@Caesar:
I’d rather do the dog fight rule, it makes a lot more sense.
Yes that’s what I meant by combat.
Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review
-
@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.
-
Here is some alternates costs to balance with Carrier and Fg A3D3 / TcBA3D3
Option B1: (with a -2 IPCs reduction cost for carrier)
Fighter 9 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs
TcBomber 11 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 12 IPCs
Carrier -2 reduced price,
2 hits, Carrier 14 IPCs
Battleship 18 IPCs
Option B2: lower cost for TcB at 10 IPCs (very near of Fg C9), and carrier reduced by -1.
Fighter 9 IPCs
TcBomber 10 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
Carrier -1 reduced price to almost fit with BB and CA new cost:
Carrier 15 IPCs OOB
Battleship 18 IPCs
Option B3: The more favourable to planes. All units at the lower balance cost. Carrier OOB.
Fighter 8 IPCs
TcBomber 10 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
Carrier 16 IPCs OOB
Battleship 18 IPCs
4 DDA8D8C32 vs 1CV-Aa A0D2C16
2 Fgs A6D6C16
> A6D8C32
16 points > 14 points
37% vs 52%,
CV-Aa vs 4 DDs
45% vs 49%, draw 6%.
CV-Aa better on defense and almost even on offence vs DD.1 BB A4D4C18 vs 1CV-Bb A0D2C16 + 1 Fg A3D3C8 + 1 TcB A3-4D3-4C10
2 DD A4D4C16 vs A7D9C34
A8D8C34, 16 pts = 16 pts
35% vs 54% CV-Bb better on defense
CV-Bb vs BB+ 2DDs
39% vs 52% CV-Bb on offence is slightly inferior to defending BB & 2 DDs.1 BB A4D4C18 vs 1CV-Cc A0D2C16 + 2 TcB A3-4D3-4C10
1 CA A3D3C10 vs A6-8D8-10C36
1 DD A2D2C8 A6D8 or A8D10
A9D9C36** 14 pts or 18 pts (depending upon Air Supremacy bonus)
18 pts > 14 pts = 18 pts**BB, CA, DD vs CV-Cc (D8) without Air Sup.
57% vs 34%, draw 9%, CV-Cc (D8) loose on defense,
CV-Cc (A6) vs BB, CA, DD
22% vs 70%, draw 8%, CV-Cc (A6) loose on offence.BB, CA, DD vs CV-Cc (D10) If Air Supremacy
37% vs 51%, draw 12% CV-Cc (D10) better on defense.
CV-Cc (A8) if Air Sup vs BB, CA, DD
40% vs 46%, draw 14% CV-Cc (A8) almost even on offence -
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 when paired with a tank or fighter (1:1 combined arms bonus)On this point, keep the bonus 1:1 with Fighter, but…
I would also give the same bonus anytime Air Supremacy is gained : no enemy plane.But, I will add that any AAA unit forbid the Air Supremacy bonus for TcB.
It will be an incentive to bring on attack or keep this unit on defense.So, in this situation, they can still get the A4/D4 if paired 1:1 with Fg, but any other stay A3D3.
Of course, when all the AAA are destroyed, all TcB get 4 A/D.So, Air Supremacy is gained when no enemy plane or AAA is present in combat.
In Naval Battle, it could be an advantage of cruiser seen as a AA platform:
Naval Air Supremacy: no enemy plane and no enemy cruiser is present.
What do you think of these ones?
-
@Uncrustable:
Either or, air supremacy bonus should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain.
But with the way were going, to further simplify, and to prevent tacs from becoming too powerful, remove the air supremacy altogether.
Did you read about the AAA and Cruiser forbidding Air Supremacy?Option 1: After all, what we come through it is my favourite one!
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tecbmb 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 changesOption 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB changeOn 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 SBRFor SBR combat, we should come back to my version of SBR 1942.2 slightly modified from OOB
(I erased the First Strike of the bomber but kept it for Fighter):
Fg A1First Strike D2
TcB A1 D1
StB A1 D0
should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain
This is a hard limitation in naval combat, in some battle the Fighter will be taken as fodder but on the other side it could have no plane at all.
Don’t forget, there is no more OOB Fighter D4, all the time.
I thought AAA and Cruiser can somewhat limit the scope of the A/D 4 of TcB.
+2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Is it true?
An StB can get A5? and damaged 1D6+2?It is a good idea to give such a bonus, since the SBR can be difficult to pass Fg D2 then AA D1.
This is always the problem about SBR when there is escort or interceptor, there is a higher cost to Raid IC (more casualties, diverting precious planes from other objectives, 1 single round of fire) than the regular 1D6 odds of survival vs AAA.
I think we already discuss of this on an old thread.
Maybe escorts and interceptors should be allowed to fight in other combat mission after.
So maybe their will be more casualties but, at least, useful units can be used elsewhere.With Fighter able to hit planes every round on “1”, it is far more interesting to kept them in real combat. This less rigid rule can become an incentive to go more on SBR.
However, since only Fg or TcB can scramble in the IC’s territory, but all enemy planes can come from everywhere within range, if we allow other combat mission to the other planes, I think, to be fair, all attacking planes, not just StBs, have to roll an AAA after the air battle.
At least, with -1 IPC to TcB and -2 to Fg lower cost, it will be easier to replace casualties.
In addition, G40e have reduced the cost of many units, the additional money could be input on the aftermath of disastrous SBR. -
@Uncrustable:
Maybe just go back to OOB air units
Change tac bomb to 10, no other change
What should the carrier cost with this? -1?Either or, air supremacy bonus should require atleast one friendly fighter to obtain.
But with the way were going, to further simplify, and to prevent tacs from becoming too powerful, remove the air supremacy altogether.Option 1:
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tecbmb 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
No other OOB changesOption 2:
Change tac bomb to 10IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB changeTaking a different and fresh look on to all this,
have you ever ponder on this other way of balancing air units?Giving TacB the defensive D4, all the time, of OOB fighter.
It will be less complicated to watch TcB on offense only if they qualified to A4.
And if Air Supremacy is ruled, to watch for it on 1 side only.
The game is already used to it, somehow.TcB A3-4D4M4C10 get A4 only when paired with Fg or Armor.
Fg A2D3M4C8, any “1” rolled hit a plane, give +1A to TcB 1:1,In carrier operations, it will make this:
2 Fgs a low A4D6C16,
Fg+TcB A6D7C18,
2TcBs A6D8C20 (as it was an OOB Fg)Maybe it is not viable, I don’t know.
I’m just throwing my 2 cents, to be sure all possibilities have been explored.
Another addition to improve balance:
Fg A2D3M4C8, any “1” rolled hit a plane, give +1A to TcB 1:1,
and give +1A/D when paired to another Fg 1:1.
A small improvement to Fg, to better match this converted (OOB Fg) TcB unit.In carrier operations, it will make this:
2 Fgs A5D7C16, instead of A4D6 (or A6D6C22 for 2 TcB OOB)
Fg+TcB A6D7C18, (vs A7D7C21, OOB)
2TcBs A6D8C20 (as it was an OOB Fg)Maybe, this way it can be possible to rise Carrier cost to 15 IPCs because Air units value will be nearer OOB.
-
@Uncrustable:
Maybe just go back to OOB air units
Change tac bomb to 10, no other change
What should the carrier cost with this? -1?Option 1:
Fighters cost  8  A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
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
No other OOB changesOption 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB changeKeeping in mind the same principles:
Fighter must be lighter and cheaper unit but good against plane and
TcB is heavier and best plane (Jack-of-all-trade) against most units.Option 1: cheaper and lighter fighter unit and TcB Â A/D much variable.
Fg A2D3C8 any “1” rolled hit a plane (owner’s choice).
TcB A3-4D3-4C10 +1A/D when paired 1:1 with Fg
Carrier 14 IPCs.Advantage:
Much more aircraft units in the game.
Can take more easily the “1” Fg directly hitting other plane, in the game balance flow of casualties and buying of new units.Option 2: nearer OOB but Stat of OOB Fg A3D4C10 attributed to TcB
TcB A3D4C10 +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg (and Armor?)
Fg A3D3C9 any “1” rolled hit a plane.Advantage:
The TcB can take the place of the OOB Fg on carrier and keep the same cost model.
The Fg have the same basic stats A3D3 as the OOB TcB.
It is nearer OOB vs all naval units.CV-A: 2 Fgs Worst combination, but cheaper and can destroy plane much directly.
A6D6C18, 12 pts  (vs OOB 2 Fgs: A6D8C20, 14 pts)CV-B: Fg+TcB Best combination on offence.
A7D7C19, 14 pts (vs OOB Fg+TcB: A7D7C21, 14 pts)CV-C: 2 TcBs Best combination on defense.
**A6D8C20, 14 pts  **(vs OOB 2 TcBs: A6D6C22, 12 pts)Disadvantage:
Intuitively (or because of years of OOB Fg units before TcB appear), we have the impression that TcB shouldn’t be the best unit on defense, but is it really the case?
1 IPC less between Fg and TcB is not much, but Fg will be buy because, TcB need it to get A4.
What is the balance cost for Carrier?
16 IPCs?
(Because both planes will be -1 IPC, for 2 unit x -1 IPC= - 2 IPCs vs OOB)?
or 15 IPCs?
Explanation: -3 IPCs for a full loaded carrier for 3 units = -1 IPC/unit.What will be the price of Carrier to keep balance vs BB and CA (at -2 IPCs/ unit) C16 or C15?
Or still 14 IPCs?
Explanation:
CV -2 IPCs + 2 Fg/TcB -2 IPCs = - 4 IPCs/ 3 units = - 1.33 IPC/ unit vs -2 IPCs/unit for BB and CA.
For G40e scenario of all OOB and only TcB -1 IPC,
there is only TcB reduced -1 OOB to 10 IPCs.Probably it is better to keep the Carrier at 14 IPCs.
Average reduction cost will be around -1 IPC/ unit with 1 OOB Fg on board. -
@Uncrustable:
Yes tactical bombers no longer SBR anything, bases or IC. (they would be too powerful)
It may not be perfect historical realism (not the only case in this game imo)…
But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.
3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.
All these rules, taken along with 12IPC bases, will greatly increase the use/importance of airbases.
There is much historical realism here.
Keeping in mind all these principles, I think the last option 2 fit very well in these requirements.
-
Option 2 is worse than we have now OOB
pay 1 more IPC and get the tac that defends at +1 and can attack at +1
fighters will be a rare purchase indeedyour going to beat this dead horse into a creamy pulp lol
i dont even think anyone is following it anymore
-
@Uncrustable:
Option 2 is worse than we have now OOB
pay 1 more IPC and get the tac that defends at +1 and can attack at +1
fighters will be a rare purchase indeed**your going to beat this dead horse into a creamy pulp lol
i dont even think anyone is following it anymore!**
-
@Uncrustable:
Option 2 is worse than we have now OOB
pay 1 more IPC and get the tac that defends at +1 and can attack at +1
fighters will be a rare purchase indeedyour going to beat this dead horse into a creamy pulp lol
i dont even think anyone is following it anymore
And now the zombie is walking…
After all the different roads explored,
I think it is the last one which is nearer the OOB and, at least, the easiest to implement as a singular House Rule with your principles in it (without too much affecting the overall balance).And for G40e, I don’t want to convince you at all cost to implement the TcBA3D4C11 in G40e.
IMHO, if you searching for a wider acceptance, you must keep OOB Fg and TcB (-1 IPCs).However, if you want something like the principles below, at least think about it.
Just read it as it was the first solution suggested instead of the last of a long exchange.
(If it had come to my mind earlier, be sure I would had submited it.)But at least, you keep reading and comments that help a lot find better and simpler HR (IMO) like this one below.
@Uncrustable:
But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…
1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.
3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.
There is much historical realism here.
TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.The problem, as you show, was in the cost: TcB at 10 IPCs too low or Fg at 9 IPCs too high.
And, reading your thread on a revised cost calculation, it becomes clear to me that TcB must be at 11 IPCs: A3-4+D4+M1**+3**= 10.5 rounded up = 11 IPCsIt works with OOB.
It is better balance with a carrier at 16 IPCs with a BB at 19 IPCs and CA 11 IPCs (because of BB and CA having already a cost problem).It can also works with either a carrier at 15 or 14 IPCs and BB and CA at minus 2 IPCs (18 and 10).
In carrier operation, you also get a progressive improvement with higher cost units (which wasn’t the case with a OOB TcB at 11 IPCs: a kind of singular aberration!) and, most of all, the A/D value for a full loaded carrier doesn’t change vs OOB.
CV-A: 2 Fgs
A6D6C18, A/D sums 12 pts (as was 2 x OOB TcB A3D3= 12 A/D pts but at 22 IPCs)CV-B: Fg+TcB
A7D7C20, A/D sums 14 pts (as was OOB Fg+TcB: A7D7 = 14 pts but at 21 IPCs)CV-C: 2 TcBs
A6D8C22, sums 14 pts (as was 2 x OOB Fgs: A3D4C20 same A/D pts but at 2 IPCs higher)And it is clear to me that this is the HR I will suggest on my next A&A board game.
It will allow to observe the Fg and TcB new interraction (following the principles above) with a minimal change to units value.I liked the Fg A2D3C8 and TcB A3-4D3-4C10, there is more variability and stategy in it but it had greater impact on balance.
So, no cost change for the TcB stay at 11, just an upgraded D4.
But Fg still the best in air combat fight with A3D3 because it is now cheaper.
11 Fg A3C9 vs 9 TcB D4C11 = same cost 99 IPCs
61% vs 36%9 TcB A3C11 vs 11 Fg D3C9 = same cost 99 IPCs
11% vs 87% -
TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.With these, now tacs will rarely be purchased lol
pay one more IPC and get always A4 and range 6 + better SBR (bomber)2 less IPCs and only 1 less defense with same offense much of the time (meaning fighter is far more efficient at both attacking and defending)
lol sorry to keep raining on your parade
-
@Uncrustable:
TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.With these, now tacs will rarely be purchased lol
pay one more IPC and get always A4 and range 6 + better SBR (bomber)2 less IPCs and only 1 less defense with same offense much of the time (meaning fighter is far more efficient at both attacking and defending)
lol sorry to keep raining on your parade
After the rain, the sunshine! lol
And rains help it get cleaner.So it means that your Air Supremacy for TcB must be incorporated to get A4.
Air Supremacy: no enemy’s air + at least 1 Fg on your side. And no more armor pairing.
So Fg will still be needed.
Will not change much in carrier operation (since without Fg, TcB stay A3),
but on land operation, it will becomes very often A4.Does it improve the balance vs Fg and StB?
-
Fighter: cost 8 A2D2 R4, hits to air units first, intercepts SBR @2, defends from operational AB @3 (not during SBR)
Tactical: cost 10 A3D3 R4, A4D4 if no enemy units and atleast 1 friendly fighter, cannot SBR
Bomber: cost 12 A3D1 R6, SBR at 1D6, operational AB gives +1 to SBR and attack aswell as rangeBaron this is far superior to anything you have come up with.
There is very good reason to purchase all 3, none of which are OP relative to the others.
You need fighters pretty much for everything, but they are weak by themselves. Requiring tactical or strategic bombers.
If you go tactical bombers you need fighters to give them air supremacy and to protect them from enemy fighters.
If you go strategic bombers you need fighters to protect your airbases so the bombers get their attacking bonus, without constantly dishing out IPCs to repair them. Aswell as protecting the bombers during shorter range missions.
Show me the flaw of this. -
@Uncrustable:
Fighter: cost 8 A2D2 R4, hits to air units first, intercepts SBR @2, defends from operational AB @3 (not during SBR)
Tactical: cost 10 A3D3 R4, A4D4 if no enemy units and atleast 1 friendly fighter, cannot SBR
Bomber: cost 12 A3D1 R6, SBR at 1D6, operational AB gives +1 to SBR and attack aswell as rangeBaron this is far superior to anything you have come up with.
There is very good reason to purchase all 3, none of which are OP relative to the others.
You need fighters pretty much for everything, but they are weak by themselves. Requiring tactical or strategic bombers.
If you go tactical bombers you need fighters to give them air supremacy and to protect them from enemy fighters.
If you go strategic bombers you need fighters to protect your airbases so the bombers get their attacking bonus, without constantly dishing out IPCs to repair them. Aswell as protecting the bombers during shorter range missions.
Show me the flaw of this.Is it the ONE you will finally implement in G40e?
You kept A2D2 in your pocket and finally coming back with it? :-DIt must be tested, I think it is viable but will need a different opening set-up.
The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.
It could work. And it have no Fg with alien to A&A system: “1” rolled hit something.You don’t answer my last question: can Air Supremacy correct somehow the flaw you pointed to me vs Fg and StB cost?
I’m in a different perspective, don’t want to shake everything at the same time.
My friends must make little step at a time: too much change will get a NO for answer, and they will want to play OOB on this topic, that’s it. -
Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.
Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.
The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.
I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more costcarrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces. -
@Uncrustable:
Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.
Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.
If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.@Uncrustable:
The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.
I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more costcarrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:
G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.
When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.
Suggested Topics
