@hengst This house rules forum is full of ideas. To avoid scripted games you need a varaiety ways to win or lose a game in a reasonable amount of time ,eg 8 to 12 rounds.BBR and 3G40 are rulesets that encourage you to win by achieving various victory objectives.(not just victory cities)
3G40 changes turn order,merges Anzac into UKPacific,and sticks pretty close to oob rules.BBR is more complex than oob and is real popular.Both are designed to play in 1 day and to be able to declare a winner.
Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns
-
@Cmdr:
Baron, CA is your Carrier? or Cruiser?
I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)
Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread. They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen. I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on. Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)
Think about it, 240 IPC gives you: 12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?
You are suggesting giving a whole AA capacity against 3 aircrafts when BB and cruisers are present?
I would prefer a third addition (since carrier was the real historical AA platform):
when BB+CA are present and a CV is added, then you get a third AA@1.So, a complete AA preemptive strike (vs 3 planes as OOB AAA) will be obtain with BB+CA+CV.
The order is important to have the most incentive to buy BB and CA: cruiser and BB, then CV.
You buy a CV and BB? Nothing happen until the cruiser is bought.(This last AA@1, adds another advantage of a fleet carrier vs CVL/CVE.)
This 3@1 AA can be considered historical, since:
Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers. -
Such a rule, limited to 1 roll/plane whichever is lower:
CA+BB= 2 AA@1
CA+BB+CV= 3 AA@1Adding AA, change the odds of survival for an identical fleet
1Sub+ 1DD + 1CA + 1 CV (A1D2 1 hit) + 2 Fg + 1 BB A18D20 (1942)(in which an additional AA@1 change nothing since there is only 2 figs) from:
offense 30% vs defense 65% no survivor 5%
to: offense 28% vs defense 68% no survivor 4%.
adding 1 bomber with the offensive naval group vs OOB: offense 64% defense 32% no survivor 4%.
against 3@1AAA: offense 56% vs defense 39% no survivor 5%.
-
@Cmdr:
Baron, CA is your Carrier? or Cruiser?
I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)
Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread. They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen. I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on. Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)
Think about it, 240 IPC gives you: 12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?
About cruisers (to the contrary of your intuitive thinking):
On a more playable level: 5 cruisers vs 3 battleships, 28% vs 66% survival.
More you add cruisers, more you let BB wins.
In your scenario, the battlecalculator give these odds:
20 cruisers: 13% survival
12 battleships: 86% survival
http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=12&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem= -
If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport
-
@Uncrustable:
If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport
True, but the matter at stake here is to compare 2 similar units with the same OOB capacity and function: Cruiser and BB are used in the same situation, since they are as good in offense and defense 3/3 vs 4/4 and both can bombard.
So these 2 ships serve the same tactical and strategical use.
Then the question of there combat value rise by itself:
Which one give the most for each IPC investment?I said earlier that the competitive match on small scale buying vs BB is Cruiser paired with DD.
Because you have both ASW and bombard while keeping a high A5D5 for 2 hits. -
@Uncrustable,
you are quite silence about the combine arms aspect of this HR on BB and Cruiser
(and even fleet carrier to gain a third @1AA) to increase buying of BB and Cruiser.What is your impression? Will it create this incentive or not?
@Baron:
Such a rule, limited to 1 roll/plane whichever is lower:
CA+BB= 2 AA@1
CA+BB+CV= 3 AA@1Adding AA, change the odds of survival for an identical fleet
1Sub+ 1DD + 1CA + 1 CV (A1D2 1 hit) + 2 Fg + 1 BB A18D20 (1942)And about this prediction on BB unable to attack subs, do you have an opinion?
@Baron:
@Uncrustable:
well on the sub heavy battlefield…dont we already have that? very few BBs are purchased and cruisers even less so
purchases are mostly aircraft carriers/planes and subs and destroyers
simply because what you get per dollar is better in those 3 units than either cruisers or BBs
BBs that cant hit subs would be a very nice historical house rule
I thought about it and now, I could tell that this rule can reduce the number of subs present and be replaced by DDs.
I explain:
If anyone wish to protect his surface fleet (ex.: 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 DD, 2TT), it cannot rely on subs as cheap fodder because Battleship on attack can no longer hit sub, they are treated as plane (when no DD is present).
A massive group of 4-6 subs makes no difference for defender to choose his casualty.This imply BB will hit hard on the core of the fleet.
Suppose 2 escorted BBs on offense getting twice hits.
(Also, don’t forget adding Plunging Fire, give 2 other chances @1 on the first round to make more casualities.)
All the surface ships will be probably destroyed (depending on the number of defending planes).
Now subs cannot serve as cheap buffer against BB (and aircrafts, when no attacking DD).Defender will probably think twice about DD, before purchasing almost only subs around his main fleet.
BBs are still more interesting offensive weapon now.
Is it a probable consequence according to both of you?
-
@Uncrustable:
If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport
Infantry Push Mechanic was very strong on # of units not necessarily their damage per round (dpr) ability. That’s why I like cruisers probably, a hold over notion from classic.
I don’t know, I’m still pro Battleships for the United States, but only until they catch up to Japan and only if going Contain Japan First. For the United Kingdom I am very, VERY bullish on Cruisers. They’re cheaper, you can put more of them out in a shorter time frame, they really help to soften the beaches of Normandy and they can be split up. Battleships are too much, FOR ME, all eggs in one basket.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, we tried posting same time.
Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me. 2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine. I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.
I was thinking about the cost of non-combat unit.
Probably the 7 IPCs for TT A0D0M2 can be determined that way:
Carrying 1 infantry = 3 IPCs
Carrying any ground unit = 4 IPCsSo a TT at 6 IPCs could only transport 2 Infantry units.
This way, if someone wants to develop a Japanese like Tokyo Express DD transport:
Destroyer A2D2M2C11 ASW, can carry 1 Inf unit only. Can not do both while on offense.*
-
@Cmdr:
Hmm, I’d rather apply it to all ships and adjust their cost accordingly. � So maybe
- Destroyers as a basis, so 2x (2ATT + 2 DEF) +2 Special = 10 IPC
- Cruiser would be 2x (3 ATT + 3 DEF) +2 Special (Off Shore Bombardment) = 14 IPC
- Carriers would be (2x (0 ATT + 2 DEF))x2 for double hits to sink + 3 Special first fighter + 3 Special second fighter = 14 IPC
- Battleships would be 2x(4 ATT + 4 DEF)+ 2 Plunging Fire +2 for 2nd hit to damage + 2 for 3rd hit to sink +2 Off Shore Bombardment = 24 IPC
- Submarines would be 2x(2 ATT + 1 DEF) + 2 Sneak Shot = 8 IPC
- Transports would be 2x(0 ATT + 0 DEF) + 3 First Unit Carried + 3 Second Unit Carried = 6 IPC
In this way the price of carriers and transports go down, but the other units go up slightly, which I think evens out over the long haul. � � We could apply a 2 IPC Credit towards any warship with a base cost over 10 IPC which would make the prices work out to:
- DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
- CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
- AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
- BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2
- SS = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 1, Sneak Shot, Move 2
- TRN = 6 IPC = Cargo two ground units, Move 2
So with the credit, only the BB, AC and SS have price changes but they all have some basis in mathematics to justify their cost! � Just a note, I made all cargo units +3 each to get the price of transports back up. �
I’m Just trying to find another rule to obtain the real OOB cost:
Carriers would be (2x (0 ATT + 2 DEF))x2 for double hits to sink + 3 Special first fighter + 3 Special second fighter = 14 IPC
D2 x2 = 4 pts x2 double hit = 8 IPCs + (2 fgt A6D8x2= 28) = 36 IPCs - 20 IPCs (2 fgs) = 16 IPCs
OOB 1940 Carrier cost!A1D2 x2 = 6 pts x 1 hit = 6 IPCs + (2 fgt A6D8x2= 28) = 34 IPCs - 20 IPCs (2 fgs) = 14 IPCs
OOB 1942 Carrier cost!But, following this rule for double hit, don’t work with Battleship:
A4D4 x 2 = 16 pts x 2 hit = 32 IPCs, way too much…I think double hit is a straight 4 IPCs of basic cost for big ship.
So a 1942 Carrier will cost 18 IPCs.Maybe for special HR armored cruiser it could be reduce to 3 IPCs for 1 additionnal hit.
-
@Cmdr:
I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values. It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.
If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.
Your cost for subs is high because you arbitrarily reduce all cost units by 2 IPCs except subs.
I think the cost for special ability is the main problem.
The OOB is probably 1 special capacity at no cost for each unit.
Getting one special ability is helping defines all units.That’s why BB cost 20 IPCs, 2 hits cost 4 IPCs but bombard is a special free capacity.
And a Superarmored BB cost would rather be 24 IPCs for the third hit soaker.Giving Plunging fire, but restraining at A0 attack vs subs is a way to make this addition free.
Submerge and Surprise First Strike are 2 abilities but combine as 1 free special capacity.
Chosen last is the special ability for transport.
-
Following this calculus for CVE:
CVE A0D1M2 (1x2) =2 pts + (A3D4 x2= 14 pts) 16 IPCs- 10 IPCs = 6 IPCs for 1 regular CVE,
but we give CVL A0D1M3 ASW. 1 additionnal move =+2 IPCs / 1 ASW = 2 IPCsCVL A0D1M3 1 hit, ASW, carry 1 plane, cost 10 IPCs.
-
@Baron:
@Cmdr:
I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values. Â It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.
If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.
Your cost for subs is high because you arbitrarily reduce all cost units by 2 IPCs except subs.
I disagree. In actuality my prices remained the same for most ships, only the Submarine went up 2 IPC and the Aircraft Carrier went down 4 IPC.
- DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
- CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
- AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
- BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2
- SS = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 1, Sneak Shot, Move 2
- TRN = 6 IPC = Cargo two ground units, Move 2
The battleship went up a bit in price, since you’re all complaining they’re too valuable compared to the cruiser and if you add in their plunging fire in opening fire on round 1, a modest 2 IPC increase isn’t unheard of, in fact, I’d say it’s quite balancing.
The Cruiser and Destroyer stayed the same in price, neither going up nor down.
The Submarine went up to a more traditional level of 8 IPC. Since they get called shots when attacking without any other units and given their myriad of other benefits, I would say they should cost 8 IPC. I’d go so far as to say they should cost 8 IPC anyway even without called shots if attacking without other units.
The Transport went down 1 IPC which, again, it makes it fit an actual formula and thus has some basis from which to argue.
net we have: -4 IPC Carrier + 2 IPC Battleship + 2 IPC Submarine - 1 IPC Transport for a net of +1 IPC cost change to naval units.
further we added +1 special to battleships, +1 special to submarines, -1 ability for battleships to soak hits first for a net change of +1 special abilities at sea.Unless I missed something.
I think the cost for special ability is the main problem.
The OOB is probably 1 special capacity at no cost for each unit.
Getting one special ability is helping defines all units.I think the formula as written does a really good job of justifying costs for units.
[2x(#Attack+#Defend)+2x(Special Ability)]-2 gives a very nice, simple way to determine the cost of naval units in a non-partisan manner. If we take all special rules that we’ve talked about off we get:
Submarines - 8 IPC
Destroyers - 8 IPC
Cruisers - 12 IPC
Battleships - 20 IPC
Aircraft Carriers - 10 IPC
Transports - 6 IPCI’d argue the problem isn’t that I am raising the price of submarines, but rather that the submarine unit is under priced now. Hell, if we look at 60 IPC of submarines vs 60 IPC of Battleships the submarines have a 96.2% chance of victory. (I used destroyers instead of submarines to negate their sneak shot ability, it’s even better returns if you look at unsupported battleships.)
http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=10&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem= (hope that link works)If you change the price, and alter the units in such a way as to have the same IPC amount for both sides, you get 10 submarines vs 4 battleships or 66% odds in favor. A much better result considering you have 2:1 odds in just number of ships!
If anything, the change in statistics alone, as well as having a mathematical basis for the cost of ships, justifies changing the submarine to an 8 IPC unit.
The only thing that concerns me is the Aircraft Carrier. Reducing it’s price is just going to result in more of them. However, these units really are pretty useless for anything other than carrying fighters. They cannot attack (can soak hits on attacks, but we’re also talking about removing that ability and forcing them to stay behind) and they can defend. If they are a defensive unit only (ie they cannot enter the sea zone of combat until the non-combat movement phase) then the price reduction, imho, is justified. I actually like keeping them out of combat, naval commanders of the time didn’t send their carriers into harms way, they did whatever they could to keep them out of harm’s way while still being close enough to use them against the enemy. The battle of midway, pearl harbor, carolines, et el were all about trying to sink enemy carriers - carriers attacked by planes and on the defensive, not carrier’s out shelling the other carriers.
-
@Baron:
@Cmdr:
Yea, we tried posting same time.
Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me. 2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine. I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.
I was thinking about the cost of non-combat unit.
Probably the 7 IPCs for TT A0D0M2 can be determined that way:
Carrying 1 infantry = 3 IPCs
Carrying any ground unit = 4 IPCsSo a TT at 6 IPCs could only transport 2 Infantry units.
This way, if someone wants to develop a Japanese like Tokyo Express DD transport:
Destroyer A2D2M2C11 ASW, can carry 1 Inf unit only. Can not do both while on offense.*
I think Cmdr Jen, you forgot TT in your formula as mention above carrying Inf only is not the same as carrying any ground unit.
The cost of TT follow the cost of unit carried:
(Inf cost: 3 IPCs / Art and MecInf: 4 IPCs meanly on average)The other ground unit carried by TT can be:
1 Inf + 1 MecInf + 1 Art + AAA + Arm= 3+4+4+5+6= 22 IPCs/5= 4.4 so around 4 IPCs on average.That how I explain the OOB cost for 1 Transport unit: 3+4= 7 IPCs
I think the formula as written does a really good job of justifying costs for units.
[2x(#Attack+#Defend)+2x(Special Ability)]-2 gives a very nice, simple way to determine the cost of naval units in a non-partisan manner. If we take all special rules that we’ve talked about off we get:
Submarines - 8 IPC
Destroyers - 8 IPC
Cruisers - 12 IPC
Battleships - 20 IPC
Aircraft Carriers - 10 IPC
Transports - 6 IPCIf you follow your formula, now subs will cost 6 IPCs
A2D1*2+ 1 *special 2- 2 = 6+2-2= 6 IPCs. OOB cost Correct!Now what is the price of new HR ability?
Maybe your special deadlier Subs could worth 7 not 8 IPCs.When it comes to HR, the cost depends greatly upon the effectiveness of the ability.
I think it is a case-by-case evaluation. -
The only thing that concerns me is the Aircraft Carrier. Reducing it’s price is just going to result in more of them.
Again the formula can be correct if you consider a fully loaded carrier with 2 fighters on board as the effective combat unit. The carrier isn’t suppose to work on is own like the other ships.
The cost will be as OOB 16 IPCs. Considering an additional hit add 4 IPCs to the price.
2 fighters = A6D82+ A0D22= 32 IPCs for 3 units (2 fgts cost 20 IPCs) 32-20= 12 IPCs
So 1 CV A0D2M2 1 hit, carrying 2 planes will cost 12 IPCs.
(For me, it can be a combat unit with a few core ships like Yorktown class fleet-carrier as the Entreprise.)1 CV A0D2M2 2 hits, carrying 2 planes will cost 12+4= 16 IPCs
(For me it is a combat unit with a few core ships like Essex Class fleet-carrier.)Now you can say that carrying plane capacity cost 2 IPCs, minus 2.
Following the formula, you get the OOB cost. -
@Cmdr:
The only thing that concerns me is the Aircraft Carrier. Reducing it’s price is just going to result in more of them. However, these units really are pretty useless for anything other than carrying fighters. They cannot attack (can soak hits on attacks, but we’re also talking about removing that ability and forcing them to stay behind) and they can defend. If they are a defensive unit only (ie they cannot enter the sea zone of combat until the non-combat movement phase) then the price reduction, imho, is justified. I actually like keeping them out of combat, naval commanders of the time didn’t send their carriers into harms way, they did whatever they could to keep them out of harm’s way while still being close enough to use them against the enemy. The battle of midway, pearl harbor, carolines, et el were all about trying to sink enemy carriers - carriers attacked by planes and on the defensive, not carrier’s out shelling the other carriers.
For strategic sakes, let’s the offensive player decide whether or not he will expose his fleet-carrier.
Remember, sea-zone are a large ocean territory. Patroling it to find the enemy may required a landing ship for planes.
Historically, both USN and IJN groups exposes their carriers when they were in aircraft range from each other.
Keeping CV in an other non combat sea-zone simply means the attacker was very cautious to not overtly exposes his own carrier.In this strategical game level, we can even say that keeping a carrier 2 sea-zone away from battle is not historically accurate since 1 turn is a few months length in time.
All planes have to go back and forth (every single day) to their carrier for refueling and maintnance.
And when a fleet-carrier Task Force was in combat mission, they were historically all in a same sea-zone with the ennemy.So keeping carrier unit behind, is just a game twist.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_sea_battle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_la_mer_de_Corail
vs Midway Battle (same sea-zone) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway -
If you change the price, and alter the units in such a way as to have the same IPC amount for both sides, you get 10 submarines vs 4 battleships or 66% odds in favor. A much better result considering you have 2:1 odds in just number of ships!
Actually, you oppose 10 DD vs 4 BB.
10 Subs vs 4 BBs will give 80% vs 20% survival odds.
It is part of A&A system that cheaper unit makes much more survivable units than costlier.
The total A/D combat value of units is suppose to be the same when IPCs are the same.
The difference rest upon the number of hits that can be taken and ratio of A/D points.For 24 IPCs
4 Subs= A8D4= 12 pts and 4 hits / 3 DDs A6D6 = 12 pts and 3 hits / 2CAs A6D6 = 12 pts and 2 hits.A/D/IPCs for A/D/IPCs. So Subs are better than DD are better than CA and BB.
It is part of the game and strategy to provide cheap fodders to protect higher hit ratio unit (which cost more).
-
@Cmdr:
- DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
- CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
- AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
- BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2
The battleship went up a bit in price, since you’re all complaining they’re too valuable compared to the cruiser and if you add in their plunging fire in opening fire on round 1, a modest 2 IPC increase isn’t unheard of, in fact, I’d say it’s quite balancing.
I think the formula as written does a really good job of justifying costs for units.
[2x(#Attack+#Defend)+2x(Special Ability)]-2 gives a very nice, simple way to determine the cost of naval units in a non-partisan manner. If we take all special rules that we’ve talked about off we get:
Submarines - 8 IPC
Destroyers - 8 IPC
Cruisers - 12 IPC
Battleships - 20 IPC
Aircraft Carriers - 10 IPC
Transports - 6 IPCI still think your SuperBattleship which differ from OOB BB, must remain at 24 IPCs because it is a 3 hits ship.
The regular DD, the smallest surface ship worth 8 IPCs.
8 IPCs/ hit should be the lower limit to keep balance.OOB CV C16, 2 hits 16 IPCs divided by 2 = 8 IPCs/ hit.
OOB BB 20 IPCs/ 2 hits = 10 IPCs/ hit.
The CA is at 12 IPCs/ hit.
That’s why I think:
any multiple hit surface vessel unit must remain between a range from 8 IPCs/hit to 10 IPCs/hit.The only exception I made, is about an earlier “spagghetti on the wall”:
HR Armored Cruiser unit, CA A3D3M3, 2 hits for 15 IPCs.
Which was as low as 7.5 IPCs/hit.
But 16 IPCs can be a standard cost (+4 IPCs for 1 additional hit, OOB cruiser 12 +4= 16 IPCs)For reference:
@Baron:@Imperious:
Ok if you want more units make it basic:
3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBBCVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs 2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.After what I saw, I would reverse the cost:
CA Armored Cruiser A3D3M3C16 2 hits, SBombard 1@3.
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C15 1hit, SBombard 1@4. -
2 infantry was just an example. Any two ground units would be the same cost adjustment for the transport. 6 IPC for a unit that can neither attack, nor defend, nor participate in a battle and cannot carry anything that can participate in a naval battle is pretty fair, and it’s only 1 different than how Larry Harris has them now.
The aircraft carrier is just a concern, not a lament. :P They are fighter delivery platforms, nothing else really, and they shouldn’t be anything else really, which is why they have 0 attack value. If we amend it so they cannot take hits until all other warships are sunk (something all the warships would have tried to do anyway by keeping the carriers back behind the lines on an attack and defending them as best they could against counter attack) I think the price is right at 12 IPC.
The submarine going up to 8 IPC seems more than fair to me. Submarines cannot be hit without at least one attacking destroyer. They get round 1 called shots on the vessel of their choice, provided there are no other types of units attacking with them, and can retreat before any return fire provided there are no defending destroyers (they have to retreat after one round regardless) and they do double damage on convoy raids, while doing the same damage as a destroyer on attack (cruiser with super submarines) so why shouldn’t they cost the same as a destroyer?
Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers neither go up in price nor down in price using my formula. Actually, neither do submarines if you take away the special attack price increases I gave them to account for their extra abilities.
Now yes, if we put the plunging fire back on battleships, the price does go up to 22 IPC. With the 3rd hit, they go up much more, really. 3hits (4AttVal+4DefVal)+2 plunging fire = 26 IPC. So it’s 24 IPC without plunging fire, but 3 hits to sink (same as your valuation) but there’s a mathematical basis for where that number comes from, and it works for all the ships, not just one or two of them.
So the chart goes to:
Super Battleships w/Plunging Fire: 26 IPC <==3 hits, plunging fire round 1 only
Reg. Battleships no bonus: 20 IPC <== per current rules
Cruisers: 12 IPC <== per current rules
Aircraft Carrier: 10 IPC <== per current rules
Destroyers: 8 IPC <== per current rules
Submarines w/Called Sneak Shots: 8 IPC <== if attacking by themselves (no other units), during opening fire, may choose their target, may only engage in one round of battle Return fire if destroyers present
Transports (2 ground unit carry): 6 IPC <== per current rules
Escort Carrier: 5 IPC <== defend at 1, carrier 1 fighter or tactical bomber
(units highlighted in red are denoted by a control marker under them. ie: Aircraft carrier with control marker and 4 white chips = 5 escort carriers) -
@Cmdr:
Super Battleships w/Plunging Fire: 26 IPC <==3 hits, plunging fire round 1 only
Reg. Battleships no bonus: 20 IPC <== per current rules
Cruisers: 12 IPC <== per current rules
Aircraft Carrier: 10 IPC <== per current rules
Destroyers: 8 IPC <== per current rules
Submarines w/Called Sneak Shots: 8 IPC <== if attacking by themselves (no other units), during opening fire, may choose their target, may only engage in one round of battle Return fire if destroyers present
Transports (2 ground unit carry): 6 IPC <== per current rules
Escort Carrier: 5 IPC <== defend at 1, carrier 1 fighter or tactical bomber
(units highlighted in red are denoted by a control marker under them. ie: Aircraft carrier with control marker and 4 white chips = 5 escort carriers)So cruisers and battleships are rarely purchased OOB, lets make them even worse by massively lowering the cost of carriers (to the same as fighters), and while were at it, add a carrier unit that costs less than tanks… :-P
Genius
-
@Cmdr:
2 infantry was just an example. **Any two ground units would be the same cost adjustment for the transport. ** 6 IPC for a unit that can neither attack, nor defend, nor participate in a battle and cannot carry anything that can participate in a naval battle is pretty fair, and it’s only 1 different than how Larry Harris has them now.
The aircraft carrier is just a concern, not a lament. :P They are fighter delivery platforms, nothing else really, and they shouldn’t be anything else really, which is why they have 0 attack value. If we amend it so they cannot take hits until all other warships are sunk (something all the warships would have tried to do anyway by keeping the carriers back behind the lines on an attack and defending them as best they could against counter attack) I think the price is right at 12 IPC.
I better see what you are trying to do.
You create a generic formula, then apply to every units on the board.
Of course, you know you are creating a somewhat different game and dynamics by doing this.
The modified cost can have a price: affecting the balance and be difficult to make it acceptable to other players.Maybe your friends want it, but not mine. I know them. Too much is too much sometimes.
However, Uncrustabble got a point about carrier vs battleship.
And this rise the question of your original intent.
What kind of game sea warfare do you want to play? A more tactical inspired one?
Many of your ideas let suggest, it is what you want.
But it is better you let us know for sure.
After, we can start formulating constructive suggestion to develop your own A&A naval games (like some triple A variation, which can include 6 IPCs TT or a CVE at 5 IPCs and other things).For my part, my approch was different, I was trying to find the generic formula behind OOB rules to better adjust and keep the balance of new HR units and modified OOB units vs OOB units.
That’s the difference between what you want about a 6 IPCs TT and what I said to explain the rationalization behind the 7 IPCs TT.
I think I found some real ground about it, as well as for the cost of carrier and other warship units. (Ex.: 4 IPCs for 1 additional hit, adding 2 FG to the CV to rate is A/D ratio and cost., etc.)By formulating it, I let everyone be the judge about the accuracy of my formula to explain OOB cost.
Suggested Topics
