G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[Derek]

Need time to cool off…

Agreed.
Maybe a little rash on my part, but as I said, I mentioned 3 times over a period of 2 days that it was going way off course, and was beginning to devolve. I was curtly rebuffed.
I even suggested the off topic be moved, instead of hijacking the thread, and was ignored.
I’d rather delete the thread than have it completely hijacked. Just the American in me I suppose ;)
It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
The method was really the only thing even debated other than carriers (15 or 16).

[Jennifer]

was not. :P  I never agreed that was best! lol.

I’m still kinda holding out hope for different abilities instead of lowered prices (maybe different abilities and increased prices…) But I’ve always been fond of naval conflict!

I still feel that no naval ship should cost an odd number of IPC.

[Derek]

@Cmdr:

was not. :P  I never agreed that was best! lol.

I’m still kinda holding out hope for different abilities instead of lowered prices (maybe different abilities and increased prices…) But I’ve always been fond of naval conflict!

I still feel that no naval ship should cost an odd number of IPC.

I was speaking of the other thread.
And i agree about the odd numbers,

Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18

Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.

Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports)

SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphib support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hit

The actuall DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare aswell

These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron aswell as myself

[baron Münchhausen]

The actual DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition

What does it mean?
Hit Point?
DPS?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…
That is: When a submarine is not submerged, there are no special rules regarding aircraft vs subs. When a submarine is or is not submerged does not change from OOB. However a sub still can never act as a blocker.
While not submerged, or at the surface, a sub does not have a first strike ‘sneak attack’
While at the surface it can hit enemy air units, and enemy air units do not need a destroyer to hit the sub.
Once a sub submerges it can no longer hit aircraft, aircraft then need a destroyer to hit the sub.
A submerged sub retains it’s first strike ‘sneak attack’ as long as there are no enemy destroyers present.
Also a submarine may submerge and retreat the battle, without leaving the SZ. So long as there are no enemy destroyers in the battle.

According to the rules (if I’m not mistaken) a submarine is considered ‘at the surface’ or ‘not submerged’ until it’s owner decides whether or not to submerge it. Once submerged it remains that way until the end of the battle, where it then resurfaces.

Basically a sub has 3 options:
Stay at the surface (acting as a normal A2D1 unit)
Submerge (use current OOB rules)
Submerge and retreat from the battle (remaining in the SZ)

In OOB rules a destroyer effectively blocks enemy submarines from submerging.
With these rules a submarine could still submerge, but an enemy destroyer blocks both the sneak attack and submerge and retreat while allowing friendly aircraft to target enemy subs.

This would give subs a little more power.
However considering there is only 1 IPC difference in cost from a destroyer, and submarines cannot block, I think there will be good reason to have some of both.

Is this too powerful for subs?
With this they can now act as proper escorts for transports. Albeit at a very low defensive roll (1)
This would certainly change some of the core dynamics of the game.

What do you think ?

At first glance,
it seems non-historical, subs were very vulnerable against air patrol, once found by planes.

How about giving them a better stealth ability instead?
Since you raise the cost, it will probably lower the number of Subs. It can be a way to balance this rising price.

After first round, all defending subs can submerge and “retreat” from battle in the same SZ (and doing so, they can no more be hit by any units) even if some destroyers are present.

If it seems too overpowering, add this:
Defending Subs had a choice: after the initial roll of the attacker, whether roll for Defence @1 (as OOB) or submerge rather than rolling for defence.

Repeat this option every round after the attacker rolled and defender has chosen casualties.

So Subs will be more elusive, but at the cost of not defending against attackers ships on the first round or any subsequent round.

P.S. Please tell us if the idea of wiping this G40e scratches you.
I will at least reread it and make copy of interesting posts. If I’m not able to persuade you no to do so. No kidding. :wink:

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I was speaking of the other thread.
And i agree about the odd numbers,

Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18
Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.

Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports)

SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphib support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hit

The actuall DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare aswell

These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron aswell as myself

What is strange from a statistical POV is when you put Subs against other 1 type units on a same IPCs basis, it is the odds of survival are almost the same when you swap the side of attacking Subs into defending Subs.
Ex.: 18 SS vs 7 BB = 90% vs 10%
7 BBs vs 18 SS = 90% vs 10%.
8 SS vs 7 DD = 73% vs 26%
7 DD vs 8 SS = 79% vs 20%
Hence, Subs keep the upper hand on offence, but on defense it is clear that you better rely on DDs.

That’s why I think Subs must keep a better elusive capacity than OOB, to get some chance not to be obliterated as soon as they are in range of few attacking DDs with a lot of planes, and be able to make at least 1 decent attack move (in which they are clearly better) before being destroyed from above.

[Derek]

The sub idea is just that, an idea.
Maybe add to it: if the sub chooses to not submerge and act as a normal unit during combat (no special rules) it will only hit on 1s whether on offense or defense. This means that in a battle vs planes it is at best rolling a 1 vs a 3 (air unit)

It gives subs little more power, which is ok under the new costs

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1
If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.
If the sub submerges ad there is atleast 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes
A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

This adds some flavor to subs, while buffing them slightly
I do not believe it is overly complex, but obviously my opinion could be biased in this case

What do you think ?

[baron Münchhausen]

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1
If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.
If the sub submerges ad there is at least 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes
A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

I wonder if giving 2 attack value and 1 way to attack planes and not the other will not come to complex situation like this one:

6 Subs vs 1 CV+ 2 Fg + 1 DD
On first round: 4 A2D1 (submerge) + 2 (on surface) A1D1 (if that is possible to split the subs group?)
Let’s suppose the DD and CV are sunk but 2 Fgs weren’t hit (and there is an island to land the surviving planes).
Does the 4 Subs can go on surface to finish the jobs against Fgs?
Since their was a DD, does the owner can choose the submerge subs instead of the 2 others as casualties from planes?

If the 4 subs are stuck submerge, the question will rise: why they cannot be part of the continuing battle vs Fgs. Subs are submersible, it is not a one way ticket.

I’m trying to find the devil in the details, as you can see.

Rules can be simple, but complex in their application.

It will also imply some markers to be sure of each Subs status (to avoid discussion about what was doing one subs unit which roll “1”): on surface, submerged, submerged and retreated.

[baron Münchhausen]

If I catched KionAAA maths (As far as I understand), I get this stats for Subs:

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

17/12= 1.42 Sub/DD  12/17= 0.71 DD/Sub

1 DD A2 = 1.42 SS  D1  or  .71 DD A2 = 1SS D1

8 IPCs  vs  (1.42 SS/DD * 7 IPCs/SS) 9.94 IPCs/DD,  8 IPCs too low for DDs on offense vs Subs.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

---

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

However, It seems that the 6 IPCs OOB cost of Subs vs DDs was correct for Subs on defence.

Since you are rising them to 7 IPCs, Subs on defence need a little something to be competitive vs DDs.
Battle calc have taken into account that DDs are ASW, so Sub loose all first strike.

It can make sense to give them a better evasive capacity when defending.

[baron Münchhausen]

If I used correctly Btlcalc and KionAAA maths:

It seems that 1 Subs A2 First strike = 1 CA D3, 50% vs 50%
So a 7 IPCs vs 10 IPCs is clearly in favor of Subs.

Better way to see it, at 70 IPCs: 10 Subs vs 7 Cruiser = 94% vs 6%.

---

12 CAs A3 = 18 SS D1 = 50% vs 50%

18 SS/12 CAs= 1.5 SS/CA      12 CAs/18 SS = .67 CA/SS

1.5 SS/CA * 7 IPC/SS = 10.5 IPCs/CA very near the 10 IPCs G40e cost of Cruiser (and clearly not unbalance if we look above, when subs is the attacker.)

.67 CA/SS * 10 IPCs/CA = 6.7 IPCs/SS rounding up and it gives 7 IPCs, same G40e cost.

We can concludes that 10 IPCs Cruiser in itself is no problem vs 7 IPCs Subs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
The method was really the only thing even debated other than carriers (15 or 16).

To, at least, add another argument to prove that a 10 IPCs cruiser is at the right cost vs DD:

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

[baron Münchhausen]

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

**0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs**

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

That’s the cold math.

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

---

For my part, I prefer even numbers: 8, 10, 16, 18.

And that the most expensive unit can be at an economic match with the more versatile DD+CA.

And, from an historical accuracy view, Battleship have the big guns and the big armor and no smaller warship was a real match against one.
So the combat stats can give her a little humph against smaller warships for the massive IPCs investment it takes in a game.

And maybe vs 16 IPCs Carrier, the maths could say that it is balance at 18 IPCs (I won’t do again what KionAAA did on the other thread).

So, it could be only against Cruiser that Battleship is under price from 1 IPCs (in fact .6 IPC)

---

Sorry if it appears as numerous boring maths posts but once I catch how do the KionAAA trick, I was curious to know the results.

Hope, this mathematical “demonstration” can also convince any skeptical about the due place of all warships units for a wargame simulation of WWII.

So it can gain a large consensus amongst member to endorse the G40e units price change from OOB.

[Derek]

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

---

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

Yes its a conundrum because subs have a different attack on offense and defense.
Maybe with the other cost changes subs will be less powerful anyhow, and leaving them at 6 is the best option

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs
Posted on: December 12, 2013, 11:43:40 pm Posted by: Baron Munchhausen

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  shocked  tongue  rolleyes

That’s the cold math.

Great post.
I wish more people could understand this.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks!  :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Yes its a conundrum because subs have a different attack on offense and defense.
Maybe with the other cost changes subs will be less powerful anyhow, and leaving them at 6 is the best option.
Great post.
I wish more people could understand this. Me too.

Maybe it need to be playtested because the other warships units will be a bit more attractive for various other stategies.

However, the 6 IPCs and Subs OOB rules still open the case of Subs acting as cheap cannon fodder.
And there is still the case of numerous planes and 1 or 2 DDs destroying a whole bunch of Subs but loosing only DD and other “hit” from the defending Subs being lost because of the no hit vs air.

Subs rules bother me as I posted much earlier in my own thread of newSub HR Naval Warefare.
It goes too far for most people.

But OOB Subs still need a real revision and Enhancement.

[Derek]

@Uncrustable:

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1

If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.

If the sub submerges and there is atleast 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes

A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

Well this is where im at right now as far as subs, if they cost 7 that is…

Maybe could give subs a 3rd convoy dice aswell to further boost them…

[baron Münchhausen]

Sorry for this long post everybody.

You can only read the first part to know my conclusion and past over the calculation.
Second part is to give proof of my assumptions.

I made it because I was pretty amazed by all the results.
I thought everyone interested in G40e cost calculation/structure should know.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

I have done other calculation of Battleships vs Carrier with 2 Fgs and 1 Fg+ 1 TcB.
At my own surprise, the results give something different than KionAAA maths.
And it shows that my intuition was right when I said, to keep overall balance between warships:
lowering by 2 IPCs cruiser & BB cost imply a -1 IPC to carrier also.

In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.

The maths follow below:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x18= 38.77 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x36= 16.7 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x36=20.84 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x18=31.09 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (38.77+31.09)/2= 34.93 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (16.7+20.84)/2 = 18.77 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x19= 40.93 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x37= 17.17 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x37=21.42 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x19=32.81 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (40.93+32.81)/2= 36.87 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (17.17+21.42)/2 = 19.3 IPCs

---

Vs Cv+ 1 Fg & 1 TcB

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x18= 33.43 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x36= 19.37 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x36=17.54 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x18=36.95 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (33.43+36.95)/2= 35.2 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.37+17.54)/2 = 18.46 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x19= 35.28 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x37= 19.91 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x37=18.02 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x19=39.01 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (35.28+39.01)/2= 37.14 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.91+18.02)/2 = 18.97 IPCs

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Baron:

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.

From a game statistic, it seems to me now that a 18 IPCs Battleship is clearly favoured in combat vs 10 IPCs Cruiser and a 16 IPCs Carrier. I think, base on the math, is real balance place should be at 19 IPCs.

Cruiser keep very good balance rank at 10 IPCs.
A Carrier at 16 IPCs will still have a statistical advantage over BB with TcB reduced at 10 IPCs.
There can be many reasons (game and historical accuracy) for this little “humph”.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31933.msg1213260#msg1213260

I think now that the “go around the garden” of pure math and battle calc is done for these warships.

Only subs remains…

[Derek]

Why I think the best costs are:

Just change cruiser to 10, leave the rest OOB
Also much easier to implement.
BB would be slightly weaker, but not much when you consider they are purchased for their 2 hits with OOB prices, only unit to go down is the cruiser.