G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[mAIOR]

@barnee Do you explicitly have escort carriers or do you abstract them?

[barnee]

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@barnee Do you explicitly have escort carriers or do you abstract them?

Sorry mAIOR could you dumb that down for me a little bit. i’m not sure what you’re asking :)

[barnee]

Do you mean if they’re real ? Sorry dude legitimately don’t know, but if so, yea an actual unit:

Pilots got pissed since they didn’t get any accolades

[mAIOR]

@barnee Yes, I was asking if they were a real unit ^^

I was thinking about ways of abstracting them into DD squadrons as a form of general ASW units or fleet destroyers depending on where they were placed.

[barnee]

@mAIOR

right on. I kinda got the abstract thing it was the other that threw me. How’s the playtest going ?

[mAIOR]

@barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

right on. I kinda got the abstract thing it was the other that threw me. How’s the playtest going ?

Early days. I hope to get the brunt of it done over the weekend with proper 10k rolls and stuff like that. So far it feels good.

Submarines seem to be useful for hit and run tactics if they can escape. I ended up choosing for naval scale, BBs represent 2 ships and CVs represent either 4 light carriers or two fleet carriers (so that the air wing size of 100 planes makes sense).

I am redoing OOB in my spare time for the game as well so we have a more accurate force composition to the situation in 1940.

Oh and I think only Japanese and American carriers will be able to load 2 air wings at the start too. British and German carriers had quite smaller air wings (but had armoured decks so maybe an extra hitpoint?).

[barnee]

@mAIOR

Right on. I got ya now. You’re trying to decide how many dudes a unit represents. Kinda ? Anyway, you’ll still use the minatures to represent. Looking forward to what you come up with.

[mAIOR]

@barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

Right on. I got ya now. You’re trying to decide how many dudes a unit represents. Kinda ? Anyway, you’ll still use the minatures to represent. Looking forward to what you come up with.

Yeah. I feel it can make the game more consistent. One thing that always bothered me was the on off combat system for instance where you “killed” a unit in combat in one hit. These units are meant to represent divisions or something (I think corps is the better scale for this game) a division or a corp doesn’t disappear in one hit. And ships being fully destroyed was not that common either and neither were air wings. You could damage it but more likely than not it wouldn’t be all the planes in a wing would be shot down.

So yeah, trying to make it more consistent and then balancing it around it.

[barnee]

@mAIOR

sounds good. triplea allows units to take multiple hits so, if you ever want to try and convert it to digital it may be possible. Not as fun necessarily, but as Black Elk says, it’s a lot easier to test stuff that way.

[baron Münchhausen]

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

right on. I kinda got the abstract thing it was the other that threw me. How’s the playtest going ?

Early days. I hope to get the brunt of it done over the weekend with proper 10k rolls and stuff like that. So far it feels good.

Submarines seem to be useful for hit and run tactics if they can escape. I ended up choosing for naval scale, BBs represent 2 ships and CVs represent either 4 light carriers or two fleet carriers (so that the air wing size of 100 planes makes sense).

I am redoing OOB in my spare time for the game as well so we have a more accurate force composition to the situation in 1940.

Oh and I think only Japanese and American carriers will be able to load 2 air wings at the start too. British and German carriers had quite smaller air wings (but had armoured decks so maybe an extra hitpoint?).

IMO, you should enlarge your scale:
1 Fighter: Escort or Light Carrier
2 Fighters: UK’s Carrier
3 Fighters: US or IJN Carriers

Yes there is at least one thread talking about different way of scaling Carriers.
Here is how I see the scaling in combat power:

a) 1 hit, 1 aircraft (this one is usually around 9 or 10 IPCs) I prefer 9 (scale of 3 IPCs)
b) 1 hit, 2 aircraft (may use a 12 IPCs range, like it is in OOB 1941)
c) 1 hit, 3 aircraft (maybe at 15 IPCs, it would be correctly incremented)
d) 2 hits, 2 aircraft OOB G40 at 16 IPCs
e) 2 hits, 3 aircraft at 20 IPCs (because it is well rounded, lol)

Now, it is up to you to decide for A/D capacity.
We have seen:
A0 D1, 1 hit
A1 D1, 1 hit
A0 D2, 2 hits
A1 D2, 1 hit (1941 and 1942)
A1 D2, 2 hits (1942 Redesigned version actually tested on WW2, V5 TripleA map)
A1 D3, 2 hits My own houserule with Fg A2 D2 on board.
A1 vs D3 was needed to help a Full Carrier being better at defense than offense because my Fighter type is even offense/defense.

Giving a minimal attack factor to Carrier help makes all warships equal because with “0” you get a special capacity rule: like it was a defenseless Transport but is not, may it enter a Sub infested zone with escort or not, etc.

[mAIOR]

@baron-Münchhausen Hmmmmm… I have issues with that. As I said, I don’t want a single hit to completely remove aircraft. And remember that I am considering that each carrier figure represents 2 fleet carriers or 4 light carriers so capacities are similar. Carriers outside of the US at this scale will have half capacity and maybe an extra hitpoint (because they had armoured decks).

As I said, I will try this over the weekend and will get some results for Monday.

[baron Münchhausen]

@mAIOR
I don’t see why you cannot use 3 planes Carrier.

Also, with half damaged aircraft sculpt, you are going to a lot of micromanaging stuff. Are you sure you want to go that way? It will be detrimental to overall strategy gaming experience.

By suggesting 3 planes, instead of doubling the number of sculpt. Which is not possible on actual plastic carrier. You can go from 2 toward 3. x1.5 increase in numbers of aircraft. A Fighter A3 D4 C10 is of similar strength per IPC invested to Fg A1.5 D2 C7. And you get 3 Fighter C7 for about the cost of 2 Fighter C10.

It is possible to work with 1914 values for Fighter.
Even Fighter cost 6 A2 D2, if Tank worth 5 IPCs.
TcB cost 7 A3 D2.
On your set up, for each pair of Fg or TcB, you can add 1 aircraft of your choice (either Fg or TcB).
It remains within workable size when going for the first game round with more and more units on board, which take more times to figure and move toward a specific location for combat.

HTH

[baron Münchhausen]

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@baron-Münchhausen Hmmmmm… I have issues with that. As I said, I don’t want a single hit to completely remove aircraft. And remember that I am considering that each carrier figure represents 2 fleet carriers or 4 light carriers so capacities are similar. Carriers outside of the US at this scale will have half capacity and maybe an extra hitpoint (because they had armoured decks).

As I said, I will try this over the weekend and will get some results for Monday.

Another way to increase the number of warships sculpts (without going nuts with plastic chips under each unit) on your map board is to reduce their relative strength and cost. For instance, using:
Destroyer A1 D1 Cost 5 is a tool.
That way, your
Cruiser can be A2 D2 Cost 7
Carrier A0 D1 Cost 8, 1 hit, 3 planes (USN and IJN)
Carrier A0 D2 Cost 10-11 or 12, 2 hits, 2 planes (RN)
Battleship A3 D3, 2 hits Cost 12

This is just an example of scaling down warships roster so for the same number of IPCs group, you have more units in a given SZ, for a similar firepower.

So instead of a Full Carrier of 36 IPCs with only 2 Fighters.
You get (suppose Fg A2 D2 Cost 6): same for 22 IPCs.
(26 IPCs) USN and IJN Carrier A0 D1 Cost 8, 1 hit and 3 Fg (18 IPCs)
(22-23-24 IPCs) RN Carrier A0 D2 Cost 10-11-12, 2 hits and 2 Fg (12 IPCs)

In the last case, you mostly get 3 RN full Carrier (66-69-72 range) for the cost of 2 OOB fully loaded Carrier (72 IPCs).

[General 6 Stars]

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

right on. I kinda got the abstract thing it was the other that threw me. How’s the playtest going ?

Early days. I hope to get the brunt of it done over the weekend with proper 10k rolls and stuff like that. So far it feels good.

Submarines seem to be useful for hit and run tactics if they can escape. I ended up choosing for naval scale, BBs represent 2 ships and CVs represent either 4 light carriers or two fleet carriers (so that the air wing size of 100 planes makes sense).

I am redoing OOB in my spare time for the game as well so we have a more accurate force composition to the situation in 1940.

Oh and I think only Japanese and American carriers will be able to load 2 air wings at the start too. British and German carriers had quite smaller air wings (but had armoured decks so maybe an extra hitpoint?).

So I see where your going now. Something to this effect.

BB= 2 BB’s. 4 hits each BB
CR= 2 CR’s. 3 or 4 hits each CR.
AC= 2 AC’s or 4 EscAC. US, Jap 2 hits each AC. 2 or 3 planes.
AC= 2 AC’s or 4 EscAC. UK, Ger 3 or 4 hits each AC. 2 planes. 1 or 2 dam 1 plane only.
DD= 1 ship. 1 hit each ship
SS= 1 ship. 1 hit each sub
Fig = 2 planes. 2 hits each fig plane
Tac= 2 planes. 2 hits each Tac plane
Stg.= 2 planes. 2 hits each Stg plane

maybe your planes could be fig = 3 planes 2 hits.
What ever you feel is historic. Basically you looking for correct hit status based on Divisions or corps like you mentioned. Ground is a different animal a bit.

[General 6 Stars]

@baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@baron-Münchhausen Hmmmmm… I have issues with that. As I said, I don’t want a single hit to completely remove aircraft. And remember that I am considering that each carrier figure represents 2 fleet carriers or 4 light carriers so capacities are similar. Carriers outside of the US at this scale will have half capacity and maybe an extra hitpoint (because they had armoured decks).

As I said, I will try this over the weekend and will get some results for Monday.

Another way to increase the number of warships sculpts (without going nuts with plastic chips under each unit) on your map board is to reduce their relative strength and cost. For instance, using:
Destroyer A1 D1 Cost 5 is a tool.
That way, your
Cruiser can be A2 D2 Cost 7
Carrier A0 D1 Cost 8, 1 hit, 3 planes (USN and IJN)
Carrier A0 D2 Cost 10-11 or 12, 2 hits, 2 planes (RN)
Battleship A3 D3, 2 hits Cost 12

This is just an example of scaling down warships roster so for the same number of IPCs group, you have more units in a given SZ, for a similar firepower.

So instead of a Full Carrier of 36 IPCs with only 2 Fighters.
You get (suppose Fg A2 D2 Cost 6): same for 22 IPCs.
(26 IPCs) USN and IJN Carrier A0 D1 Cost 8, 1 hit and 3 Fg (18 IPCs)
(22-23-24 IPCs) RN Carrier A0 D2 Cost 10-11-12, 2 hits and 2 Fg (12 IPCs)

In the last case, you mostly get 3 RN full Carrier (66-69-72 range) for the cost of 2 OOB fully loaded Carrier (72 IPCs).

I see where Baron’s going with now. You’ll need chips under each piece based on 4 hits each or 3 or what ever it is.
Now this is a what if you on setup doubled the pieces on map and they were at half there cost and values ? Kinda like Baron’s numbers he just posted probably better based on spamming and use the normal hits on each piece.
Like each BB 2 hits, US JAP AC 1 hit each, UK GER AC 2 hits each and 1 plane 1 hit each.
Ya that’s some testing there for sure.

You have another person to test against ? More people the better which you probably know. You got people that can test in person ?

[barnee]

@SS-GEN
Gotta Social Distance.

Not you personally baron. :)

Bob Dylan "Times They Are A Changing " LOL

[General 6 Stars]

@barnee said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@SS-GEN
Gotta Social Distance.

Not you personally baron. :)

Bob Dylan "Times They Are A Changing " LOL

Ya sucks right now. No games

[mAIOR]

@baron-Münchhausen It has to do with scale. I Don’t mind the micro so much as long as we can get a more accurate representation of the back and forth of a battle. So far testing has been ok. Haven’t done as much as I wanted but so far I like the results. There is a lot more of backwards and forwards and fleets that might have been defeated will come back and haunt you if you don’t follow through.

Some of my early findings:
Submarines 0/1 costing 4 work well. Surprise attack 2 at 2 dmg per hit is also interesting.

DDs… might lower the overall attack to 1. With their special ASW roll they work as a great hunter killer unit and fleet protection… Although, there is an argument to be made in order to abstract destroyers played this way and just give BBs and CAs inherent DD cover (like WiF does for instance) and use the DD purely as hunter killers and convoy escorts. Like a strategic unit you can place in sea zones that can make the submarine rolls harder.

Now that is an idea. They wouldn’t count for fleet vs fleet action and only count as ASW units (DDs and CVEs).

As I was testing, a submarine could get destroyed on a convoy attack as soon as escorts were available but what if with one DD in the same sea area, instead of on a 1, you have to roll a 2? That would increase submarine atrition nicely which was something that I was struggling with (too easy for Germany to just build up inordinate ammounts of subs while not sacrificing resources elsewhere).

So basically, all sea units would have organic ASW instead of just DDs so when a sub tries to attack a lone BB or a carrier, it has to go through an ASW check and if detected it could be either pushed back or destroyed (will have to test to see what works best. Remmember, each sub is not just one sub so outright destruction might not be the correct way to do it).

[mAIOR]

@SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

What ever you feel is historic. Basically you looking for correct hit status based on Divisions or corps like you mentioned. Ground is a different animal a bit.

hmmmm I am not sure about naval hitpoints. I mean, I keep going backwards and forwards and sometimes I step dangerously close to a CRT… Because I just find the overall attrition rate too high. Star Wars Rebellion does this with the hit markers under each ship but I also find that not very elegant. For instance, things like the sinking of the Bismark or the Hood were not that common and results like the battle of Riverplate were more common, I want there to be a chance of back and forwards and a single battle not being a monumental victory or defeat like game most of the time represents them (kind of because you then get the insane rebuilding economy). What I am trying to achieve (naval for now, land for later) is a sense of strategic warfare like A&A sometimes gives us but other times fails to do.

Anyway, I am sure I will reach a solution… Not sure it will be as simple as I want it to be.

[baron Münchhausen]

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

What ever you feel is historic. Basically you looking for correct hit status based on Divisions or corps like you mentioned. Ground is a different animal a bit.

hmmmm I am not sure about naval hitpoints. I mean, I keep going backwards and forwards and sometimes I step dangerously close to a CRT… Because I just find the overall attrition rate too high. Star Wars Rebellion does this with the hit markers under each ship but I also find that not very elegant. For instance, things like the sinking of the Bismark or the Hood were not that common and results like the battle of Riverplate were more common, I want there to be a chance of back and forwards and a single battle not being a monumental victory or defeat like game most of the time represents them (kind of because you then get the insane rebuilding economy). What I am trying to achieve (naval for now, land for later) is a sense of strategic warfare like A&A sometimes gives us but other times fails to do.

Anyway, I am sure I will reach a solution… Not sure it will be as simple as I want it to be.

IMO, Axis and Allies is much more pleasant as a tabletop game because of eye candies it provides with all these little sculpts. Especially warships and aircraft on carriers.

On land, I usually use chips for Infantry, MechInf, Artys, but not Tank, when there is enough room in the TT. However, in SZ and Naval, I will never use chips. Just the sculpts.

My personal taste would be to rather increase the number of units but not going into damaged units besides aircraft or Battleship.

US and IJN have a limited numbers of Carriers and Battleships, per se.
These number might provide a level of individual unit which remain manageable.

At Pearl Harbor Raid time, there was no more than 8 US Carrier with various aircraft capacity (before Essex was launched) . I noticed that Light Carriers or Escort Carriers were able to carry around 30 aircraft while Fleet was around 90.
So about one third. For me, this provided the ratio: 1 aircraft on light Carrier, then 3 aircraft sculpt on a US Fleet Carrier.

So, all sturdier aircraft carriers might just hold two. It works on the table top. The only issue is about TcB scultp. 3 does not hold on a Carrier, but 2 TcB and 1 Fg can be put on a Carrier sculpt.

If this can be your starting point, then think about 1 aircraft Carrier unit figures for about 4 or 5 Carriers. Take a look at how many Fleet Carriers were available for Japan.

For instance, 2 US Carriers (for 8 to 10), if IJN gets 5 Carrier sculpt then would signify around 20 to 25 Carriers.

This might come handy if you want to set an adequate numbers for each sculpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II