@ButterSurge hello! I am a Global War 36 player, i am interested in trying this scenario out but, id like to limitations on when things happen. One of the things i like about global war is that the axis can attack and declare war as they please, which puts a fun spin it the game in my opinion. With that being said, have you done a test game without the set time declarations?
Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review
-
@Uncrustable:
Here is where G40e stands:
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Quote
Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense with an AB (See Battle of Britain), escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, needs fighters, deadly vs ground units when the skies are clear (no SBR)To me it makes no sense to give fighters a bonus during air supremacy.
Tactical bombers would be the ones benefiting. No longer having to worry about enemy air, tactical can better focus now what they do best: attacking the ground.
Not to mention giving the fighters the bonus would give little reason to purchase tacs.About this first point on fighter, just compare:
Fg A2D2M4C8, always hit air first, then ground.](choose your own casualty applies)
Get +1A/D when fighting against air only units. * see below
No more bonus against ground units only.- I introduce the +1A/D when fighting air only because Fg is historically an anti-aircraft weapon but also because of the mechanism of attrition: the A2D2 was meant because it allows Fg to trespass the ground and naval units which can be used as fodder in the reg OOB system.
When there is no more cheap fodders, I think Fg should retrieve the regular stat given to such air units (around 3).
Otherwise, Fg become much more vulnerable if they are attacked by a large group of TcB (3 or 4) and StratB (4).
In that way, FgA2D2 will be inferior in air combat to StB and TcB!, which is contrary to all we said on them, just because the A/D value of TcB and StB was calculated to be against ground/naval units, then Air.
So let them be an equal match when there is no other casualties to take except planes.
About TcB, here is an important difference, you need to compare closely:
(we can talk later about the other aspect: the “1” rolled, I agree it is not simple and alien to A&A rules.)TcB A3D3M4C10, get +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with Fg. Anytime, even when enemy’s plane are present.
Get +1A/D upon gaining Air Supremacy (No enemy’s air plane.) But no need of additional Fg (or Armor).
Bonus never exceed A4/D4. Just two ways to get it.This is two important difference between Fg and TcB you input for G40E and mine which I think can be much nearer of the OOB Fg and TcB (to keep as much as possible the same game flow without revising all the set-up).
And we haven’t discuss about the TcB paired with Armor 1:1, giving +1A.
Would you keep the bonus or not? - I introduce the +1A/D when fighting air only because Fg is historically an anti-aircraft weapon but also because of the mechanism of attrition: the A2D2 was meant because it allows Fg to trespass the ground and naval units which can be used as fodder in the reg OOB system.
-
You want to make fighters too powerful
At the same time creating too much carnage among air units.No need for any 1:1 with tacs
They get +1 attack and defense with air superioty
This gives very good reason to have a number of both units, while neither is too powerful alone.Fighters alone would be too weak
Tac bombers alone would be vulnerable to enemy fighters
If you want range and SBR you need strat bombersThere is a very good combined arms mechanic here
I don’t understand why you want to make fighters so powerful
-
@Uncrustable:
You want to make fighters too powerful
At the same time creating too much carnage among air units.No need for any 1:1 with tacs
They get +1 attack and defense with air superioty
This gives very good reason to have a number of both units, while neither is too powerful alone.Fighters alone would be too weak
Tac bombers alone would be vulnerable to enemy fighters If you want range and SBR you need strat bombersThere is a very good combined arms mechanic here
I don’t understand why you want to make fighters so powerful
In fact, the actual stats make better a purchase of TcB.
Armor A3D3M2C6, TcB A3-4D3-4M4C10, FgA2D2M4C8 and StB A3-4D1M6C12 must be balance together for ground battle.
DD, Cruiser, Carrier and planes must be balance also in naval battle.I think devil is in the details.
Just one example:
2 StB from AB are launch against 2 Fgs (isolated 1 territory behind front line).
OOB: 2A4 vs 2D4…� A draw, in fact no one will risk to loose 24 IPCs vs 20 IPCs
G40e: 2A4 vs 2D2… Fg are clearly inferior, StB will mostly go for the kill.
Baron-X?: 2A4 vs 2D3, *because there is no ground units with the 2 StBs, 2 Fgs get D+1: in between OOB and G40e.2 TcBs vs 2 Fgs…
OOB: 2A3 vs 2D4… Advantage Fg vs TcB
G40e: 2A3 vs 2D2… Advantage TcB
Baron-X: 2A3 vs 2D2+1*, a draw.On 1-on-1 basis vs planes, I think fighter must be as strong as OOB fighter A3 vs TcB � or StB.
Against naval units, the +1 bonus A/D vs plane only should be even more specific:
when there is only planes and Capital Ships (CV and BB), then Fg get +1 A/D. Up to Max A3D4 when combine with +1D bonus from carrier base operation.Why BB and CV? Because Cruiser and DD can be consider fodder of the sea, and sometimes be destroyed before planes.
Because if you compare a standard fleet, the G40e Fg is really a weaker unit.
1DD+1CA+1BB+1CV… � a-(2Fg) � …b-(1Fg+1TcB) � …c-(2 TcB) vs same hypothetical fleet.For the example, limit the scope to carrier only.
CV A0D2+ [xFg A3D4 + xTcB A3-4D3]
OOB: CV+ � a- A6D8 � b- A6-7D7 � � c- A6D6… � On defense, you choose a (2 Fgs) / Offense b/ c is worst
G40e: CV+ a-A4D4 � � b- A5-6D5-6 c- A6D6… On defense, you choose c / on offense c / a is worst (2 Fgs)
Baron-x? Cv+ aA4D4+2** � b- A2+A3+1=6/D2+1D3+1=7*** � c- A6D6** +1D Carrier operation bonus for Fg.
*** + 1A/D bonus to TcB paired 1:1 with Fg (no need of air supremacy), +1D **Even with those adjustments, you can see that OOB -a- is still the better against naval units.
At least, in Baron-x version:
a-(2 Fgs) can compete on defense D6 vs c-(2 TcBs) D6
and b-(1 Fg+1TcB) becomes a more interesting buying A6D7 vs c (2 TcBs).So why bother to have Fg on a carrier in the G40e?
Anyway, they will be destroy at the same time of DD taken as casualty (same cost/ same punch) or even before if you need to block subs.
The defensive capacity of carrier has mainly disappeared.Giving A2D2 against air only, is an interesting aspect when air units are dangerous and hard to hit because there is a massive stack of Inf. But, it is no more an advantage when fighting with TcB or StB against other planes without any fodder units. TcB A3-4 and StB A3-4 will be the better units even if your up against only Fighters D2!
This correction rule for Fg is necessary to balance the value of A/D vs casualty distribution.
Ground units or DDs, Subs and even cruisers are taken as casualties before planes.
And when a battle has reach this climax, the advantage of Fg has vanished, since anyway any hits will take a plane as casualties.Otherwise, I think it would be better to say that Fg have:
a regular A2D2M4C8 and an additional @1 vs plane, every round. -
Against naval units, the +1 bonus A/D vs plane only should be even more specific:
when there is only planes and Capital Ships (CV and BB), then Fg get +1 A/D. Up to Max A3D4 when combine with +1D bonus from carrier base operation.You start to make things too confusing, adding too many rules for specific scenarios.
It also makes no sense to give fighters a bonus when defending from a carrier.
The carrier already has a defense bonus built in, and if anything fighters from a carrier would be at a disadvantage vs land based planes (Less munitions)
This would also create possible confusion with regards to scrambled fighters into the sz.And dont forget fighters are -2 cost, and carriers are atleast -1 cost (could be -2,needs checking)
Baron you want to make fighters too strong.
Though i recognize the dilemma. (fighters weak vs only air units, it doesnt make sense your right)
But it is only a historical realism dilemma, it has little impact on game balance.It seems the only options to you are:
A) a bunch of confusing sub-rules within the rules (changing dice values depending on which units vs which units), or…
B) return to OOB (with Tac bombers at 10 IPC)Your original idea of giving the +1 to fighters during air supremacy makes no sense and makes fighters too powerful in regards to tac bombers.
Germany would just spam fighters, win air superiority and fighters attacking/defending at 3 for 8 IPC.
Would never buy tactical bombers, and that is too easy.As far as balance is concerned (relative balance that is between the units) what we have at G40e for air units seems flawless so far…
-
In face of all that complexes additionnal rules, the only alternative to keep almost the same gameflow without too much aircraft attition, I think it is:
a regular A2D3M4C8, get an additional non-preemptive but limited 1@1 vs plane, every round.
The limited 1@1 means that if that roll is a success, then no further roll for this fighter in the round.
If that roll is a miss, then you can roll the regular A2D3.
If there is no aircraft, of course no 1@1 is required.TcB A3D3C12, if paired 1:1 with Fighter or Armor get +1 A/D.
If Air Supremacy is gained (No enemy’s aircraft, 1 fighter present) then all TcB gain +1 A/D. -
get an additional non-preemptive but limited 1@1 vs plane, every round.
The limited 1@1 means that if that roll is a success, then no further roll for this fighter in the round.
If that roll is a miss, then you can roll the regular A2D3.
If there is no aircraft, of course no 1@1 is required.I dont even know what this means, this is confusing
TcB A3D3C12, if paired 1:1 with Fighter or Armor get +1 A/D.
If Air Supremacy is gained (No enemy’s aircraft, 1 fighter present) then all TcB gain +1 A/D.So TcB can get A5D5? Obiviously too much
Either way this weakens fightersWhy do you want to keep the 1:1 so badly?
what is wrong with: Tacbomb get +1 attack/defense when no enemy air and atleast 1 friendly fighter? -
@Uncrustable:
get an additional non-preemptive but limited 1@1 vs plane, every round.
The limited 1@1 means that if that roll is a success, then no further roll for this fighter in the round.
If that roll is a miss, then you can roll the regular A2D3.
If there is no aircraft, of course no 1@1 is required.I dont even know what this means, this is confusing
TcB A3D3C12, if paired 1:1 with Fighter or Armor get +1 A/D.
If Air Supremacy is gained (No enemy’s aircraft, 1 fighter present) then all TcB gain +1 A/D.So TcB can get A5D5? Obiviously too much
Either way this weakens fightersWhy do you want to keep the 1:1 so badly?
what is wrong with: Tacbomb get +1 attack/defense when no enemy air and atleast 1 friendly fighter?You are right it was confusing and bad written.
I never intent to give A5D5. It was 2 ways to gain this A4D4.
After much thinking about it, here is what I will propose to my friends as HR.
It is not a great innovation but it still be a small improvement vs OOB.Fg A3D3M4C9, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).
When defending an AB territory (all Fgs in it), a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
It can also get +1 A/D (max A4D4) via Air Supremacy (no enemy’s aircraft present, no need of any Fg).
No more pairing bonus with Armor, because Air Supremacy bonus is enough.I see the paired with Fg 1:1 as a way to show a collaborative factor between attack planes and escort planes playing their respective role.
The roll of “1” destroy a plane is not so strange or alien for A&A rules system.
My friend already played with it for cruiser vs plane, any “1” was hitting a plane.
Not so difficult to implement it for the Fighter.Carrier keep the OOB cost, since both Fg and TcB are at -1 IPC each vs OOB cost.
The carrier dynamics of OOB will be kept in this HR as much as possible:
2 Fgs (A6D6C18) but able to directly shot down up to 2 planes with “1”
1Fg+1TcB (A7D7C19), able to directly shot down up to 1 plane with “1”
2 TcBs (A6-8D6-8C20) Can gain max A/D if they get Air Supremacy, if not they stay A6D6.
The planes place on board give strategical choice to any player.
And will be almost the same challenge vs other naval units.In this manner, the airplane destruction will be lesser than with Fg A2D2 always hit planes first.
This fighter unit creates too much dynamics problems in not so rare battle situation.
The cost reduction will still help a little to compensate the Air destruction.No more complicated bonus toward Fg.
All planes will get almost the same basic value A/D 3.StB OOB: A4D1M6C12 when playing 1942.2
For Global 1940:
StB A3D1M6C11 +1A/+1M/+1 Dmg in SBR when starting from Airbase.This clearly improve the need for operational Air Base.
For game balance of Germany (if needed):
either change some TcBs unit for Fg unit (make the reverse for UK or Russia) or
deny the Air Supremacy bonus in the first round / only allow bonus for paired match with Fg in the first round.Not such a great change, but I think it still qualifies for the goal you intended about:
Fg, cheap but anti-air units,
TcB, the most useful air units, can deliver much damage than Fg, better against ground target.
StB, long range bomber, for attack only, not good at all in defense.What is your opinion everyone?
-
Not such a great change, but I think it still qualifies for the goal you intended about:
Fg, cheap but anti-air units,Now fighters are too weak i feel
think for 1 additional IPC you get a unit with same dice value (A3/D3) but always will get A4D4 when there are no enemy planes (no fighters needed)
Now you dont need fighters nearly as much, and tacbombers are unbalancedThink for what you want to do, just remove air supremacy altogether (go back too OOB 1:1 with tanks and fighters)
And give fighters a defense bonus when defending from an airbase (D4)Or just stay where G40e is at, and live with fighters losing 1v1s vs other planes
Honestly i still see no real balance flaw with:
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operation friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR -
Thanks for your fast answer,
Now fighters are too weak i feel
What happen if I keep Fg at 8 IPCs?
Will they become too OP?And adding as you said +1D for Fg defending from an airbase (D4) (good idea) and also keeping hit air units on a roll of “2” or “1”.
Is it too OP vs TcB?
-
What is the flaw here.
I realize im beating the same drum, but until i see the flaws there is no reason to gut it, scratch it and start over.
It was your idea to begin with lol.Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operation friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR -
My “scrupules” come from the fact that I know my friends would not accept this HR.
It is far from OOB dynamics.
It have too many consequences.
With 1940e, it is your project and I’m sure you will get the chance to play-test everything.Maybe it is not so radical change as I expect (or suppose), but I will wait until you told me before trying to push 1940e Fg A2D2 hit air first, to my friendly players.
But I stick to the fact that the OOB Fg and TcB are historically inaccurate, as you convinced me.
I’m looking for a 1940.2/1942.2 patch instead of a 1940.3 as seem to me your 1940e is.
-
Maybe it is not so radical change as I expect (or suppose), but I will wait until you told me before trying to push 1940e Fg A2D2 hit air first, to my friendly players.
It was your idea, nothing like blowing your own idea out of the sky lol :P
As far as less change/impact, there is nothing better than just reducing TacBmb to 10 IPC. No other OOB change.
-
@Uncrustable:
Maybe it is not so radical change as I expect (or suppose), but I will wait until you told me before trying to push 1940e Fg A2D2 hit air first, to my friendly players.
It was your idea, nothing like blowing your own idea out of the sky lol :P
As far as less change/impact, there is nothing better than just reducing TacBmb to 10 IPC. No other OOB change.
My ideas are not an intrinsic part of me. It is more joyful to share them and let them live by themselves, if they can somehow. :lol:
But most of the times, they are just dead-born. :-DI don’t just want a lower cost Tactical Bomber. :x
I want a Fighter unit and a TcB unit which are more historically accurate. :cry:It is your fault, you put this idea in my head. :wink:
Glad to not derail your thread with my own whims. :-D
-
@Uncrustable:
Not such a great change, but I think it still qualifies for the goal you intended about:
Fg, cheap but anti-air units,Now fighters are too weak i feel
think for 1 additional IPC you get a unit with same dice value (A3/D3) but always will get A4D4 when there are no enemy planes (no fighters needed)
Now you dont need fighters nearly as much, and tacbombers are unbalanced
Think for what you want to do, just remove air supremacy altogether (go back too OOB 1:1 with tanks and fighters)
And give fighters a defense bonus when defending from an airbase (D4)Or just stay where G40e is at, and live with fighters losing 1v1s vs other planes
Honestly i still see no real balance flaw with:
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operation friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBRHere my adjusted version, taking in account your comments.
Fg A3D3M4C8, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).
When defending an AB territory, up to 3 Fgs in it gain +1D and on a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.
TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
It can also get +1 A/D (max A4D4) via Air Supremacy (no enemy’s aircraft present, no need of any Fg).
No more pairing bonus with Armor, because Air Supremacy bonus is enough.Cruiser must be A3D3M2C10
BB must be A4D4M2C18, 2 hitsCarrier keep A0D2M2C16, 2 hits.
The carrier dynamics of OOB will be kept in this HR as much as possible:
A) 2 Fgs (A6D6C16) but able to directly shot down up to 2 planes with “1”
B) 1Fg+1TcB (A7D7C18), able to directly shot down up to 1 plane with “1”
C) 2 TcBs (A6-8D6-8C20) Can gain max A/D if they get Air Supremacy, if not, they stay A6D6.
The planes place on board give strategical choice to any player.And will be almost the same challenge vs other naval units.
A) CV C16+ 16**= 32 IPCs for A6D8** vs OOB A6D10= 36 IPCs,
B) CV C16+ 18**= 34 IPCs for A7D9** vs OOB A7D9 = 37 IPCs,
C) CC C16+ 20**= 36 IPCs for A6-8D8-10** vs OOB A6D8= 38 IPCs.With Fg at 8 IPCs,
DD can be either OOB or
it can even be reduced 1 IPC to A2D2M2C7 IPCs.In another way, Armor A3D3C6 can still be a good challenge vs Fgs A3D3C8.
-
Fg A3D3M4C8, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).
When defending an AB territory, up to 3 Fgs in it gain +1D and on a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.
TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
With this tacbombers cost 2 more IPC, and will roll the same dice on most battles! fighters will even sometimes roll higher!!!
Fighters: A2D3 cost 8. no AB bonus
This seems to fix it however…
-
@Uncrustable:
Fg A3D3M4C8, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).
When defending an AB territory, up to 3 Fgs in it gain +1D and on a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.
TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
With this tacbombers cost 2 more IPC, and will roll the same dice on most battles! fighters will even sometimes roll higher!!!
Fighters: A2D3 cost 8. no AB bonus
This seems to fix it however…
Yes, I can live with a smaller bonus than +1D with AB.
Like I suggest earlier: all fighters D3 but AB allow fighters to roll “1” or “2” to destroy some airplanes.
So, in fact, the fighter can not hit with any “4”. It is restricted to TcB.Don’t forget, in my version, anytime a Fg is with a TcB, always the TcB get @4.
When Air Supremacy is gained, always TcB A/D @4 better than > @3 of Fg with a clear sky.
Sometimes they are even A/D @3 vs @3, but you can think that if one side have only TcB and the other only Fg, there is no problem that both have the same @3, because we can say that Fg are better against TcB in Air combat.
In fact, the TcB get a hit vs ground or naval unit on a “1” “2” and “3” so 50% vs
Fg hit ground or naval unit on a “2” or “3”, so in fact Fg get a hit 33% and 17% to hit any plane.So a single Fg is seldom even with TcB, when there is no more enemy planes (get 50% vs naval or ground unit).
But if there is a 1 TcB with this single Fg, it will already have @4.
And if there is more TcBs stuck @3, they all will get @4 as soon as there is no more enemy planes.
So all TcBs in over (not able to pair 1:1) are becoming better than Fg when there is no more enemy’s hindrance plane. -
@Uncrustable:
Fg A3D3M4C8, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).
When defending an AB territory,
up to 3 Fgs in it gain +1Dand on a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
With this tacbombers cost 2 more IPC, and will roll the same dice on most battles! fighters will even sometimes roll higher!!!
Fighters: A2D3 cost 8. no AB bonus
This seems to fix it however…
Once it is said in my previous post, you should know that I’m balancing between those two stats for Fg actually:
Fg A3D3C8
Maybe still too much for only 8 IPCs?
And the other too less effective on attack:
Fg A2D3C8?Maybe Fg A2 give not enough offensive punch in carrier operation vs OOB Fg put on a Carrier…
2 Fgs: A2+A2= only A4 vs OOB A6, inferior to OOB
1Fg+1 TcB: A2+A4= A6 vs OOB A7, a bit under OOB
2 TcBs: A3-4+A3-4= A6 or A8 vs OOB A6
Fg A3 is nearer OOB balance:
2 Fgs: A3+A3= A6 vs OOB A6, even match
1Fg+1 TcB: A3+A4= A7 vs OOB A7, even match
2 TcBs: A3-4+A3-4= A6 or A8 vs OOB A6, no change.The Fg A2D3C8, appear to be more a compromise purchase vs air and ground units.
It is 2 IPCs cheaper than TcB but much less effective on offence than TcB and Armor.
Attack being lower than defence can also be a way to represent the defensive advantage of Fighters.However, on an IPCs for IPCs basis Fg A2C8 are an even match with TcBA3D3C10:
5 Fgs A2 vs 4 TcBs A/D3
50% vs 46%And Fg A3C8 are far better:
5 Fgs A3 vs 4 TcBs A/D3 Fighter A3 have a neat advantage.
78% vs 17%However, when fighting against some TcB D4 in a combination of (72 IPCs) 9 Fgs vs 4Fgs+ 4 TcBs:
9Fg A2 vs 4Fg D3 + 4 TcB D4 Fighter A2 is no match
16% vs 83%9Fg A3 vs 4 Fg D3 + 4 TcB D4, Fighter A3 still have a slight advantage.
52% vs 43% and 5% drawSo knowing that offence with Fg A2 is not so great, you will prefer to buy 2 TcBs gaining A6 and even more A8 in the hope of gaining Air Supremacy, somehow. But you pay 2 IPCs more for this additional TcB instead of a Fg.
IMO, it seems that the correct price is 9 IPCs for FgA3D3 and 8 IPCs for FgA2D3.
But as you said FgA3D3C9 is too near TcB A3-4D3-4C10 to be very interesting.
Even a pairing 1:1 to get +1 A/D and a “1” roll vs plane is not enough incentive to buy a Fg?
And the game will become TcB spam…
Are your still sure of this?Maybe I have to rise the cost of TcB A3-4D3-4 to 11 IPCs to solve this balance problem?
After all, this unit stat is better than OOB TcB A3-4D3C11.
Can you light up my candle on this? -
3. Enhanced air units.
Fighters-cost 8 A2D3. Rolls of one may be allocated to enemy air units(choose your own casualty applies)
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 when paired with a tank or fighter (1:1 combined arms bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBRNearer OOB, seems simple and OK for me.
(There is a lot of thinking (creative, critical and “synthetical”) behind all of this. I bow to you. :wink:)Unless you still have a problem with carrier operation balance (see my last 2 posts)…
With the paired with a tank or fighter to get the TcB bonus +1 A/D, you can easily make the Fg A3D3C9. Even with a 1 IPC difference, both planes are needed according to this rule.
For my part, I will kept the more historically accurate “Air Supremacy, no enemy’s air unit”.
But I think I must revised the cost for keeping 2 IPCs difference:
@Baron:Fg A3D3M4C9, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (choose your own casualty applies).
When defending an AB territory, all Fgs in it can destroy an enemy’s aircraft on a roll of “1” or “2”.
TcB A3D3M4C11, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
It can also get +1 A/D (max A4D4) via Air Supremacy (no enemy’s aircraft present, no need of any Fg).
No more pairing bonus with Armor, because Air Supremacy bonus is enough.At last, TacB is nearer OOB: same Att /Def /Cost, only bonus and conditions change.
Fg is only -1 IPC from OOB.
Not the cheapest possible, but probably more closely adjust to fix and stay balance vs OOB.I have just put Fgs vs TcB paired 1:1 with Fg in AACalc:
11 Fg A3D3C9 (99 IPCs) vs 5 Fgs A3D3C9+ 5 TcBs A4D4C11 (100 IPCs)
A33 vs D15+D20
I get a real even match: 48% vs 48% and 4% draw.11 Fgs A3D3C9 vs 9 TcBs A3D3C11 (99 IPCs)
A33 vs D27
87%vs 12%, advantage for Fg.5 StBs A4 vs 3 TcBs paired 1:1 with Fgs (60 IPCs):
A20 vs D12+D9
21% vs 71%, 8% draw, advantage for TcB+Fg.11 StBs A4 vs 12 TcBs D3 (132 IPCs)
A44 vs D36
64% vs 33% advantage for StB.3 StBs A4 vs 4 Fgs D3 (36 IPCs)
A12 vs D12
25% vs 66% advantage for Fg. -
I think we should compare these units in IPC vs IPC basis:
There is a good objection in it.
@ItIsILeClerc:I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,
BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.
So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.
It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.
1BB A4D4C18
1CA A3D3C10
1DD A2D2C8
= A9D9C36 IPCs (vs 40 IPCs OOB)= 18 pts, 4 hits
vs
CV-B:
1CV A0D2C16
1TcB A4D4C11
1Fg A3D3C9
= A7D9C36 IPCs = 16 pts, 4 hits
(according to my cost and Fg A3 stats)A9D9C36 vs A7D9C36
45% vs 43%?, draw 12%, CV-B C36 is even on defense.A7D9C36 vs A9D9C36
30% vs 60%, CV-B C36 lost on offence.To compare more precisely vs BB or vs CA:
BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-B (36 IPCs)
2 BBs vs 1 CV-B
40% vs 48%, draw 12% CV-B C36 wins on defense by a small margin.
1 CV-B vs 2 BBs
33% vs 55%, draw 12% CV-B C36 lost on offence.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-B (36 IPCs)
18 CAs vs 5 CV-B
32% vs 67%, CV-B clearly win on defense,
5 CV-B vs 18 CAs
36% vs 63%, CV-B still loose on offence.
Normally, OOB CV and BB additional hit worth 4 IPCs.
Reducing the BB and Cruiser cost by 2 IPCs each= -4 IPCs
Then 18 pts x2 = 36 IPCs (That’s why there is no remains 36 IPCs/2= 18 pts)
CV: 16 pts x 2= 32 IPCs+ 4 IPCs (for 1 additional hit)So to get a better balance between both fleet, it need equality between both number of pts doubled and IPCs cost.
I would suggest a reduced cost for Carrier of -2 IPCs to get closer to equality between these two fleet.
So for balance between naval units, carrier should cost no more than A0D2C14, carry 2 Fgs / TcBs.CV-A:
1CV A0D2C14
2Fgs A3D3C9
A6D8C32 = 14 pts x2 = 28 IPCs, 4 IPCs overpriced (even CV reduced by -2)CV-B:
1CV A0D2C14
1TcB A4D4C11
1Fg A3D3C9
= A7D9C34 = 16 pts x2 = 32 IPCs, still 2 IPCs overpriced.CV-C:
1CV A0D2C14
2TcBs A3-4D3-4C11
= A6-8D8-10C36 = 14 or 18 pts x2 = 28/36 IPCs in better cases no difference.BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-B (34 IPCs)
17 BBs vs 9 CV-B
12% vs 87%, CV-B clearly wins on defense.
9 CV-B vs 17 BBs
39% vs 60%, CV-B lost on offence by a small margin.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-B (34 IPCs)
17 CAs vs 5 CV-B
18% vs 81%, CV-B win on defense,
5 CV-B vs 17 CAs
55% vs 44%, CV-B win on offence!!!
3 DDs A2D2C8
1 CA A3D3C10
= A9D9C34 IPCs = 18 pts, 4 hitsvs CV-B (1 Fg+1TcB)
36% vs 57%, slight advantage toward CV-B, on defense.CV-B vs 3DD + 1 CA
43% vs 50%, a draw when CV-B on offence.
Naturally, when Fg A2 is on board Carrier, it is a weaker fleet group, but also cheaper.
1 CV-a A0D2C16
2 Fgs A2D3C8
= A4D8C32, 4 hits 12 pts x2= 24 IPCs + 8 pts!!! = 32 IPCs, 6 Pts overpriced.
vs
4 DDs A2D2C8 = A8D8C32, 4 hits 16 pts.4 DDs vs 1CV + 2 Fgs A2D3
CV-a+ 2 Fgs A2D3 vs 4 DDs
25% vs 72%, CV-a clearly lost on offence.
4 DDs vs CV-a
38% vs 57%, CV-a still better on defense.In the situation, 4 DDs on offence are better than this CV-a.
BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-a (32 IPCs)
16 BBs vs 9 CV-a
21% vs 79%, CV-a clearly wins on defense.
9 CV-a vs 16 BBs
1% vs 99%, CV-a lost totally on offence!!!CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-a (32 IPCs)
16 CAs vs 5 CV-a
22% vs 77%, CV-a win on defense,
5 CV-a vs 16 CAs
10% vs 90%, CV-a lost poorly on offence!!!
1 CV-b A0D2C16
1 Fg A2D3C8
1 TcB A4D4C10
= A6D9C34, 4 hits 15 pts x2= 30 IPCs + 4 pts = 34 IPCs, 2 Pts overpriced max.BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-b (34 IPCs)
17 BBs vs 9 CV-b
14% vs 85%, CV-b clearly wins on defense.
9 CV-b vs 17 BBs
17% vs 82%, CV-b lost on offence.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-b (34 IPCs)
17 CAs vs 5 CV-b
18% vs 80%, CV-b win on defense,
5 CV-b vs 17 CAs
41% vs 57%, CV-b lost on offence.
Let’s suppose CV-a and CV-b reduced by 2 IPCs
1CV-aa A0D2C14
2 Fgs A2D3C8
= A4D8C30, 4 hits 12 pts x2= 24 IPCs + 6 IPCs = 30 IPCs 6 IPCs overpriced.
vs
3 CAs A3D3C10
= A9D9C30 3 hits, 18 pts x2 = 36 IPCs - 6 IPCs= 6 under OOB cost.BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-aa (30 IPCs)
5 BBs vs 3 CV-aa
15% vs 82%, CV-aa clearly wins on defense.
3 CV-aa vs 5 BBs
16% vs 82%, CV-aa clearly lost on offence.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-aa (30 IPCs)
3 CAs vs 1 CV-aa
26% vs 67%, CV-aa win on defense,
1 CV-aa vs 3 CAs
32% vs 61%, CV-aa loose on offence.
b]1 CV-bb A0D2C14
1 Fg A2D3C8
1 TcB A4D4C10
= A6D9C32, 4 hits 15 pts x2= 30 IPCs + 2 pts = 32 IPCs, 0 Pts overpriced max.BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-bb (32 IPCs)
16 BBs vs 9 CV-bb
3% vs 97%, CV-bb clearly wins on defense.
9 CV-bb vs 16 BBs
44% vs 55%, CV-bb lost on offence.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-bb (32 IPCs)
16 CAs vs 5 CV-bb
8% vs 91%, CV-bb win on defense,
5 CV-bb vs 16 CAs
61% vs 37%, CV-bb win on offence vs CA!!!.
After seeing all this,
I wonder why I shouldn’t test Fg A3D3C8/ TcB A3D3C10 on a OOB carrier to be even with BB and Cruiser?CV-A:
1CV A0D2C16
2Fgs A3D3C8
= A6D8C32 = 14 pts x2 = 28 IPCs, 4 IPCs over (price of 1 additional hit)CV-B:
1CV A0D2C16
1TcB A4D4C10
1Fg A3D3C8
= A7D9C34 = 16 pts x2 = 32 IPCs now the price is 2 IPCs over (the 2 additional IPCs are for a second hit).CV-C:
1CV A0D2C16
2TcBs A3-4D3-4C10
= A6-8D8-10C36 = 14 or 18 pts x2 = 28/36 in better cases no difference.BB (18 IPCs) vs CV-B (34 IPCs)
17 BBs vs 9 CV-B
12% vs 87%, CV-B clearly wins on defense.
9 CV-B vs 17 BBs
39% vs 60%, CV-B lost on offence by a small margin.CA (10 IPCs) vs CV-B (34 IPCs)
17 CAs vs 5 CV-B
18% vs 81%, CV-B win on defense,
5 CV-B vs 17 CAs
55% vs 44%, CV-B win on offence!!!So my dilemma is this one: either reducing the cost of CV by 2 IPCs for a sum 14 IPCs for 2 hits,
or keeping Fg C8 and TcB C10 (8-9= -1 / 10-11= -1) saving also 2 IPCs.Since there is more Fg and TcB on board, and are the cheaper units, I think it is better to reduce the price of the costlier unit: CV.
It is easier to balance the higher units (and less purchase) too not create too much havoc.But if we intend to play a more aircraft oriented game, it is better to work with reduce cost of Fg C8 and TcB C10, and it is need that Fg be A3D3C8 to outweigh carrier vs Cruiser and BB.
If I put in order every units, I get a very progressive scale of purchase (funny):
Infantry 3 IPCs
Artillery 4 IPCs
Mec Inf 4 IPCs
AntiAirArt 5 IPCs
Armor 6 IPCs
Submarine 6 IPCs [G40e] Transport 6 IPCs
Transport 7 IPCs _G40e Submarine 8 IPCs Sub A2D1M2 paired 1:1 with sub +1A 7? iPCs
Destroyer 8 IPCs G40e Fighter
Fighter 9 IPCs ??? too high vs BB and CA?
Cruiser 10 IPCs G40e G40e TcB
TcBomber 11 IPCs ??? too high vs BB and CA?
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 14 IPCs
Carrier -2 reduced price to almost fit with BB and CA new cost: 14 IPCs,
but not required when Fg C8 and TcB C10
Carrier 16 IPCs OOB
Battleship 18 IPCs G40e _ -
There is a good objection in this post. You should take it into account in G40e. It implies a revision of the price of carrier to keep the balance on a 1:1 IPC basis:
@ItIsILeClerc:I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,
BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.
So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.
It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.
There is some options to get a more balance Cruiser & Battleship vs Carrier & planes.
I will first present the two options of price and units:
There is mainly 2 options within Fg A2D3C8,Option 1: -2 IPCs cost reduction for Carrier, (my preferred choice)
G40e Fighter A2D3 8 IPCsG40e TcB A3-4D3-4 10 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs G40eStrat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 13 IPCs 12 Should be best but it is hard to get this far.
Or maybe just give an additional hit.2 hits Carrier 14 IPCs -2 reduced price to better balance with BB and CA because of the low FgA2D3 C8.
Battleship 18 IPCs G40e
Option 2: Increase +1 IPC to CA+BB and -1 IPC to Carrier
G40e Fighter A2D3 8 IPCs
G40e TcB A3-4D3-4 10 IPCs
Cruiser 11 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 13 IPCs -1 IPC.
Carrier 15 IPCs -1 reduced price to almost fit with BB and CA because of the very low attack factor of FgA2.Battleship 19 IPCs
Just remember, Uncrustable:
to balance BB and CA, we made many calculations based on a OOB Fg A3D4! and TcB.That is not the same now.
The cost and unit revision of the Fg and TcB has created a distortion on relative stats between each other units.Against a carrier, the cruiser unit A3D3C10 has become, on 1:1 IPC basis, too much better on offence and defense.
CV A0D2C16
Fg A2D3C8
TcB A4D4C10
A6D9C34vs A3D3C10
5x A6D9C34 vs 17 x A3D3C10
A30D45C170 vs A51D51C170
75 pts, 20 hits vs 102 pts, 17 hits
42% vs 56% odds of survival for CV on offence,
82% vs 17 % odds of survival for CV on defense.vs OOB CV Fg+TcB : near 92% vs 8% on offence /100% vs 0% on defense
Carrier cost revised (14 IPCs) vs Cruiser G40e
5xA6D9C32vs 16xA3D3C10
A30D45C160 vs A48D48C160
75 pts, 20 hits vs 96 pts, 16 hits
58% vs 39% odds of survival for CV on offence,
90% vs 9 % odds of survival for CV on defense.And it is the best combination you can get with a carrier OOB (A6D9C34), it could be a lot worst with 2 Fighters (A4D6C16+ A0D2C16= A4D8C32!!!).
Even a costlier combination vs the OOB CA_A3D3C12 show some problem.
3 CA A9D9C36 vs 2 TcB A3-4D3-4+CV A0D2 = A6-8D8-10C36, at best it is even at 18 pts and at worst:
it is 9+9= 18 pts > 6+8=14 pts (When there is no match 1:1 with fighter).According to this, it is necessary to reduce the cost of carrier by -2 IPCs (or by -1 IPC and increase +1 of the BB and CA) because A2D3 is weak as a single unit on a carrier but the low price save it to stay a bit competitive also.
Carrier revised vs BB C18, G40e
9xA6D9C32vs 16xA4D4C18
A54D81C288 vs A64D64C288
135 pts, 36 hits vs 128 pts, 32 hits
47% vs 51% odds of survival for CV on offence,
96% vs 3 % odds of survival for CV on defense.vs OOB CV Fg+TcB vs BB OOB:
A7D7C37 vs A4D4C20
53% vs 46% odds of survival for OOB CV+Fg+TcB on offence,
98% vs 2 % odds of survival for OOB CV+Fg+TcB on defense.Last comparison 1CA+1BB vs CV A0D2C14 IPCs, 2 hits+ 2 Fgs A2D3C8
A7D7C30, 3 hits vs A4D8C30, 4 hits.
14 pts > 12 pts
A7 vs D8= 21% vs 72% for the carrier on defense.
A4 vs D7= 60% vs 32% only for the the carrier on offence.On my next post, I will put other version with Fg A3D3.
Suggested Topics
