Revised Tech & NAs

[theduke]

By the way kamikazes were not built, but simply airplanes converted into flying bombs.

so you’re saying kamikazes were not built….

A few kamikazes were designed flying bombs called ohka, these were not converted. However the most of all kamikazes were conversions of airplanes. Get it since I really dont have time to do your homework every time.

so now a few kamikazes were built? few is different from none. you are contradicting yourself and my last post corrected your mistake. In fact, nothing you said in your last post disagrees with anything I said in my last post. Read what I said carefully for a change. I said some kamikazes were built and you said it was a few. few and some are not mutually exclusive.

If you never ended up correcting anything I said in my last post, what is this doing homework for me thing?

By the way, the math regarding many of your house rules is severely lacking. I’ve already brought several instances to your attention but unfortunately ‘I don’t have the time’ to do your stats homework for you anymore. I guess I won’t be able to work with you on fixing those deficient house rules. I suggest you go read a statistics book. Works both ways.

‘People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’ - George Herbert (1593-1632)

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@theduke:

By the way, the math regarding many of your house rules is severely lacking. I’ve already brought several instances to your attention but unfortunately ‘I don’t have the time’ to do your stats homework for you anymore. I guess I won’t be able to work with you on fixing those deficient house rules. I suggest you go read a statistics book. Works both ways.

You cannot take a simple discusson. If you have anything to say about the math and any of my house rules then do it, dont just complain about them! I said kamikazes were converted, since basically all were converted. Your thing about being realistic and historical relevance is not what you have wrote about in all other posts, were you talk about play ability. Duke I try to be humble here, so should you. Don’t throw any more pies, please! Be constructive in your criticism and try to lern from others. Even if one is smart there is always somthing to lern from others. Not only knowledge and facts but also way of thinking. Keep up with interesting questions and we both will lern to create a better A&A game! :wink:

[Dreadnaught]

@theduke:

… i am only as reasonable as the numbers allow me to be. after that, all bets are off :wink:

Have you looked at Mr. Andersons Optional Naval Rules under the forum for house rules? You should, the math is wonderful. I know since that is my job to know such things. By the way your argument about the 3 attack artillery is not really true as you said your self. One always has to consider the number of units as well as the combined attack value. The infantry would still dominate an artillery (attacking art vs defending inf), but the odds are much more even now. See below:

4 Inf

Cost: 12 IPCs
Def: 2*4 = 8
No Units: 4

3 Art

Cost: 12 IPCs
Att: 3*3 = 9
No Units: 3

1st Combat Cycle

Art scores: 9/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2,5 inf left
Inf scores: 8/6 = 1,33 hits -> 1,67 art left

2nd Combat Cycle

Art scores: 1,673/6 = 0,84 hits -> 1,67 inf left
Inf scores: 2,52/6 = 0,84 hits -> 0,84 art left

3rd Combat Cycle

Art scores: 0,843/6 = 0,42 hits -> 1,25 inf left
Inf scores: 1,672/6 = 0,56 hits -> 0,28 art left

4th Combat Cycle

Art scores: 0,283/6 = 0,14 hits -> 1,11 inf left
Inf scores: 1,252/6 = 0,42 hits -> no art left

[Dreadnaught]

It becomes more even if one combine matching infantry units to each attacking artillery. But still any force of defending infantry units only, will dominate any force of heavy artillery (attack on 3) with matching infantry. See the statistics below:

7 Inf

Cost: 21 IPCs
Def: 7*2 = 14
No Units: 7

3 Inf + 3 Art

Cost: 21 IPCs
Att: 33 + 32 = 15
No Units: 6

1st Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 15/6 = 2,5 hits -> 4,5 inf left
Inf scores: 14/6 = 2,33 hits -> 3 art and 0,67 inf left

2nd Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 33/6 + 0,672/6 = 1,72 hits -> 2,78 inf left
Inf scores: 4,5*2/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2,17 art left

3rd Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 2,173/6 = 1,08 hits -> 1,69 inf left
Inf scores: 2,782/6 = 0,93 hits -> 1,24 art left

4th Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 1,243/6 = 0,62 hits -> 1,07 inf left
Inf scores: 1,692/6 = 0,56 hits -> 0,68 art left

5th Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 0,683/6 = 0,34 hits -> 0,74 inf left
Inf scores: 1,072/6 = 0,36 hits -> 0,32 art left

6th Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 0,323/6 = 0,16 hits -> 0,58 inf left
Inf scores: 0,742/6 = 0,25 hits -> 0,07 art left

7th Combat Cycle

Art combo scores: 0,073/6 = 0,04 hits -> 0,54 inf left
Inf scores: 0,582/6 = 0,19 hits -> no art left

[Dreadnaught]

@theduke:

…I was saying I don’t like the artificial 6 limit because Japan should be able to build as many kamikazes as they wish. Japan was only limited by bare plane parts, enough fuel just to reach their target and the number of suicidal pilots that were available. Since none of these were that limiting, I don’t like the 6 limit in terms of realism…

… Your aap kamikaze rule is simple and cost effective but not as realistic as it could be without sacrificing the other attributes IMHO…

Hello Duke,

Since you like the kamikaze rule except for the realism in it I do have a suggestion.

Japanese Kamikaze:

The Kamikaze is the same as described by Mr. Anderson but with one addition. The Japanese player may exchange any fighter based in Japan for an additional kamikaze unit. Kamikazes may only be launched from Japan.The Japanese player use dice to keep track on how many Kamikazes that remain to be used.

[AgentOrange]

Kamikazes should have a much higher attack value, like 5. There has to be some compensation for the fact that your fighter gets destroyed in the process.

And personally, I would not replace Combined Bombardment with Heavy Artillery, either.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@AgentOrange:

Kamikazes should have a much higher attack value, like 5. There has to be some compensation for the fact that your fighter gets destroyed in the process.

And personally, I would not replace Combined Bombardment with Heavy Artillery, either.

AgentOrange, you have obviously not red my variant of kamikazes. They are free! Or what are do you mean with attack on a 5? Are you talking about Dreads suggestion of converting fighters to kamikazes? Why 5 then?

About Heavy Arillery, I would like to know why you would prefer Combined Bombardment, since the math really talks i favour of heavy artillery And Heavy Artillery as a Tech is balanced! Anyone who disagrees can take look on what have been said about this subject before.

What did you think about the rest of this article?

[AgentOrange]

Well, as far as the kamikazes, you’re right; I was talking more about the old-school version where you have to designate one of your existing fighters, and roll a successful attack with it. In THAT case, yes, the kamikaze should have a higher attack rating, because as it stands now, I think the Kamikazes NA sucks!

As for the Heavy Artillery, well, I don’t really have anything against it; it’s just that I see no need to get rid of combined bombard, because personally, I enjoy it! :D

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@AgentOrange:

Well, as far as the kamikazes, you’re right; I was talking more about the old-school version where you have to designate one of your existing fighters, and roll a successful attack with it…

As for the Heavy Artillery, well, I don’t really have anything against it; it’s just that I see no need to get rid of combined bombard, because personally, I enjoy it! :D

Well you should try my version of kamikazes, it is awesome and game balanced!

About the Heavy artillery, I must say it is a batter tech than combined bombardment, since it will favor all nations. And it will also be of big importance in amphibious assaults as well. One will get an improved attack of 2 for every transport loaded with two artillery units. Simply this new tech is more versatile and historical correct than Combined Bombardment. My suggestion is that you try it. Both Heavy Artillery and the kamikaze rule in my NA-list!

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

Anyone who think this version of U-Boat Interdiction is a better one then the original one?

1.  U-Boat Interdiction (revised)
Determined to undermine the Allies’ supply chain, Germany eventually endorsed a program of shipbuilding. As a result a fleet of U-boats were built in an attempt to starve Britain.
The U.K and U.S. palyers are susceptible to suply line interdiction by German submarines. This rule imply that your submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K and U.S. palyers collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

1.  U-Boat Interdiction
The Untersee boats swarmed Allied shipping lanes, sinking ships regardless of their cargo. Some “cargo” was noncombatants.
During the collect income phase of the U.K. and U.S. turns, subtract 1 IPC from the collecting power’s income for each of your submarines on the game board.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@B.:

Anyone who think this version of U-Boat Interdiction is a better one then the original one…

Anyone???

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@djensen:

Hey B, did you already submit this one to the website?

I have a backlog of a bunch of your house rules, etc. I’ll slowly get to them all.

No, not really. But I would be greatful if you replaced the old ones with these. Thanks in advance of your respons!

/B. Andersson

[3d6]

In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@3d6:

In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

I think the 3 in defense for infantry is better than your idea. Why do you think the opposite?