G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[baron Münchhausen]

6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment do no return fire (classic style bombard)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Classic style bombardment rules.

@MrRoboto:

Well Jen if you invest your money in destroyers, instead of cruisers, you’re always off way better (WAY!!! better).

The sole and only argument for cruisers is, if you have exactly 12-15 IPC or 20-21 IPC and need to defend immediately against one attacking plane.
If it might make a difference if you can hold a seazone with 1 cruiser instead of 1 destroyer, maybe to defend transports, in the first case. Or 1cruiser+1 dd instead of 2 dd in the second case. Then yes, in these extremely rare cases, a cruiser purchase is slightly better.

At this actual cost:

4. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
                                      b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
                                      c) Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)

Cruiser is absolutely not a competitive purchase: it is required to cost 10 IPCs to be some kind of a competitive match with the aircrafts units.
Since BB are at 18 IPCs, it is OK
You could read my thread on the 10 IPCs Cruiser & 18 IPCs Battleship to get more reasons to keep this match.
Cruiser A3D3M3C10 Bombard @3. (Don’t break the harmony about number “3” for Cruiser vs “4” for battleship. It adds unnecessary oddity.)

2 Cruiser (20 IPCs) bombard  2x @3 vs 1 BB (18 IPCs) bombard 1 x @4.
Cruisers are already better in this domain.
That why I suggest to add another round of fire to BB to get a better match on IPCs basis to let BB have the better hand.

2 CAs bombard 2x @3  on first round vs 1 BB bombard 1@4 in 2 successive rounds.

To get a distinctive flavour vs Cruiser, you should think also about JEN’s:
long range preemptive Plunging fire 1@1 vs naval for Battleship (long range heavy guns) to get it.

Don’t let go bombard for them, it would be unhistorical.
BB A4D4M2C18 Bombard @4 (for 2 rounds? more guns, heavier guns, farther range: better ground support than cruiser.)  / 2 hits /  preemptive strike 1@1 vs 1 surface vessel ?.

[Derek]

Fighters:    Cost 8   Attack 2    Defense 3  Range 4
Tacticals:  Cost 10  Attack 3-4 Defense 3  Range 4
Strategic    Cost 12 Attack 4    Defense 1  Range 4

Chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter      30 attack  | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic   40 attack  | 10 defense

All air combat values 1 except fighters defend at 2

First off stop accusing me of miscalculating your chart.
As i did nothing of the sort.
It was assumed that 12 IPC bombers were your argument (instead of 13), so i labaled it yours. I never created a chart using your 8,9,10 cost.

Moving on.

It is you who are incorrect, your math shows only naked fighters vs naked bombers. But how about when part of a force…

Bombers are better than fighters in offense, and i will use MATH to prove it.

Lets say you are attacking a territory with some infantry and 24 IPC worth of planes.
Which would you rather have? 3 Fighters with 6 hit power? Or 2 bombers with 8 hit power?
The bombers are more efficient as a pure offensive unit, this is not even considering the increased range and SBR capabilities.

However, the fighters are better as a naked offensive unit than the bomber. (they are better at taking punishment, as they should be). But it is not by much.
2 bombers attacking 3 destroyers: the destroyers will win 50% if the time, bombers 40%, with a chance of a tie 10%.
3 Fighters attacking 3 destroyers: 48%/48% with a tie 4%
But again, this does not factor the increased range (something i think you vastly undervalue) and SBR capability.

Lets look at fighters + tactical bombers.
4 Fighters + 4 Tactical bomber vs 9 destroyers (72IPC)
using lowluck dice the air will win with atleast 1 fighters and 1 tacticals remaing. With about a 50% chance of a 2nd tactical remaining.
The same 9 destroyers vs 6 bombers (still 72 IPC), the destroyers will win with atleast one remaining and an above 50% chance of a 2nd)

4 Fighters and 4 Tacticals (24 hp) vs 6 Strategic bombers (24 hp). (72 IPC) As part of a larger force it is Equal hitting power. But again, the strategic posseses greater range and SBR. But as lone attackers the fighters and tacticals are better.

So if a nation wants an air unit for short range solo missions vs other units…a strategic bomber may not be the best choice (as it should not be)
This is true also in current OOB rules.
And it makes logical and historical sense.

[baron Münchhausen]

6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment do no return fire (classic style bombard)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Classic style bombardment rules.

You should not do this.
It is not so historical or realism.

They bombard a lot of time in PTO but soldiers were protected in “Pillbox” and bunker.

Marines were hit hard upon landing even after intensive shore bombardment.

At a strategical level game, bombardment is not a surprise attack.

If you want to give more impact to Cruiser and BB, let them bombard on the first round even when they get a naval battle prior to the amphibious assault.
So, this capacity will be use more often.

[Derek]

Bombardment is preemptive. Fired before landing ships even begin the landings. So it is historical to remove the casualties before the battle. And it gives more incentive to purchase cruisers and battleships

I like your last idea though, allowing them to bombard even if they were in a battle. Worth thinking about anyhow

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Bombardment is preemptive. Fired before landing ships even begin the landings. So it is historical to remove the casualties before the battle. And it gives more incentive to purchase cruisers and battleships

I like your last idea though, allowing them to bombard even if they were in a battle. Worth thinking about anyhow

You should think about the meaning of this sentence:
“At a strategical level game, bombardment is not a surprise attack.”
Even at a tactical level, all soldiers on an island will see the ships coming and have time to duck and cover.
At a small scale, coastal bombardment kill soldiers before marines get to the beach but at the scale of representation of A&A unit it is unlikely to obliterate an army corps.
Just take a look about Iwo Jima or assault on Peleliu Island in the Palau.

An other game reason is that in ETO vs Germany, UK and USA could do a lot of damage to German’s Inf through bombardment without too much damage to the attacker.

That’s why they left the classic rules and introduce the limitation:
1 on 1 basis ratio for bombardment.
1 Inf= 1 shore bombardment, 2 grounds units from TT= 2 shore bombardment max, etc.

Just imagine 4 UK cruiser and 3 BB from USA= 4 hits on average.
So you send 7 Inf on Western Europe, then Germany already lost 4 Inf unable to roll on defense, first turn.
(It is an extreme scenario but in the plausible range.)
You can do this every turn you need to conquer or just causing attrition on the defender.

At this strategical level, do you see how it is a non-sense.
It is just like all army corps of a land territory are in gun range of warships.

As a Germany’s player, I would declare that there is a “bug” in this limited classic bombardment.

That’s why, IMO, Larry revised the rule to OOB 1940 bombardment rules. All units can still roll on defense.

If you hold on to this classic rule about defenseless casualty, you should at least limit further the number of shore bombardment:

1 shore bombardment per transport Max.
Example: 3 TTs = 3 attack = max 3 defenseless casualty.

[baron Münchhausen]

I would add that in PTO, USA would do an easy Island hopping, just need to bring 2 TTs, 4 Inf, enough shore bombardment to kill 2 units.
4 Cruisers (48 IPCs) give 2 kills on average.
3 BBs (60 IPCs) kill the same.

No USA Inf lost.
You can conquer almost every island without need of Inf reinforcement.

Do you see the gap in classic bombardment rules?

[gamerman01]

@Baron:

I would add that in PTO, USA would do an easy Island hopping, just need to bring 2 TTs, 4 Inf, enough shore bombardment to kill 2 units.
4 Cruisers (48 IPCs) give 2 kills on average.
3 BBs (60 IPCs) kill the same.

No USA Inf lost.
You can conquer almost every island without need of Inf reinforcement.

Do you see the gap in classic bombardment rules?

Good point

[baron Münchhausen]

About 5. Enhanced air combat and scramble effect,
I have a different and simpler game mechanic to suggest which give almost the same statistical result.

Fighter A2D3M4C8, hit plane when roll “1” on first round.
In addition: on defense, roll 1@1 preemptive like AA.

TacBomber A3-4D3M4C10, hit plane when roll “1” on first round, get +1A when paired to Fg or Arm (as OOB).

StratBomber A4D1M6C12, can SBR.

Before the battle, all AAA defend up to 3@1 vs plane, max 1 roll/plane as OOB.

In addition, every defending fighter roll 1@1 vs plane.

All casualties are removed.

Then, all units (except AAA, which can only take hit, as OOB, /or as your rule said get D1) are part of the following battle including the previous defending fighters.

Every “1” rolled by Fg or TcB from either side is noted as a hit against the other side aircraft.
Owner’s select aircraft casualties amongst them, as OOB.

All “2” from attacking Fg,
All “2” or “3” from TacB, and defending Fg are considered regular hit.
All “1” to “4” from StB are regular hit, as OOB.

In this way, defending fighters are like having a D2 (12/36 odds) vs planes.
In fact, it is a 2 roll @1, 1 preemptive, the other a regular one. (Odds are: 1/36 to get 2 hits, 10/36 to get 1 hit).

All other Fgs and TcB get A1D1 vs planes.

StB cannot directly hit any plane.

Just have to imagine a plane battle (like escort and interceptor Rolling all @1 in OOB SBR) Inside the regular battle.
That’s why “1” are treated differently.

So defending Fighters are still better than those on offence.

In can be visualized like being able to scramble and intercept attacker planes just before they reach their ground targets.

After, allowing every planes but StB a chance to hit other planes on “1” roll is the aerial battle over the ground battle.

All other successful hits, just mean aircrafts destroy ground units.

What do you think of this one?

[baron Münchhausen]

Another aspect about reducing the Fgs and TcB cost is :

On an IPCs basis, Carriers are not as good offence nor defense as OOB.
CV 1942.2
A1D2M2C14+2Fgs A2D3M4C8 vs A1D2M2C14+2Fgs A3D4M4C10
A5D8 cost 30 IPCs                  vs          A7D10 cost 34 IPCs
13 pts for 30 = less than .5 ratio          17 pts for 34 = 1 for 2

To keep up the ratio, it means -4 IPCs
1942.2 CV must be reduce to 10 IPCs.

1940 CV must be reduce to 12 IPCs.

[oztea]

If you are going to do anything worthwhile it should include:

A: different unit costs for each nation

• Transports for the US cost less, while carriers for the Italians cost more

B: 1914 style combat (contested territories)

• Only one round is too slow. Make it 3 rounds. Or, better yet, roll at the beginning of each GAME turn (so one roll before Germany’s turn)
  This roll determines how many weeks this round represents. So if you roll a 3, all battles last 3 rounds, then units are locked into the territory and it becomes contested.
  Next turn, maybe you roll a 5, or maybe you roll a 1
  Naval battles would also have limited rounds.

Or not….

Im not sure what this project is going for.
Because AARHE was HISTORICAL edition
What does ENHANCED “mean”

Are we trying to fix whats broken?
Are we aiming to better replicate history?
Or is this just a house rule stew?

[Derek]

@Baron:

I would add that in PTO, USA would do an easy Island hopping, just need to bring 2 TTs, 4 Inf, enough shore bombardment to kill 2 units.
4 Cruisers (48 IPCs) give 2 kills on average.
3 BBs (60 IPCs) kill the same.

No USA Inf lost.
You can conquer almost every island without need of Inf reinforcement.

Do you see the gap in classic bombardment rules?

You make a very compelling argument here.
I am agreeing with you now,
However at no level is bombardment a surprise attack, everyone knows its coming. But if your pillbox or whatnot takes a direct hit from a BB main gun = death

I may have a solution, units hit by bombardment are regular casualties but they now roll at minus 1 on defense. With lowest possible being 1. So strat bombers and AAA would still roll 1s.

On your different idea about air combat…during the battle tac bombers would be targeting tanks and AAA, not fighters. I have posted a ruleset using 1s as special hits before. Maybe we should look into it further.

But I don’t see how it has anything to do with a defense scrambling to try to thin out enemy air before they reach the battle.

@Baron:

Another aspect about reducing the Fgs and TcB cost is :

On an IPCs basis, Carriers are not as good offence nor defense as OOB.
CV 1942.2
A1D2M2C14+2Fgs A2D3M4C8 vs A1D2M2C14+2Fgs A3D4M4C10
A5D8 cost 30 IPCs                  vs          A7D10 cost 34 IPCs
13 pts for 30 = less than .5 ratio          17 pts for 34 = 1 for 2

To keep up the ratio, it means -4 IPCs
1942.2 CV must be reduce to 10 IPCs.

1940 CV must be reduce to 12 IPCs.

Another compelling argument here, I am only on my phone right now.
When I have access to a pc I will look into this more.
I’m thinking your right, but 4 IPC is too much I think. I will look into it.

@oztea:

If you are going to do anything worthwhile it should include:

A: different unit costs for each nation

• Transports for the US cost less, while carriers for the Italians cost more

B: 1914 style combat (contested territories)

• Only one round is too slow. Make it 3 rounds. Or, better yet, roll at the beginning of each GAME turn (so one roll before Germany’s turn)
  This roll determines how many weeks this round represents. So if you roll a 3, all battles last 3 rounds, then units are locked into the territory and it becomes contested.
  Next turn, maybe you roll a 5, or maybe you roll a 1
  Naval battles would also have limited rounds.

Or not….

Im not sure what this project is going for.
Because AARHE was HISTORICAL edition
What does ENHANCED “mean”

Are we trying to fix whats broken?
Are we aiming to better replicate history?
Or is this just a house rule stew?

I like your ideas Oztea. What would be some of your suggestions for A?

Enhance; intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.

[Derek]

After crunching some numbers on carriers and fighters.

By reducing the cost of carriers by 2 IPC, the new carrier/fighter combo is slightly improved on defense. While almost the same on offense.
Remember this is being paired with BB reduced to 18 IPC, cruisers reduced to 11 IPC and transports reduced to 6 IPC.
All of this taken together (along with tac and fighter reductions) should slightly reduce the effectiveness of submarines and destroyers, which is something i think many would like to see. Will have to do more math of course and testing to be sure it doesn’t reduce them too much, but according to what i have so far it, and what others have tested (see: Gamermans G40 changes) it doesn’t appear to do so.

Now a nation can purchase a carrier, 2 fighters and a transport for the same cost as just the carrier and fighters OOB.
Allowing more options and more action in the PTO, possibly even without the need for the 6VC that many seem to dislike.

Chart: 540 IPC (544 for DDs)
New carriercombo vs OOB carriercombo vs destroyers

New: 18, A72  D144  HP72
OOB: 15, A90  D150  HP60
DD:   68, A142 D142 HP68

OOB carriercombo attacking DD:  95% in favor of DD
New carriercombo attacking DD:  95% in favor of DD (no change)
DD attacking OOB carrier combo: 88% in favor of DD
DD attacking new carrier combo: 98% in favor of DD (a clear but minor buff)

New carriercombo attacking OOB carrier combo: 100% in favor of OOB
OOB carriercombo attacking new carrier combo: 100% in favor of new (no change)

OP updated on bombardment and carrier cost

[Derek]

Added:

11. Dice bonuses. On a dice roll of 1 (attack and defense) observe the following for the listed units:
-Fighters may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Tactical bombers may choose a ground unit as a casualty (land or sea)
-Cruisers may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Battleships may choose a surface vessel as a casualty (includes transports)
-Tanks may choose a ground target as a casualty
-Strategic bombers, (offense only) defender must choose 2 casualties

Also added neutral blocks

[baron Münchhausen]

@oztea:

Im not sure what this project is going for.
Because AARHE was HISTORICAL edition
What does ENHANCED “mean”

Are we trying to fix whats broken?
Are we aiming to better replicate history?
Or is this just a house rule stew?

Good questions here.
Uncrustable, are we working on a compendium of your House Rules?

There is many interesting things on this thread et much more to come, I would suggest you to separate in two parts your house rules:
1- the core house rules with new units costs & combat value and all closely related to,
2- optionnal house rule wich add depth and historicity but at the cost of simplicity.

For example: BB A4D4C18 2 hits, bombard @4 are core rules

Optionnal:
On a shore bombardment, a hit on any unit lower the defensive roll of this unit by 2, rounded up.
Ex.: a hitted ArtD2 or Inf, become D1, a tank D3 become 1.5= D2, AAA D1 becomes .5=D1, etc.

This way, we can better see what can be a fantasy and what is non-negociable from your perspective. What is essential to your system and what is not.
We could better focus and work on the essential to help it becomes more playable with less weakness.

Other question, if you take many changes vs OOB,  it will become very hard to get a balance set-up using OOB initial set-up.

We can make many suggestions, change many things but, ultimately, who will like to play with this HR and how could it be introduce in any 1940 or 1942.2 games?

[baron Münchhausen]

All enhancements are with minimal changes to current OOB rules.

I stress the importance of simplicity, meaningfulness and logic; the goal is to enhance the game, not make it unplayable.

The more there is non OOB rules, the harder it is to believe it.
At least, help us in making the difference between what is simple and minimal change (the essential) vs what could be meaningfulness and logic but at the cost of simplicity, somehow (creative thinking and out of the sand box, but not absolutly necessary.)

That is how I see the change about bombardment: more logical but less simple: not a main aspect of what you develop.
That’s why I suggest to keep it as an optional rule inside your enhanced House Rules compendium.

About this rule, I think you have to version and it is basicaly the same, any unit hit by bombardment: -1 to defense (minimum 1) or ½ defense, rounding up.

If (big if?) there is any unit with D4, will it get defend @3 or only @2?

I was thinking about the OOB fighter, then I remember yours only Defend @3…

[Derek]

Enhance; intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.

[gamerman01]

@Uncrustable:

Will have to do more math of course and testing to be sure it doesn’t reduce them too much, but according to what i have so far it, and what others have tested (see: Gamermans G40 changes) it doesn’t appear to do so.

I haven’t done any testing, we’re just getting started.  Just to be clear  :-)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

On your different idea about air combat…during the battle tac bombers would be targeting tanks and AAA, not fighters.

I have posted a ruleset using 1s as special hits before. Maybe we should look into it further.
It is not the same perspective. You had make all Fg and Tc A1, while Fg D2 and TcB D1, fighting together one round before the main battle.
In creating this AAA and aerial fighting step, all Fg and TcB are fighting each other as a preemptive strike vs the main battle. Same as two subs fighting in the Surprise step attack. I kick out the attacking fighters and TacB from this preemptive AAA step.

In this way I kept: “-All air units have an air combat value of 1, except fighters on defense at 2.”  Simpler, deleting this step, it will be more like OOB, except: giving your defending fighter a single preemptive strike similar to AAA. They fight twice @1. They can  “thin out enemy air before they reach the battle”.  
I hope you better understand the perspective: no additional step but a specific stat to 2 units (Fg/TcB)

But I don’t see how it has anything to do with a defense scrambling to try to thin out enemy air before they reach the battle.

[baron Münchhausen]

a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
c)Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)

I like the stat for Fighter and the dynamic you want to develop vs TacB, it is the real game changer vs OOB Fighter (they had always Defend@4).
The first Classic Fighter was a combination of all kind of fighter and TacB.

That was correct to give it D4, but now we can assign very different stat and capacity to both.

Now we have a TacBomber, it opens a Pandora’s box.  :evil:
And we are just starting to open this gap.
Sure, it will need more fine tuning, but it is good step.

[General Veers]

I like the idea of neutral blocks, but I’d combine Africa and Europe since all of the African neutrals are Portuguese and Spanish colonies. It’s not a big deal since outside of Angola and Mozambique I don’t think African neutrals get much action (US landing in Rio de Oro I guess). Liberia should be US-friendly anyway (there should be country specific friendly neutrals, including Brazil for the US).

As far as NOs go the UK desperately needs the restore the sub bonus and get a commonwealth bonus.