I thought it would be good to provide some perspective and discussion on evaluating relative cost/benefit of units. I would like to go into more depth on this as time permits. Some of this was already in a thread that is now deleted, but some of it is new. Various ways have been suggested to do evaluate the relative strength of units compared to their price. Typical ways include calculations based on attack, defense, and range. This would then be used to try to get most units near the same relative strength per cost. Another way often used in conjunction is to evaluate simulated battle results at equivalent IPC for both sides. These have some merit, but even together they still don’t provide an ideal solution.
First, there are some other things to consider such as, the old “rock/paper/scissors” aspect. Second, there is the historical aspect of some units actually performing favorably against other individual units (e.g. submarines, vs. more powerful surface vessels, aircraft vs. ships in general.) Third, the real combat value is rarely demonstrated in equivalent IPC matchups…instead it is more a matter of what sort of matchups are likely to result during play. Fourth, the impact on the overall game must also be considered.
The first two points above are closely related. Games (and weapons systems) tend to have some rock/paper/scissors relationships. That is why balanced and combined arms are favored. But also in a historical sense, it is not necessarily wise to assume a given value of two different units should have the same effective chance of winning. We hear a lot about spamming with subs or destroyers in the game for example…but when you look at what the nations built, you find an incredible number of these units to acheive a given aim. Some weapons went out of favor as a result of the war (battleships), some came into their own (carriers.) This is a reflection of their combat or mission effectiveness. Some were used in massive numbers by various belligerents: subs for Germany, destroyers/escorts/frigates/corvettes for the allies. One might expect the cost structure to encourage somewhat similar builds if the war time strategies were reasonable. This is complicated by needing to put each unit into terms of actual wartime cost by comparison so that 1 inf figure is not 1 soldier anymore than 1 fgt figure is a single fighter.
Third, real combat power is difficult to quantify and is most likely not represented by simple head-to-head equivalent IPC bases. Afterall, the attacker seeks advantage and net survivability of high value units…NOT equivalence. The potential error in just considering head-to-head, equivalent IPC matchups became apparent when I was looking at cruiser cost. As others have noted it is hard to beat an inexpensive “meat shield” or “fodder” type unit to protect the heavy hitting pieces. Therefore, with OOB unit cost there is little reason for a cruiser purchase because they have the same hitting power per IPC as a DD, but the cruiser still can only take one hit so it has 2/3’s the hit point equivalence. On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own. A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces. I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12. What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Gameplay/balance is another criticial thing to consider. We start with an initial placement. When contemplating buys and attacks, if the cost of one component (air, naval, or land) is adjusted up or down then it will impact buying in the other areas as well. This would shift game balance in many cases. So the fewer/smaller the adjustments, the less disruptive they will tend to be.
One other question to perhaps consider (it arises from points 2 and 3 on your list) is whether the rules which make possible the cannon-fodder effects you mention are an accurate reflection of historical reality (even if, admittedly, they’re being used in the simplified context of a practical game). In real life, generals and admirals don’t have the luxury of deciding which of their units are (and are not) being targetted by the enemy. They can decide which of their units to send in harm’s way, but they can’t control who the enemy shoots at once those units are engaged in combat.
@Red:
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own. A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.
I’m sorry, but this is a house rules thread that belongs in the house rules forum. It’s purpose (no matter how much you disguise it), is to provoke discussion on modifying the cost of naval units. It shouldn’t be allowed here because it will confuse new conscripts who come to the 1940 Global forum looking to better understand the real A&A rules. I would ask you to delete your thread and repost it in the house rules forum, however, that is no longer an option given to us members. Therefore, I have no choice but to report it to a moderator in order to get it moved to it’s proper location. It’s not personal… I will be doing this for every thread that belongs in a separate forum (like the “ship placement at naval bases” thread) because just like how a thread can steer off topic… so can an entire forum like the way the 1940 Global has.
@Young:
@Red:
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own. Â A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.
I’m sorry, but this is a house rules thread that belongs in the house rules forum. It’s purpose (no matter how much you disguise it), is to provoke discussion on modifying the cost of naval units. It shouldn’t be allowed here because it will confuse new conscripts who come to the 1940 Global forum looking to better understand the real A&A rules. I would ask you to delete your thread and repost it in the house rules forum, however, that is no longer an option given to us members. Therefore, I have no choice but to report it to a moderator in order to get it moved to it’s proper location. It’s not personal… I will be doing this for every thread that belongs in a separate forum (like the “ship placement at naval bases” thread) because just like how a thread can steer off topic… so can an entire forum like the way the 1940 Global has. Â Â
Are you sure of the results, before discussion?
Maybe it could provide a more extensive reasonable/ criterias (historical) ground to the actual OOB Global cost.
As many times, I saw threads begin here and according to the way the exchanges and posts turn, a moderator will eventually put it in the House Rules. (It is never a problem.)
Maybe just let live it to tell what this thread will be.
It is however possible to have two threads: 1 here and starting 1 in HR, general discussion here and any sideways discussion about suggestive modifications to OOB there.
(If it isn’t too schizophrenic for members to have “compartimentalize” thinking.)
I understand when a thread inadvertently goes in that direction, but the opening post suggested that a different cost for cruisers would be better for game play, provoking a discussion about changing the rules. I love A&A 1940 Global, and I put my house rule suggestions in the house rules forum where they belong… I just want the 1940 Global forum cleaned up, and back on topic.
@Young:
I understand when a thread inadvertently goes in that direction, but the opening post suggested that a different cost for cruisers would be better for game play, provoking a discussion about changing the rules. I love A&A 1940 Global, and I put my house rule suggestions in the house rules forum where they belong… I just want the 1940 Global forum cleaned up, and back on topic.
At the end, the 12 IPCs cruiser is defended. I think it is a matter of half full or half empty glass. To have a discussion about value of statu quo OOB, you have to compare to other possibility.
If, in addition, the OOB initial placement is discuss whether or not it is historically representative. It is not about 1941 or 1942.2 or classic, it is about Global 1940.
@Red:
I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12. What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Gameplay/balance is another criticial thing to consider. **We start with an initial placement. ** When contemplating buys and attacks, if the cost of one component (air, naval, or land) is adjusted up or down then it will impact buying in the other areas as well. This would shift game balance in many cases. So the fewer/smaller the adjustments, the less disruptive they will tend to be.
But I’m not the experienced member here, maybe this forum is only about rules misunderstanding and strategy development.
Then, I agree, anything else even specific to G1940, should go elsewhere.
Well we can’t have discussions of history or unit cost in G40 it appears. Now that it is in house rules, I’m done with it. Have fun, folks.
@Red:
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own. A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces. I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12. What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Gameplay/balance is another criticial thing to consider. We start with an initial placement. When contemplating buys and attacks, if the cost of one component (air, naval, or land) is adjusted up or down then it will impact buying in the other areas as well. This would shift game balance in many cases. So the fewer/smaller the adjustments, the less disruptive they will tend to be.
Instead of taking your dice and going home, why don’t you start a new thread in the G40 forum talking about history and the real cost of units instead of what you wrote above? Are you going tell me that your comments weren’t aimed at provoking a discussion on changing the cost of units? I’m sick of members posting threads disguising their house rule suggestions in the Global forum trying to net a bigger audience, and the moderator of the forum agrees. Your posts get deleted and you cry about it, your thread gets moved and you cry about it… Dude, stop crying.
@Young:
Instead of taking your dice and going home, why don’t you start a new thread in the G40 forum talking about history and the real cost of units instead of what you wrote above? Are you going tell me that your comments weren’t aimed at provoking a discussion on changing the cost of units? I’m sick of members posting threads disguising their house rule suggestions in the Global forum trying to net a bigger audience, and the moderator of the forum agrees. Your posts get deleted and you cry about it, your thread gets moved and you cry about it… Dude, stop crying. Â
Yes, I’m telling you I was taking a bigger picture approach to understanding G40’s cost structure. I had specifically been looking at the cruiser/destroyer comparisons from several angles, so the cruiser is one that I had the most information on and it has been the biggest outlier in price. But unlike others, I wasn’t really seeking a House Rule or a change. If one was made, yes I had an opinion. But my thread was more of a cautionary note about doing such things without considering other aspects. So it is really ironic you had it moved here to House Rules…the opposite of what my thread was about. Congratulations on the successful thread hijack. Your concern trolling is duly noted.
@Red:
@Young:
Instead of taking your dice and going home, why don’t you start a new thread in the G40 forum talking about history and the real cost of units instead of what you wrote above? Are you going tell me that your comments weren’t aimed at provoking a discussion on changing the cost of units? I’m sick of members posting threads disguising their house rule suggestions in the Global forum trying to net a bigger audience, and the moderator of the forum agrees. Your posts get deleted and you cry about it, your thread gets moved and you cry about it… Dude, stop crying.
Yes, I’m telling you I was taking a bigger picture approach to understanding G40’s cost structure. I had specifically been looking at the cruiser/destroyer comparisons from several angles, so the cruiser is one that I had the most information on and it has been the biggest outlier in price. But unlike others, I wasn’t really seeking a House Rule or a change. If one was made, yes I had an opinion. But my thread was more of a cautionary note about doing such things without considering other aspects. So it is really ironic you had it moved here to House Rules…the opposite of what my thread was about. Congratulations on the successful thread hijack. Your concern trolling is duly noted.
Your suggestion that Cruisers would be better at a cost of $10 or $11 automatically makes it a house rule thread no matter how much you dress it up, and get your facts straight. 1. I didn’t move the thread (do you see a moderator badge under my handle?)… I suggested that the thread be moved and the moderator obviously agreed with me. 2. Did you not hijack someone’s thread this weekend? did you not protest to a moderator about removing a fundamental function that we all enjoyed until now?
Here’s the deal Red Harvest… I’ve been watching you this week and I think you’re a bully. You have insulted my friends and tried to make yourself some kinda big shot around here stating crap like “all the sites I’ve been on don’t have this stupid feature”. However none of that had anything to do with me requesting the thread be moved. IT’S A HOUSE RULE THREAD and I don’t care what you think because the moderator has moved it on the same grounds. The quote that I hi-lighted above only proves that you were welcoming a discussion about changing the cost of units… because you were ready with an opinion.
I don’t like bullies, and if you continue to be a bully on this site… than we can go round and round all year. Just ask Mantle Fan, oh wait… you can’t because that bully ran away. I told you that requesting your thread to be moved wasn’t personal, but now that you’ve made it personal… I don’t mind telling ya off.
Wow, you are incredibly hypocritical. You have been the one trying to bully, and doing so in gang fashion with your “friends.”
As has been noted by all participants in his thread except Uncrustable, I didn’t hijack his thread. So nice try respinning that one. In his thread, I did focus on the original cruisers, as I didn’t find the other units mentioned as interesting.
But this one you have most certainly hijacked from start to finish with personal attacks. And contrary to your transparently dishonest claims I notice you didn’t go after the threads that are entirely House Rules in nature in G40. Liar!
@Red:
Wow, you are incredibly hypocritical. You have been the one trying to bully, and doing so in gang fashion with your “friends.”
As has been noted by all participants in his thread except Uncrustable, I didn’t hijack his thread. So nice try respinning that one. In his thread, I did focus on the original cruisers, as I didn’t find the other units mentioned as interesting.
But this one you have most certainly hijacked from start to finish with personal attacks. And contrary to your transparently dishonest claims I notice you didn’t go after the threads that are entirely House Rules in nature in G40. Liar!
I requested the ship placement at naval bases thread to be moved the same time I asked yours to be moved. The fact that you’re reserecting old house rule threads in the Global forum proves just how corrupt and off topic that forum has been… Thanks for proving my point.
PS: nobody puts my friends in quotations.
@Young:
I requested the ship placement at naval bases thread to be moved the same time I asked yours to be moved. The fact that you’re reserecting old house rule threads in the Global forum proves just how corrupt and off topic that forum has been… Thanks for proving my point.
Actually, the fact that you only grabbed one other thread, and not even one of the related and longer unit cost threads in G40, showed that you were engaged in exactly the sort of personal attack you denied. You created a weak alibi for your action. Had you tagged the more obvious ones in the first few pages and had them moved, it wouldn’t have been so obvious.
But hey, congratulations to you and your friends of doing your level best to keep content off of the forum through concern trolling. I’ve been working up some data on historical naval starting strength, and annual type construction for each nation by year (started working on it during Uncrustables thread.) Had actual cost data too for some. But it wasn’t a fit for House Rules…seemed like a good fit for G40 and the heart of the game. Apparently, that’s no good either, so I won’t bother posting them at A&A.
@Red:
@Young:
I requested the ship placement at naval bases thread to be moved the same time I asked yours to be moved. The fact that you’re reserecting old house rule threads in the Global forum proves just how corrupt and off topic that forum has been… Thanks for proving my point.
Actually, the fact that you only grabbed one other thread, and not even one of the related and longer unit cost threads in G40, showed that you were engaged in exactly the sort of personal attack you denied. You created a weak alibi for your action. Had you tagged the more obvious ones in the first few pages and had them moved, it wouldn’t have been so obvious.
But hey, congratulations to you and your friends of doing your level best to keep content off of the forum through concern trolling. I’ve been working up some data on historical naval starting strength, and annual type construction for each nation by year (started working on it during Uncrustables thread.) Had actual cost data too for some. But it wasn’t a fit for House Rules…seemed like a good fit for G40 and the heart of the game. Apparently, that’s no good either, so I won’t bother posting them at A&A.
This is about you being sour that your thread got moved, if it wasn’t… you would have created a new thread that was more in line with site policies without displaying hard feelings, and I would have gladly contributed in that discussion like a mature adult. However, now that you’re calling me a lier and a hijacker… lets consider for a moment what you have done. You derailed Uncrustable’s thread forcing him to delete it, and than after a long campaign to abolish the remove topic option, what did you do? you stole his topic and created the thread in your own image. SHAME!
@Young:
This is about you being sour that your thread got moved, if it wasn’t… you would have created a new thread that was more in line with site policies without displaying hard feelings, and I would have gladly contributed in that discussion like a mature adult. However, now that you’re calling me a lier and a hijacker… lets consider for a moment what you have done. You derailed Uncrustable’s thread forcing him to delete it, and than after a long campaign to abolish the remove topic option, what did you do? you stole his topic and created the thread in your own image. SHAME! Â
No, it is about YOU being sour and making it all personal. You have been projecting from the start claiming to know my intentions. You are the one that hijacked this thread. 100% all you! There is no thread that is in line with your vendetta policy here so I won’t bother with it. Hell, you didn’t even let this one begin before you completely changed the topic.
I didn’t derail Uncrustable’s thread, nor was he “forced” to delete it. I added information to his thread, including that requested by a key participant. He didn’t like having data that differed with his preconceived idea of the solution, so he deleted my posts and those of everyone else. He could have asked for moderator help/ruling. But he didn’t. He wasn’t forced to do anything. He chose to. You and your “friends” should learn to take some responsibility for your actions, rather than blaming others because you behave like clueless dicks.
I didn’t steal his topic. Mine was for a different purpose, it sure wasn’t for House Rules or whatever G40e is. BTW just to demonstrate how devoid of thought your posting is: how would one even “steal” a topic from someone who intentionally flushed it?
As for getting rid of the remove topic option: The good guys win now and again. Hooray for us, boo for you and those who think they should be able to destroy others’ content!
@Red:
@Young:
This is about you being sour that your thread got moved, if it wasn’t… you would have created a new thread that was more in line with site policies without displaying hard feelings, and I would have gladly contributed in that discussion like a mature adult. However, now that you’re calling me a lier and a hijacker… lets consider for a moment what you have done. You derailed Uncrustable’s thread forcing him to delete it, and than after a long campaign to abolish the remove topic option, what did you do? you stole his topic and created the thread in your own image. SHAME!� �
No, it is about YOU being sour and making it all personal. You have been projecting from the start claiming to know my intentions. You are the one that hijacked this thread. 100% all you! There is no thread that is in line with your vendetta policy here so I won’t bother with it. Hell, you didn’t even let this one begin before you completely changed the topic.
I didn’t derail Uncrustable’s thread, nor was he “forced” to delete it. I added information to his thread, including that requested by a key participant. He didn’t like having data that differed with his preconceived idea of the solution, so he deleted my posts and those of everyone else. He could have asked for moderator help/ruling. But he didn’t. He wasn’t forced to do anything. He chose to. You and your “friends” should learn to take some responsibility for your actions, rather than blaming others because you behave like clueless dicks.
I didn’t steal his topic. Mine was for a different purpose, it sure wasn’t for House Rules or whatever G40e is. BTW just to demonstrate how devoid of thought your posting is: how would one even “steal” a topic from someone who intentionally flushed it?
As for getting rid of the remove topic option: The good guys win now and again. Hooray for us, boo for you and those who think they should be able to destroy others’ content!
I may have called you a bully, but you have called me a lier, a hijacker, a blowhard, and now a clueless dick. I hope you get suspended.
A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.
In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.
You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.
This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.
There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.
