NEW BREAKTHROUGH CHARTS

[Mr Andersson]

One variant of Fast Capital Ships that would be historical correct is:

Fast Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers, cruisers and battleships are now faster and have a move of 3.

This might be a better tech than Battlecruisers, what do you think?

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. They also have a move of 3.

[WILD BILL]

I would like to see some kind of AA ability for the three capital ships. Only one would get a shot @ 1 per sz (fleet), similar to AA guns.

[Mr Andersson]

@WILD:

I would like to see some kind of AA ability for the three capital ships. Only one would get a shot @ 1 per sz (fleet), similar to AA guns.

I had a tech named Naval Antiair before a so callad AA Cruiser with a AA ability, but it is simply not worth persuing. Remeber that it costs 30 IPCs to develop a tech on average! I would take one BB and a FTR for those IPCs any time. More over in World War II, pure naval firepower didn’t mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

I think about a variant of ASW (anti-submarine warfare) for planes as the fifth naval tech.

Anti-Submarine Warfare
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

[Imperious Leader]

Anti-Submarine Warfare NEW
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

i would add that cruisers are ASW units as well. Also the ASW units only cancel out the subs first strike at a 1:1 basis.

I am not in favor of ‘fast battleships’ , but only cruisers and carriers. Leave DD and BB as 2 movers.

[Imperious Leader]

The battlecruiser is a ship as large as a battleship, with the big guns of a battleship, and the sea speed of the fleetest cruiser, but with considerably less armor than a battleship. They were to revolutionize cruiser design. After this new type of capital ship came into service all previous armored cruisers were instantly obsolete.

yes from this its understood that only have one hit, but the guns could be at 4…ok make it a 4-3 unit because the armor we still like a cruiser…not a 4-4 unit, but a 4-3 unit moving 3.

Also, allow it to use any remaining movement points it has left after combat to move the balance after combat…to simulate the idea that it gets away after it sinks…

example: the BC moves one space and sinks a cruiser, then moves 2 more spaces in NCM away to avoid getting attacked by the enemy …this make is a good surface raider.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

Anti-Submarine Warfare NEW
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

i would add that cruisers are ASW units as well. Also the ASW units only cancel out the subs first strike at a 1:1 basis.

I am not in favor of ‘fast battleships’ , but only cruisers and carriers. Leave DD and BB as 2 movers.

Ok, I will think about the addion of cruisers for the ASW. It might be good. But your comment on BBs for Fast Capital Ships is worthless if you don´t give a good argument for your stand point. I did gave a strong reson to why BBs should be included i the text above, for historical resons! Moreover it is a more balanced tech if one can bring in BBs to soak up hits.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

…ok make it a 4-3 unit because the armor we still like a cruiser…not a 4-4 unit, but a 4-3 unit moving 3.

Also, allow it to use any remaining movement points it has left after combat to move the balance after combat…to simulate the idea that it gets away after it sinks…

example: the BC moves one space and sinks a cruiser, then moves 2 more spaces in NCM away to avoid getting attacked by the enemy …this make is a good surface raider.

I don´t like the 4-3 idea because it still only takes a singel hit to destroy a cruiser and the tech will hardly be worth persuing at 4-3. Bottomline is that your idea is not balanced, do the math. However I like your idea of special movement in NCM. How about this variant:

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat, any of your surviving cruisers in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.

However I still like the tech Fast Capital Ships more than Battlecruisers!  :wink:

[Imperious Leader]

I agree that the rules must be realistic, but they also must be balanced and not throw out the other pieces and reduce their value. The Battleship moving three represents that they also have long range as well as speed. They do not have long range, rather this is a trait of cruisers and possible carriers. Battleships suck up too much fuel to patrol the distance of 3 sea zones unless they carry tankers and that never happens when they are in battle because tankers move very slow and if the tanker is sunk the Battleship is helpless in the middle of the ocean. Also, warships need to move a high rate of speed when in battle and suck up fuel even worse.

Cruiser by definition of their name ‘cruise’ long distances and have a much lighter frame that allows them to move fast and carriers are mostly build on a cruiser hull template.

IN the game having 3 ships out or 5 moving 3 is not balanced and reduces the value of the other two ships.

Realistically submarines should not be able to move 2 sea zones from a friendly port, unless these are long range submarines and most nations didn’t have many of these. Most of them were called ‘coastal submarines’ and should even not be able to move away from adjacent sea zones from land. This would be realistic as well, but hardly a decent AA rule because it would totally invalidate the submarine. The point is you cannot JUST do things that are historical and realistic if they don’t make sence in the game. SO naturally you just take the glaring unrealistic items and make them more realistic, but not at the detriment of the game play.

[Imperious Leader]

I don´t like the 4-3 idea because it still only takes a singel hit to destroy a cruiser and the tech will hardly be worth persuing at 4-3. Bottomline is that your idea is not balanced, do the math. However I like your idea of special movement in NCM. How about this variant:

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat, any of your surviving cruisers in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.

How does the “math” apply here considering this is technology? Technology introduces a new advantage so how does the math favor a 4-4 unit and not a 4-3 unit?

The movement must also be considered as an advantage to bring up the value of the technology equal to the loss of defense from 4 to 3. Also why did you post that the armor of a BC is like a cruiser, but rate the defense like a battleship?

That is not realistic.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

How does the “math” apply here considering this is technology? Technology introduces a new advantage so how does the math favor a 4-4 unit and not a 4-3 unit?

Math is game balance. I has always been the one of us talking about balance when you talk about history, this will be fun. The thing is that Tech is math as well, even if the dude that designed this game has not not realized it yet! On average one spend 30 IPCs to develop a tech and there is a rsik premium as well, since one can not choose the tech you want. So the reward one are looking for to put IPCs on R&D is actually higher than 30 IPCs, depending on how many of the techs that will be valuable for the player. This is the basics. If there are lousy techs the riskpremium gets higher. Lets say Russia only want four out of six techs since the other two are more or less wothless to him. The payback the Russian player would be looking for to develop tech would be 40 IPCs (30 IPCs plus 2/6 times 30 IPCs).

There are three factors that will count for techs and those are; attack, defens and special abilities like movement and hits etc. The easiest way to find out if a tech is balanced is to compare the cost of the new tech and see if will be costeffective in attack and defens capability. And then look at any special abilities that will be of any strategic value and try to put a price on that. This will be different from time to time dependant on the mix of your and your enemies force. But the bottom line is that a tech should be worth persuing and that is at least 30 IPCs of investing instead of purchasing normal units for the IPCs.

Talking about game breakers and tech, you self advocate a A-Bomb tech. One could argument that such a super tech would compensate for lousy techs on the breakthrough charts. Fair enough, but I think that the R&D is risky as it is and does not need to be more of a gambling, but rather more strategic. I think it would be better to have different charts for land, air and sea. This would reduce the riskpremium I talked about before. More over I think that any tech should not be a definitive game breaker. One should stay with the back bone of the game, and that is that it must always be cheaper to defend than to attack. No unit shall be better than an infantry in defens. Ok, must stop there.

[Imperious Leader]

Your post does not answer the question.

If these cruisers you propose with the new technology as a 4-4 unit moving 3  VS:

A Cruiser with ASW capabilities , a 4-3 unit that moves 3 spaces and can allocate its remaining movement after combat gives this second choice enough glitz to make technology investment worthwhile.

If i had a choice i would easily take the second choice. It offers greater utility to the cruiser.

Also, each researcher invested keeps rolling so your not spending 30 IPC to get a technology. ON average spending just 5 IPC will generate a 50 % chance of getting a technology after 3 turns, so its hardly a valid point to make about “the math” making the second candidate a useless technology.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

…The Battleship moving three represents that they also have long range as well as speed. They do not have long range, rather this is a trait of cruisers and possible carriers. Battleships suck up too much fuel to patrol the distance of 3 sea zones unless they carry tankers and that never happens when they are in battle because tankers move very slow and if the tanker is sunk the Battleship is helpless in the middle of the ocean. Also, warships need to move a high rate of speed when in battle and suck up fuel even worse.

Cruiser by definition of their name ‘cruise’ long distances and have a much lighter frame that allows them to move fast and carriers are mostly build on a cruiser hull template.

IN the game having 3 ships out or 5 moving 3 is not balanced and reduces the value of the other two ships.

Range and speed is not the same thing. I agree with you here and has acted accordingly…

By the way, when it comes to tech the hole idea is to make a unit more valuable and hence reduce the value of other units.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

Your post does not answer the question.

If these cruisers you propose with the new technology as a 4-4 unit moving 3  VS:

A Cruiser with ASW capabilities , a 4-3 unit that moves 3 spaces and can allocate its remaining movement after combat gives this second choice enough glitz to make technology investment worthwhile.

If i had a choice i would easily take the second choice. It offers greater utility to the cruiser.

I would choose the same as you here, but the ASW capability is not the purpose for battlecruisers. I like the special NCM ability, as I told you before.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

…Also, each researcher invested keeps rolling so your not spending 30 IPC to get a technology. On average spending just 5 IPCs will generate a 50 % chance of getting a technology after 3 turns, so its hardly a valid point to make about “the math” making the second candidate a useless technology.

About the math I was wrong, it is 15 IPCs on average. I was stuck in the old days, sorry. This means that I will need to change me techs, any suggestions?

[Imperious Leader]

I would choose the same as you here, but the ASW capability is not the purpose for battlecruisers. I like the special NCM ability, as I told you before.

What the technology does is make the old cruiser and replace it with Battlecruisers. The ASW is part of a general upgrade in development of cruisers because Anti- Aircraft Cruisers did exist, Also pocket Battleships did exist, also Fast moving Battlecruisers did exist. I think that your fixated on just the name rather than looking at the advanced cruiser as a technological upgrade in various aspects that reflect how different nations employed them.

I would just rename the technology advanced cruisers or something else. The general idea is to encapsulate the various ways the cruiser received in developments by different nations at war. In some cases these are Pocket battleships, or Battlecruisers, Or fast battleships, or AA cruisers.

The three new ideas give the flavor of most of these kinds of developments.

[Imperious Leader]

About the math I was wrong, it is 15 IPCs on average. I was stuck in the old days, sorry. This means that I will need to change me techs, any suggestions?

Im looking at AA50 rules which is the most standard game at this point. Under these rules you pay just 5 IPC and each turn you get a free roll for technology, when the tech is finally achieved the researchers go away…so conceivably you only need to spend 5 IPC to get this technology or any other.

I think your still on revised and not many still play that thing. With AA50 and AA42 coming out they will definatly make Revised look like Milton Bradley edition and hence i dont think you want to still make rules for old games, but for adaptation to the new ones.

[Mr Andersson]

@Imperious:

…Im looking at AA50 rules which is the most standard game at this point. Under these rules you pay just 5 IPC and each turn you get a free roll for technology, when the tech is finally achieved the researchers go away…

According to AA50 rules the math says the following:

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

I like the semantic of yours for cruisers. I will think about the advanced cruiser tech compared to fast capitals.

[Mr Andersson]

What about:

Rocket Artillery
Your AA-Guns can conduct rocket bombardment attacks prior to land combat. This special attack is made immediately before normal combat occurs in the territory under attack and require that one of your AA-Gun is moved into the territory under attack during the Combat Move phase. Your AA-Guns can only fire at defending infantry units and only during the first round of combat. Roll one die for each defending infantry unit. On a roll of 1, that infantry unit is destroyed and immediately removed from the game without any ability to counterattack any attacking units.

Is it a better tech than Advanced Artillery, anyone? Or do you find it balanced at all, good or bad?

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Mr:

When it comes to your number “6”. I deliberately left this number because I want the player to choose any technology/development of her/his choice on a roll of 6, from the prespecified breakthrough chart.

I understand

What dont you like about dive bombers, is it too powerful?
What if they just chose what land unit they destroyed on a roll of 1?

Also 3 of my heavy tanks on defence would have and intial firepower of 12

While 5 infantry would have a firepower of 10 but so it does not obsolete infantry because they can take more causaulties and there firepower is not as fradgile( if you lose of of those tanks your down to 8), it just makes sence for tanks to be bought for defence if they have infantry for cannon fodder

[Imperious Leader]

According to AA50 rules the math says the following:

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

No this is not how technology is done in that game! You pay 5 IPC and get to roll one time each turn till you get a technology. The roll does not go away ever UNLESS you gain a tech ( by rolling a 6). So it can never conceivably cost more than 5 IPC to get a technology.  However, if you want to get the odds going more you can invest say 15 IPC and get 3 rolls and have a 50% chance of getting a tech a turn. Once you obtain the tech the researchers go away and you must reinvest to get more rolls. This is the math.