have to see how cruiser is now for Anzac.

Italy in our game starts with 2 cruisers and UK with 2 cruisers if they send one from India for the med.

Also in are game US can LL Anzac and UK can buy up to 2 pieces a turn for Anzac. If UK decides to buy some cruisers for Anzac then they better get 1 or 2 victory city’s for sure to make up the less money spent in Europe.
US will have to build more cruisers in Pacific because Japan has more unless US still just buys carriers. Will see.

I crunched the numbers with Baron. He also recommend the cost for cruiser be 15. I’m gonna go with C14 because I lowered the AD value by 1. I use D12 die in my games.
Cruiser C14 A5 D5  SB 4. 2 hits

Let me know in your game how much more cruisers were bought in the Pacific region.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Fiera:

**We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.**
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.

G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1682831#msg1682831

[Fiera]

@Baron:

Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.

You are welcome Baron, good to know that I was helpful to you. And a big sorry to YG!  :oops: