G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Either or, air supremacy bonus should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain.

Option 1: After all, what we come through it is my favourite one!
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2 Rolls of one may be allocated to enemy air units (choose your own casualty applies) Still there?
Tac bmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14  Good change, not so radical in combat.
No other OOB changes

Option 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB change

On fighter intercepting SBR at 2:
SBR is a bit powerful currently OOB.
Many times bombers will be sent alone with no fighter escort even when their are enemy fighters, this is because you can easily overwhelm the fighters with bombers with all @1.
With interceptors @2 it will force more escorts to protect bombers.
It’s also OOB 42.2 I believe.
So nerf SBR a little, and add a bit of historical realism (higher risk for sending bombers unescorted)
Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR.

For SBR combat, you should come back to my version of SBR 1942.2 slightly modified from OOB
(I erased the First Strike of the attacking bomber but kept it for escorting Fighter):
Fg A1_First Strike_ D2
TcB A1 D1
StB A1 D0

Interesting idea to discuss.

Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR.

[Derek]

I meant +1s for bombers from airbases (tho maybe 2s could work)
You make air supremacy to tedious and rare to be worth it
SBR needs a nerf
Interceptors at 2 is the nerf
It also provides a deterent/counter to bomber spam strategies

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

We need stop beating on this dead horse  :?
We make no progress in this way
Air units OOB
Tac to 10IPC
Interceptors at 2 (1942.2 OOB)

I’m going to test some of this next week

Let’s at least return the half dozen consecutive and lengthy
posts on air units back to the proper thread that you started Done.

It’s just burying everyone else’s posts and it’s detrimental to this thread
No offense meant

I thought you should have known about implications of Fg A2D3C8 unit, specially in carrier operations.
Obviously, your opinion evolve on this point.
However, there is not much indication of this evolution (and the reasoning behind it) on the thread while, at the same time, I was agreeing with you on that specific point (on Fg A2D3C8).
I never knew you was coming back to OOB air warefare.

I will post on my own thread about Air units for any exploration of a nearer OOB Fg unit:
TcB as A3D4C10 +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9 any “1” rolled hit a plane.

Showing calculation to keep balance vs BB and CA (at -2 IPCs) with OOB CV A0D2C16 or at C15?
because both planes will be -1 IPC .

For BB and CA, are you still keeping C18 and C10?

[Jennifer]

I am not saying submarines have no function in combat.  I am saying their utility in the game is really in convoy raids.

So what I am proposing is to make them REALLY good at convoys and drop the gimmick of letting fighters and destroyers convoy raid.  Let each submarine do 1d6+2 convoy damage (just figured now that they should be equivalent to bombers) to each convoy zone (capped at maximum value of the territories of course.)  It’s now the naval version of the bomber.  They can still join in an attack like normal, but they are now the only convoy raiding unit on the board, and they do it really well!

To offset it a bit, they have no defense value.  This makes sense since the defense of a submarine is to dive for the bottom of the ocean and hope the enemy gives up and goes away.

I mean, it’s just an idea.

---

In regards to planes, I think I like the cost of tacs and figs being the same, but I would invert their abilities.

For example:

Fig: IPC 10, ATT 2, DEF 4
Tac: IPC 10, ATT 4, DEF 2

That way some units excel at other tasks then other units and the real benefit comes in pairing them up (as I think was originally designed.)

[Derek]

Idk if you read my post or not answering yours
But submarines are already ridiculously better at convoy raiding than any other unit
And the ‘gimmick’ would be not allowing other units to raid convoys
Submarines are already so good at everything they need no buffs

Submarines with no defense is absurd, most fleets have atleast one destroyer so the whole ‘dive for the bottom notion’ is both silly and impractical in terms of gameplay
No one wants anymore defenseless auto death units

I started a thread on the cost structure of units over at G40
Essentially explaining what I think is the flaw in naval costs

To make a long story short (you can visit the thread) I came to this:
TRN 6
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 14
BB 18

Average naval unit cost down just 1 IPC
So very little, if any, change in terms of overall gameplay balance
But much better relative purchasing balance between the naval units

[General Veers]

I checked the first page, where do we stand on NOs? Before anything else the weakest one in the game, the UK Europe one has to be amended. Instead of having to worry about Italy trolling African territories or Cyprus to nullify it, just narrow it down to Egypt, Trans-Jordan and Gibraltar as Oztea has suggested. On top of that I would restore the no sub bonus.

For the Russian communism NO (the cheesiest one), replace Axis territory to any European territory, including Turkey and Allied-friendly ones like Greece and Yugoslavia. Should also get a bonus for Korea.

The Japanese and American NOs need plenty of revision as well, but that is already being addressed in another thread.

[Derek]

UK should get a NO for no axis subs in the Atlantic
This was in first edition I believe
The other UK NO makes sense and is better than the original was

The Russian NO you speak of was changed to where it is now because of cheese
Are you saying go back?
Or just exclude African territories ?

I’m not big on adding NOs, there are almost too many as it stands
It starts to become very tedious and detracts from the game

NOs shouldn’t be all easy, but some are there purely for balance and historical reasons (USA ones)

The lengthy japan NO regarding the islands was added post 1st edition to give them more incentive to take islands, aswell as incentive for the allies to make an attempt to defend them

[Derek]

Updated OP:

3. Enhanced air units.
   Tactical bombers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   No other change.

4. Enhance naval units
   Submarines cost increased to 7 IPCs.
   Destroyers no change.
   Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
   Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
   Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
   -Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

9. Home Guard/Garrisons.
0-1 IPC territories - no roll
2-4 IPC territories - @1
5+ IPC territories - @2
NonCapitalVC territories - @3
CapitalVC territories - @4

Tech categories:
Army Doctrine (4 IPCs per token)
-Paratroopers: From Airbases. OOB, Consult Rulebook.
-Adv Artillery: Can pair 2 infantry units with 1 artillery.
-Improved Mech: Mech can blitz alone. Mech can pair with a tank for +1 attack (1:1) A Mech cannot pair with both a tank and an artillery .
Infrastructure (7 IPCs per token)
-Increased Factory Production: Minor IC produces at 4, Major IC produces at 12. Repair 2 damage for each 1 IPC. Maximum damage not increase.
-Improved Shipyards: Shipyards may produce non capital naval units as a minor IC. Treat the base as both a naval base and a minor IC. It may produce transports, submarines, destroyers and cruisers only.
-War Bonds: Collect an additional 1D6 IPCs during the collect income phase.
Naval & Aviation Technology (5 IPCs per token)
-Super Submarines: Defending submarines hit on a 2 or less.
-Rockets: Rockets from airbases (bombing raid). One rocket attack per airbase. Range 3. Damage 1D6. Airbase must be operational. Rockets are susceptible to AA.
-Radar: AA rolls hit on a 2 or less.
Combat Aviation (10 IPCs per token)
-Jet Fighters: Attacking fighters defend on a 5 or less. Become a A3D5 unit. Jet fighters intercept SBR at a 2 or less.
-Long Range Aircraft: +1 to range of all aircraft. Stacks with airbase bonus to +3.
-Heavy Bombers: Strategic bombers roll 2 dice when attacking or strategic bombing. Select the best result (dice does not add). LL roll = 5. (LHTR)

[KionAAA]

Hello friends

@Baron:

Submarines cost increased to 8 IPCs. Attack value increased to 3 or less.

I’m not so sure of this change.
Maybe just 7 IPCs A3, or just let them be as OOB.

There is at least 3 (TT, CA, BB), and even 4 (CV???), naval units at a lower cost, there will be more navy units buying because those units will be cheaper and more attractive vs other unchanged unit: DD & Subs?.

Example: OOB 2 SUBs (A4D2C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
now, 5 Subs (A10D5C30=15 pts) for 3 Cruisers (A9D9C30=18 pts),
or maybe 10 Subs (A30D7C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A21D21C70).
5 Subs (A15D5C40= 20 pts) for 4 Cruisers (A12D12C40= 24 pts) seems a too drastic change, IMO.

Remember everyone:
actually, our intuitive reference about Subs is OOB 1940 Global, not the revised cost of G40E, until someone play-tested it.

I’m sorry, but your calculation needs to be tweaked.
The sum of attack and defense damage is not a good measurement of the strength of a unit,
the product of damage and hitpoints is much better quantity.
If a unit has different values for attack and defense (as subs do),
it has to different values.

With this, your examples read as this:

OOB 2 SUBs (A8D4C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
cheaper Cruiser: 5 Subs (A50D25C30) for 3 Cruisers (A27D27C30),
Subs at 7:  10 Subs (A200D100C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A147D147C70).
Subs at A3C8: 5 Subs(A75D25C40) for 4 Cruisers (A48D48C40).

And for me, Subs at A3D1C8 still seem to be a good solution.

@Uncrustable:

3. Enhanced air units.
   Tactical bombers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   No other change.

Seems like a quite unintrusive change that a lot of players might accept.
@Uncrustable:

4. Enhance naval units
   Submarines cost increased to 7 IPCs.
   Destroyers no change.
   Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
   Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.

Submarine: see above
Why was the carrier made cheaper?
Cruiser and BB to uncommen? Lower cost.
Submarine to strong? Increase cost.
But the carrier is already one of the most powerful ships in the game, why did you lower its cost by 2 IPC?
The cheaper TcB already cheapens the carrier indirectly.

So far, see you around.

Kion

[Derek]

subs at A3D1 cost 8
subs at A2D1 cost 7
either would probably work

the second is much less change, would require no OOB setup changes
subs at A3 would most likely require a setup change as Germany starts with 5 subs within attack range of several seazones

Why was the carrier made cheaper?
Cruiser and BB to uncommen? Lower cost.
Submarine to strong? Increase cost.
But the carrier is already one of the most powerful ships in the game, why did you lower its cost by 2 IPC?
The cheaper TcB already cheapens the carrier indirectly.

Need to do some extensive calculations regarding carriers yet, tonight/tomorrow probably
yes cruisers are battleships are very weak OOB
it is a flaw in the cost system i beleive
as the combat value of naval units is worth 2x that of regular units
so the powerful units have exaggerated relative costs

i started a new thread over at G40 on cost structure
and proposed a new one for naval that better fits into the game
add the combat value of a unit + 4
specials (2hit, carry units) are worth 50% of the total cost each, and stack
subs A2D1 (3+4)) =7
dd A2D2 (4+4) =8
CA A3D3 (6+4) =10
BB A4D4 (8+4) =12. BB is 2hit. BB=18
CV A0D2 (2+4) =6 2hit + carry units CV = 14
TRN (0+4) = 4. carry unit TRN = 6

using battlecalc they all work really well, just need to do carriers yet
and now that i look again my formula would actually put carriers at 15 if you were to round up. so maybe 15 is where they should be
which would help them vs subs and destroyers, but BBs and CAs went down more in cost than carriers
average naval unit cost is reduced by 1 IPC, (less than 1 if carriers at 15) so its not so much game changing

it should increase cruisers and battleships, while reducing sub spam
submarines are still the best offensive unit, and best at convoy damage
destroyers are now the best defensive unit (was subs + destroyers depending on enemy air units), cheapest blockers
CAs and BBs bombard same and much more efficient at naval combat with regards to the other units.

[Jennifer]

@Uncrustable:

And the ‘gimmick’ would be not allowing other units to raid convoys

That was what I was saying.  Take the gimmick of letting other units do convoy raids out and put it back to only submarines.

Could do submarines with 0 defense but if there are only submarines in a sea zone under attack, you can only attack them for one round before they escape.  Still gives you the more realistic dive for cover, but lets you use them as meatshields for your surface fleet as well.

As for destroyer/cruiser, I’d still go DD = 10 IPC, and CA at 12 IPC.  Fleets have always been historically very expensive in these games, I think they are unrealistically cheap now as it is.  Can drop it to 8 IPC DD and 10 IPC CA with Improved Shipyards.

I’m good with submarines up to 7, not the 8 I wanted, but far better than the 6 it is now, IMHO.

---

In regards to objectives:

I agree, England needs the no German submarines in the North Atlantic.  I’d change the one for original territories to control of E. Canada, S. Africa, Egypt, Scotland, England, Malta and Gibraltar as well as Ireland either allied or pro-allied.  A little easier for England to keep it, but still requires them to defend the empire if they want it.

Russia should maybe have one for not being at war with Japan?  They did focus hard on Germany and only after Germany was down did they really concern themselves with changing gears to go for Japan (the US of course beating the to the punch by dropping two atomic weapons on Japan and getting them to surrender.)

I still really hate the whole US NO for the continental United States.  It’s too bloody hard to get it away from them and when you do, odds are almost certain you are going to win at that point.  I am still in favor of just raising the property values of American controlled territories in the Pacific equivalent to the 10 IPC so it’s easier to take it away.  Maybe you don’t feel the same, but that’s just my opinion on the matter.

I’d tie the German NO with Russia being at peace and bind it to Italy.  If Italy declares war on Russia then Germany loses the NO.  ATM, it feels like an exploit to allow Italy to spear head into Russia and have German units reinforce while still letting Germany collect the NO for being at peace with Russia.  Again, this is my opinion, feel free to argue me out of it.

[Derek]

I’d tie the German NO with Russia being at peace and bind it to Italy.  If Italy declares war on Russia then Germany loses the NO.  ATM, it feels like an exploit to allow Italy to spear head into Russia and have German units reinforce while still letting Germany collect the NO for being at peace with Russia.  Again, this is my opinion, feel free to argue me out of it.

Agree here, this is very cheesy.

I still really hate the whole US NO for the continental United States.  It’s too bloody hard to get it away from them and when you do, odds are almost certain you are going to win at that point.

This is one of the best NOs in my opinion, as it shows the USA economic boost when they went to war.
It also shows the real strength of the USA, its protected by a natural force barrier of hundreds of miles of ocean on either side.
Is it nearly impossible to take this NO away? Yes. As it was nearly impossible for the axis to do any real damage to USA economy in reality.
This NO is very historically realistic, and balances the game. Punishes the Axis for DOW early, and sets the tone for the game, RACE to equal economic footing for the axis once USA has entered.
Not to mention taking this away/changing it would likely hurt the Allies (it wouldnt help them!) and the game already requires a 9-12 allied bid.

Could do submarines with 0 defense but if there are only submarines in a sea zone under attack, you can only attack them for one round before they escape.  Still gives you the more realistic dive for cover, but lets you use them as meatshields for your surface fleet as well.

There would be probably as many reasons to dive as to not dive in many different situations, arguing this is completely pointless and irrelevant.
Realism aside, now you apply duct tape lol
And whether or not a submarine comes under attack by another warship, or it is doing the attacking, its still an underwater war machine loaded with armament enough to sink several ships double its size.

Think of the naval costs this way:
SS 7 IPC
DD 8 IPC (+1 combat value than SS)
CA 10 IPC (+2 combat value than DD)
BB 18 IPC (+2 combat value than CA, +1 hit to sink)

INF 3 IPC
ART 4 IPC (+1 combat value than INF)
TNK 6 IPC (+2 combat value than ART)

Carrier should be 15 IPC according to the cost structure. Slightly better OOB than both SS and DD, but CA and BB receive higher cost reductions.
This would leave the average naval unit cost reduced by slightly less than 1 IPC. And would actually improve the overall relative costs of all units.

Sealion survivor rate for Germans improves by about 3 units on average using low luck dice. (with 6 IPC transports)
Not sure this is game breaking.

Fleets have always been historically very expensive in these games, I think they are unrealistically cheap now as it is.

This statement doesn’t make anysense, and naval units have not changed since 50th except carriers (+2 IPC in G40).
Just because there is more money on the map doesn’t mean we should increase the cost of all units.
And increasing the cost of naval units while leaving land and air alone would upset the relative cost balance of units.

[Derek]

Russia Lend Lease NO should be expanded to Caucasus + NWPersia + Persia ; and Far East + SZ3
5 IPCs for each, leading to 15 total IPCs possible via lend lease for Russia

[General Veers]

The Persian Corridor lend lease is a very good idea.

Italy should have to work more for their Mediterranean NO, on top of no surface ships they should have to take all the islands and Gibraltar.

To your question on the Russian NO from earlier, the bonus for any territory with an IPC value is good, but I’d still exclude Libya and Ethiopia. That said it is a simpler way of tracking it.

[Derek]

Italy should have to work more for their Mediterranean NO, on top of no surface ships they should have to take all the islands and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is already tied to an NO, and this would make the Med bonus a little too difficult to obtain.

For the Russian communism NO (the cheesiest one), replace Axis territory to any European territory, including Turkey and Allied-friendly ones like Greece and Yugoslavia. Should also get a bonus for Korea.

A good fix for this one is revise it to any territory on the Europe board (outside of original Russian ofcourse) that is atleast worth 1 IPC.
So no more cheesy zero IPC territories making Russia rich.

[baron Münchhausen]

@KionAAA:

Hello friends

@Baron:

Submarines cost increased to 8 IPCs. Attack value increased to 3 or less.

I’m not so sure of this change.
Maybe just 7 IPCs A3, or just let them be as OOB.

There is at least 3 (TT, CA, BB), and even 4 (CV???), naval units at a lower cost, there will be more navy units buying because those units will be cheaper and more attractive vs other unchanged unit: DD & Subs?.

Example: OOB 2 SUBs (A4D2C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
now, 5 Subs (A10D5C30=15 pts) for 3 Cruisers (A9D9C30=18 pts),
or maybe 10 Subs (A30D7C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A21D21C70).
5 Subs (A15D5C40= 20 pts) for 4 Cruisers (A12D12C40= 24 pts) seems a too drastic change, IMO.

I’m sorry, but your calculation needs to be tweaked.
The sum of attack and defense damage is not a good measurement of the strength of a unit,
the product of damage and hitpoints is much better quantity.
If a unit has different values for attack and defense (as subs do),
it has to different values.

With this, your examples read as this:

OOB 2 SUBs (A8D4C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
cheaper Cruiser: 5 Subs (A50D25C30) for 3 Cruisers (A27D27C30),
Subs at 7:�  10 Subs (A200D100C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A147D147C70).
Subs at A3C8: 5 Subs(A75D25C40) for 4 Cruisers (A48D48C40).

And for me, Subs at A3D1C8 still seem to be a good solution.

You should open a specific topic on this point.
According to what you described, a must take any number of hits multiply by itself (yXy) then multiply by the basic A/D to get the combat value of a group.

Ex.: 5 subs= 5 hits x 5 x A2D1 = A50D25.

My question is why multiply number of hits by itself?

Why not another factor? Like ½ (yXy), for instance ?
5 subs x 5= 25 /2= 12.5 xA2D1 = A25D12.5  
Or anything else which can take into account the number of hits?

It is still different from my conventional evaluation of units:
5 subs = A10D5

[Derek]

The ‘so far’ completed version of G40e.
Testing now.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32396.0

[Jennifer]

I understand your arguments for the US NO. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I’ll let it go since that NO’s been around since basically forever and Larry never got convinced by me to change it, so I guess it should stay - if for no other reason than to keep the game mostly intact.

---

In regards to fleets, I think there are two decent options:

1.  Restore Convoy Raids to Alpha 2 rules (Submarines only, each Submarine can do up to 2 CRD assuming the sea zone can support the dmg.) Â
2.  Give cruisers anti-aircraft guns per the same rules industrial complexes/air fields/naval bases use for them (they cannot be hit extra, get up to 3 shots in the first round of combat against attacking planes @1)
3.  Reduce aircraft carriers in price, but make them one hit surface ships. Notice I said surface ship, not warship.  So a lone carrier cannot negate the Italian Med Sea NO just like submarines cannot. Â
4.  Price Structure: TRN-6, SS-8, DD-10, AC-12, CA-14, BB-20

This should result in a decent spread of ships. Â

• SS at 8 should probably be attack 2, defense 2 units like in Anniversary, Revised and Classic. Â
• DD at 10 will bring them on par with Battleships.  2 Destroyers vs 1 Battleship results in the Battleship usually winning, but battleships cannot detect enemy submarines, so this should make the two equivalent.
• AC at 12 will result in more and more carriers on the battlefield.  Thing is, if we make them 1 hit, you will need more and more carriers if only so that the loss of one does not result in the loss of planes as well.  Since carriers were a primary target for Pacific warfare (historically) having more and more of them sink would be in line with history, no?
• CA at 14 makes sense if they have AA Guns.  The AA Guns alone will make warfare more expensive if only aircraft attack, which will encourage more surface ships to defend carriers on both sides.  (ATT 3, DEF 3, AA Gun @1 for up to 3 Attacking planes, may shore bombard @3.)
• BB at 20 as the only 2 hit warship on the map.

_EDIT:
Russian NOs lost if any allied unit enters a Russian or Russian controlled territory.  However, don’t just ban them from entering?  Gives the players the option to give up NOs or keep them.  If we add NAs then Russia loses those as well if any allied units are present?

Just an idea…don’t have a problem with banning them, just an alternative._

[Derek]

In regards to fleets, I think there are two decent options:

What about this option:
Less change, and better fits with other OOB units.

Unit changes:
Anti Aircraft Artillery: AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to Anti Aircraft rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains at 5.
-Price Changes
Naval/Air bases: 12 IPCs.
Submarines:      7 IPCs.
Destroyers:        8 IPCs.
Cruisers:          10 IPCs.
Battleships:      18 IPCs.
Carriers:          15 IPCs.
Transports:      6 IPCs.
-A transport, when empty, may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. Does not stack with naval base bonus.
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

Allies banned from entering Russia for balance purposes.
However, if you were not playing the 4 player variant, then yes Russia would simply lose its NOs if other Allied units entered its territories.

[Derek]

Removed 4 player variant from here.
Gonna take some time to balance, working on it sparingly.
Sticking to more basic changes here.