[Global 1940] 10 sides dice

[baron Münchhausen]

As a starting scale on D10:
                        OOB
Inf A2-3 D3       A17-33% D33%
MI A2-3 D3       Same
Art A3 D3          A33% D33%
AAA A0 D2       A0       D17%
Tk A5 D5          A50% D50%

Fg A5 D7          A50% D67%
TcB A5-7 D5    A50-67% D50%
StB A7 D2        A67% D17%

SS A3 D2        A33% D17%
DD A3 D3       A33% D33%
CA A6 D6 (or A5 D5) A50% D50%
CV A0 D3        A0 D33%
BB A7 D7        A67% D67%

Is it what you will use?

I would probably ponder about AAA, StB and Sub defense values.
Maybe the weak odds are more realistic @1 out of 10 instead of rising them to 20%.

I might go this way:
AAA A0 D1 vs up to 3 planes but lower cost to 3 IPCs each.
OOB you get near 50% when 3 planes targeted for 5 IPCs: 10% per IPC.
Here you keep same ratio: 30% for 3 IPCs: 10% per IPC.

StB A7 D1
Bombers were made for offense and already very good at it.

Sub A3 D2
Because Subs on defense are usually trapped by planes and 1 DD.
The game mechanic make Subs too much vulnerable. Defense @2 is a small compensation.

I would prefer TcB A6-7 D5, that way combined arms simply gives +1A to Inf, MI and TcB.
Fg A5 D7 vs TcB A6 D5 seems a nice way to make both planes different.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

I am purely interesting in a D10 only for calculating odds as working in 10’s is easier than 6’s.

Calculating odds for large battle is much easier on an AACalc or TripleA calc.
What other kind of way to apply odds do you have in mind?

[Caesar-Seriona]

Paper and pen, the group I play with forbid any online calculation so I thought about this D10 idea.

[baron Münchhausen]

IDK many methods to approximate hits on a single combat round beside adding att vs def points and dividing by 6.

With base 10, numbers will be higher, but easier to see when you get a hit because the first digit will tell : x4,  14 = 1 hit, 34 = 3 hits, etc.
Do you know better method to forcast outcomes?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

As a starting scale on D10:
                         OOB
Inf A2-3 D3       A17-33% D33%
MI A2-3 D3       Same
Art A3 D3          A33% D33%
AAA A0 D2       A0       D17%
Tk A5 D5          A50% D50%

Fg A5 D7          A50% D67%
TcB A5-7 D5    A50-67% D50%
StB A7 D2        A67% D17%

SS A3 D2        A33% D17%
DD A3 D3       A33% D33%
CA A6 D6 (or A5 D5) A50% D50%
CV A0 D3        A0 D33%
BB A7 D7        A67% D67%

Is it what you will use?

I would probably ponder about AAA, StB and Sub defense values.
Maybe the weak odds are more realistic @1 out of 10 instead of rising them to 20%.

I might go this way:
AAA A0 D1 vs up to 3 planes but lower cost to 3 IPCs each.
OOB you get near 50% when 3 planes targeted for 5 IPCs: 10% per IPC.
Here you keep same ratio: 30% for 3 IPCs: 10% per IPC.

StB A7 D1
Bombers were made for offense and already very good at it.

Sub A3 D2
Because Subs on defense are usually trapped by planes and 1 DD.
The game mechanic make Subs too much vulnerable. Defense @2 is a small compensation.

I would prefer TcB A6-7 D5, that way combined arms simply gives +1A to Inf, MI and TcB.
Fg A5 D7 vs TcB A6 D5 seems a nice way to make both planes different.

Another aspect which might be better scaled is in SBR combat values:
Fighter A1 D1 (17%) may become A2 D2 on D10 base. (20%)
TcB A1 D- (17%) may becomes A2 D-  (20%)
StB A1 D- (17%) may keep A1 D- (10%)

IC’s AAA (17%) may also keep @1 (10%) on each StB.

StBs and AAA will be lowered while Fg and TcB get a slight increase but becomes far more efficient in air-to-air combat compared to StB.
This IMO is a better compromise than BalanceMode and OOB dogfight values.
You may even keep a better historical feel to give interceptors an advantage like:
Fg A2 D3.
This 3: 2 ratio is weaker than 2:1 (D6 base) of G40 first edition SBR.

Using D10 provides opportunity to correct various distortion created by D6 limited options for combat values.

[General 6 Stars]

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

So I am about to buy G40 for all my friends to play but I always wanted to use 10 side dice instead of the standard 6 side because it makes math easier to use so the point of this post is that I want to properly adjust units attack and defense according, what do you think this should be. For example, infantry attack at 1 so with a ten sides, should it be 2 or 3 attack?

Just wondering, why a D10? Might be easier to use a D12.
Not sure if it works with a D10 as how will you handle 1@6  should be 1,6@10

I use D12 because you get that flexibility of that 1 or 2 extra number compared to a D10.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@SS:

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

So I am about to buy G40 for all my friends to play but I always wanted to use 10 side dice instead of the standard 6 side because it makes math easier to use so the point of this post is that I want to properly adjust units attack and defense according, what do you think this should be. For example, infantry attack at 1 so with a ten sides, should it be 2 or 3 attack?

Just wondering, why a D10? Might be easier to use a D12.
Not sure if it works with a D10 as how will you handle 1@6  should be 1,6@10

I use D12 because you get that flexibility of that 1 or 2 extra number compared to a D10.

With D12, the logic would be to simply double your numbers and your odds don’t change.

[CWO Marc]

@Caesar:

With D12, the logic would be to simply double your numbers and your odds don’t change.

I wonder.  If you look at the way conventional 6-sided dice work, a single die produces precisely equal odds for each of the six roll possibilities – but as soon as you move to two (or more) dice, the probability distribution becomes a bell curve rather than a straight line.  A change from 1d6 to 1d12 may similarly not be quite straightforward in terms of the math involved.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Test it out and see if anything changes.

[timerover51]

@Caesar:

With D12, the logic would be to simply double your numbers and your odds don’t change.

Actually, I have used 12-sided die, but have not simply doubled all of the numbers, depending on what version I am playing.  I use the D12 to get greater differentiation between various units, and in some cases, nationalities.  The Italian infantry division in World War 2 had only two regiments, instead of just about everyone else having 3 regiments.  As a result, should have different values than other infantry units, but with a D6 that is not possible. With a D12, you can give the Italian infantry a different attack and defense factor than the other infantry units.  Similarly, the best Japanese tank was about on par with the US M3/M5 light tank series, and nowhere comparable to either the M3 Grant/Lee Medium or the M4 Sherman, and they showed little ability to use tanks in mass, preferring to deploy them in company-sized units with the infantry.  Rather than having the Japanese armor attack at 6 and defend at 4, I have them attacking at 3 and defending at 4.  The defense factor is based on the Japanese willingness to literally fight to the last man, and their ability to camouflage tanks in defensive positions.

You can alter ship attack and defense values in the same way.  Maybe you give a destroyer a 6 for attacking submarines, but a 4 for attacking surface ships, and depending on the navy, anywhere from 1 to 6 for engaging aircraft.  Japanese destroyers were seriously deficient in light anti-aircraft weapons, while the US Fletcher-class ships would have been rated by the Royal Navy as anti-aircraft cruisers. From this, you might want to give a US destroyer a defense strength of 6 against aircraft.  A D12 also makes it easier to put cruisers in the game, inbetween the destroyer and battleship.

There is a lot more you can do with a D12 dice than simply double the standard numbers.

[taamvan]

yes d12 is superior because it is more similar to the existing system, which can then be used as a baseline.

FMG version has different attack powers for damaged vs undamaged capital ships, for example.  And attack and defense.  88 guns could have an outrageous price but then fire at air and be artillery at the same time…

Like you suggested, “The War Game” spinoff has different costs for the different nations, adding the complexity of having different attacks/defense for each nation isn’t a stretch.

Only problem is then that since there are quite a few units that already need a tweak (tactical bomber) you’d need to cost the units appropriately, (so japan and ital. tanks are like 4, not 6, bc they’re junk.  Italian mech could be 1;1;2;2 tankettes lol) then you’re adding a big leap of complexity.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@timerover51:

@Caesar:

With D12, the logic would be to simply double your numbers and your odds don’t change.

Actually, I have used 12-sided die, but have not simply doubled all of the numbers, depending on what version I am playing.  I use the D12 to get greater differentiation between various units, and in some cases, nationalities.  The Italian infantry division in World War 2 had only two regiments, instead of just about everyone else having 3 regiments.  As a result, should have different values than other infantry units, but with a D6 that is not possible. With a D12, you can give the Italian infantry a different attack and defense factor than the other infantry units.  Similarly, the best Japanese tank was about on par with the US M3/M5 light tank series, and nowhere comparable to either the M3 Grant/Lee Medium or the M4 Sherman, and they showed little ability to use tanks in mass, preferring to deploy them in company-sized units with the infantry.  Rather than having the Japanese armor attack at 6 and defend at 4, I have them attacking at 3 and defending at 4.  The defense factor is based on the Japanese willingness to literally fight to the last man, and their ability to camouflage tanks in defensive positions.

You can alter ship attack and defense values in the same way.  Maybe you give a destroyer a 6 for attacking submarines, but a 4 for attacking surface ships, and depending on the navy, anywhere from 1 to 6 for engaging aircraft.  Japanese destroyers were seriously deficient in light anti-aircraft weapons, while the US Fletcher-class ships would have been rated by the Royal Navy as anti-aircraft cruisers. From this, you might want to give a US destroyer a defense strength of 6 against aircraft.  A D12 also makes it easier to put cruisers in the game, inbetween the destroyer and battleship.

There is a lot more you can do with a D12 dice than simply double the standard numbers.

Yeah but since when has Axis and Allies ever take into account equipment and which unit it is attacking to determine what damage is done?

[timerover51]

That is when house rules come into play.  Also, looking at how other games handle combat, like Xeno Games which uses an 8-sided die.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I mean we could always go for broke and adjust attacks and defense based on D20.

[baron Münchhausen]

10 sided dices can be easily purchase in 50 dice packs.
My local store only sell such package.

That is a plus, the cost is low compared to buying a multiple sides dices pack to get 12-sided.

[baron Münchhausen]

Scale on D10:

| **Unit
type  ** |     | **D10 com.
values  ** | **OOB odds
offense  ** | **OOB odds
defense  ** | OOB values |

| Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Mechanized
Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Artillery | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Anti-Aircraft
Artillery | A0 D1 | 0% | 17% |             | A0 D1 |
| Tank | A5 D5 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Fighter | A5 D7 | 50% | 67% |             | A3 D4 |
| Tactical
Bomber | A6-7 D5 | 50-67% | 50% |             | A3-4 D3 |
| Strategic
Bomber | A6 D2 | 67% | 17% |             | A4 D1 |
| Submarine | A3 D2 | 33% | 17% |             | A2 D1 |
| Destroyer | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Cruiser | A6 D6 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Carrier | A0 D3 | 0% | 33% |             | A0 D2 |
| Battleship | A7 D7 | 67% | 67% |             | A4 D4 |

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser     strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

Even such cost structure would not solve the warships DD vs Cruiser vs BB issue.
D8 allows it, because it goes from DD@2 25%, CA@5 62.5%, BB@6 75%:
Destroyer    A2 D2 (0.563 / 0.563)
Destroyer    A3 D3 (0.844 / 0.844)
Cruiser        A5 D5  (0.625 / 0.625)
Battleship    A6 D6   (0.707 / 0.707)

So, buying cheap you get weaker unit but costlier it becomes stronger, as it is suppose to be.

Is it what you will use?

I would probably ponder about AAA, StB and Sub defense values.
Maybe the weak odds are more realistic @1 out of 10 instead of rising them to 20%.

I might go this way:
AAA A0 D1 vs up to 3 planes but lower cost to 3 IPCs each.
OOB you get near 50% when 3 planes targeted for 5 IPCs: 10% per IPC.
Here you keep same ratio: 30% for 3 IPCs: 10% per IPC.

StB A7 D1
Bombers were made for offense and already very good at it.

Sub A3 D2
Because Subs on defense are usually trapped by planes and 1 DD.
The game mechanic make Subs too much vulnerable. Defense @2 is a small compensation.

I would prefer TcB A6-7 D5, that way combined arms simply gives +1A to Inf, MI and TcB.
Fg A5 D7 vs TcB A6 D5 seems a nice way to make both planes different.

[barney]

Haven’t followed this too closely, but how many play ftf with an electronic dice roller ? Always enjoyed rolling dice but the larger battles, mostly late game, can become a bit tedious.

Baron makes a good case for D8. First saw it on YGs thread. Sounded interesting. Anyway, large naval battles can have such a major swing with large tuv involved, especially if one rolls poorly the first rd, if the D8 wouldn’t provide a better system combined with a smaller deviation from the D6

[Erocco]

@Baron:

Scale on D10:

| **Unit
type  ** |     | **D10 com.
values  ** | **OOB odds
offense  ** | **OOB odds
defense  ** | OOB values |

| Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Mechanized
Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Artillery | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Anti-Aircraft
Artillery | A0 D1 | 0% | 17% |             | A0 D1 |
| Tank | A5 D5 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Fighter | A5 D7 | 50% | 67% |             | A3 D4 |
| Tactical
Bomber | A6-7 D5 | 50-67% | 50% |             | A3-4 D3 |
| Strategic
Bomber | A6 D2 | 67% | 17% |             | A4 D1 |
| Submarine | A3 D2 | 33% | 17% |             | A2 D1 |
| Destroyer | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Cruiser | A6 D6 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Carrier | A0 D3 | 0% | 33% |             | A0 D2 |
| Battleship | A7 D7 | 67% | 67% |             | A4 D4 |

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser     strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

Even such cost structure would not solve the warships DD vs Cruiser vs BB issue.
D8 allows it, because it goes from DD@2 25%, CA@5 62.5%, BB@6 75%:
Destroyer    A2 D2 (0.563 / 0.563)
Destroyer    A3 D3 (0.844 / 0.844)
Cruiser        A5 D5  (0.625 / 0.625)
Battleship    A6 D6   (0.707 / 0.707)

So, buying cheap you get weaker unit but costlier it becomes stronger, as it is suppose to be.

I like your D10 numbers with the exception of the TB with attack of 6/7. I would change that to A5/A6. With that change the strategic bomber in comparison to the tactical bomber will be a bit weak at A6 and overall too powerful at A7. I am not an AAG40 expert but I believe people are complaining that strategic bombers are too powerful at 67% odds of attack, imagine that at 70%. In any case strategic bombers need a bit of rule nerfing. I like what they did for Global War.

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

What do the numbers mean? My Friday afternoon brain cannot figure it out.

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

add an arbitrary 1001/6= 16.667…
So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.66731 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)