Thank you for clarification! :)
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
-
It is easy to see that Inf and Art can never blitz since they get only 1 space move.
What about StratB? Any reason to exclude them from this special Can-opener move?In Naval, Cruisers doing such a move will be way more vulnerable compared to land blitz and the OOB Can-opener at sea.
It should be improved to be workable.
Maybe a Task Force concept should be bring in.
1 warship of each kind can be part of a Naval blitz for each Cruiser unit attacking this SZ beyond the DD picket line. Of course, any planes can be part of it as long as there is an elligible landing place for each one.Is it really needed to add more IPCs?
-
Yeah the Tac gets a boost long as there is a tank present.
Our thought was that Strat Bs are already so potent in a combat role, with their reach, that allowing them to be involved in the blitz was rather overpowered for their cost. Instead we tried to make the blitz more about the tac, the stuka etc, giving players an incentive to purchase them rather than just normal fighters.
The idea for cruisers was similar, to give them a special break through move to make them a bit more valuable for the cost relative to the destroyer. The idea here, similar to tanks, is that players could make a Blitz like play, but only by putting at risk a more valuable unit. The idea of a battle group might work, but in that case I’d probably restrict it 1:1 destroyer accompanies cruiser as fodder, similar to mech fodder for the tank on land. But just not a battlegroup that is too large, since it’s a special forward action. If you allow too many ships to participate then it just replaces normal attacks, which was our concern. We want the cruiser to have the special role, since this unit is underpowered for the cost OOB.
It is not necessary to add bonus money, but more money can be fun for this, which is why I brought it up.
Happy thanksgiving everyone! :)
-
Yeah the Tac gets a boost long as there is a tank present.
Our thought was that Strat Bs are already so potent in a combat role, with their reach, that allowing them to be involved in the blitz was rather overpowered for their cost. Instead we tried to make the blitz more about the tac, the stuka etc, giving players an incentive to purchase them rather than just normal fighters.
The idea for cruisers was similar, to give them a special break through move to make them a bit more valuable for the cost relative to the destroyer. The idea here, similar to tanks, is that players could make a Blitz like play, but only by putting at risk a more valuable unit. The idea of a battle group might work, but in that case I’d probably restrict it 1:1 destroyer accompanies cruiser as fodder, similar to mech fodder for the tank on land. But just not a battlegroup that is too large, since it’s a special forward action. If you allow too many ships to participate then it just replaces normal attacks, which was our concern. We want the cruiser to have the special role, since this unit is underpowered for the cost OOB.
It is not necessary to add bonus money, but more money can be fun for this, which is why I brought it up.
Happy thanksgiving everyone! :)
You are looking for many targets.
I’m just trying to making something similar to twin powers Can-opener.
It is easier keep this as the primary target: self can-opener.
(Having in mind this goal: “various concepts on the G40 map, such as a variable turn order, and a totally collapsed turn order by side, and “same time” G40 where all nations move at once…”)
Cruiser and DD as fodder is not as similar to MechInf and Tank.
Bringing defenseless transports is far costlier. No one would risk them without a good cover.
Cover which is provide by a twin powers can-opener since it allows the second power to bring as many Naval units as he wants.About Cruiser, maybe one way of giving a special blitz ability should be, at least, to allow them to do both in the same combat move: naval fight and shore bombardment.
I believe they were far more versatile, fast and maneuverable.The idea here, similar to tanks, is that players could make a Blitz like play, but only by putting at risk a more valuable unit.
Maybe, if at least 1 Naval unit must be part of the combat and must control at the end the SZ, the second wave of warships is necessarily a bit weaker compared to a twin powers can-opener performed by Strat Bombers.
Example: 1 Destroyer is on the picket line. You put only 1 Destroyer and 1 Fighter to get rid of it.
If this enemy’s DD score a hit then you will need to take the Fighter as casualty; otherwise, it would forfeit any Naval blitz on the second wave.Happy thanksgiving to you.
-
It might be worth separating the two ideas and pursuing them in isolation. On land I think the blitz concept works as outlined. At sea the idea is more aspirational, we wanted to see if a similar blitz move might be activated by cruisers, but how exactly to work that, I’m not as confident.
In both cases the idea was to provided a special attack that makes blocking/stalling more challenging for the defender. So instead of covering with 1 infantry unit, or 1 dd to stall a massive force, here you’d have to manage the defense with the blitz factored in.
I like it on land with the armor mech and tacs, possibly fighters. Naval blitz, if it could be worked out, would probably look a bit different and might have a separate system.
-
It might be worth separating the two ideas and pursuing them in isolation. On land I think the blitz concept works as outlined. At sea the idea is more aspirational, we wanted to see if a similar blitz move might be activated by cruisers, but how exactly to work that, I’m not as confident.
In both cases the idea was to provided a special attack that makes blocking/stalling more challenging for the defender. So instead of covering with 1 infantry unit, or 1 dd to stall a massive force, here you’d have to manage the defense with the blitz factored in.
I like it on land with the armor mech and tacs, possibly fighters. Naval blitz, if it could be worked out, would probably look a bit different and might have a separate system.
In Pacific Naval Combat, the usual twin powers can-opener is often made by German’s StratBs against Destroyer blocker.
After it’s done, Japan will move a lot of warships through the empty SZ to get into another SZ for combat.What is the real difference, if it is Japan which have to use a few of his units to wipe the Destroyer unit, then reach with his main fleet the second SZ?
All that I see is a better coordination of units by Japan but less units available for the main Naval Combat beyond the blocker.There is still a gain to use 1 or 2 blockers tactics (same as dividing attacking troops amongst 2 combat zones: odds always worse) but blocker tactics is not as strong as OOB when German’s StratBombers are not in Japan.
If you want to keep a similar blocker impact, but not an absolute one, I suggested 2 ways:
first, it should be mandatory to control the first SZ (hence, it is different from the German’s StBs can-opener in which the SZ is uncontrolled).
second, it could be a condition to destroy all blockers in a single combat round, to proceed to a Naval blitz.
So, Japan would need to use more units to be sure to get the hit. And, if not, in some unlucky times, the Destroyer will still block the Naval forces in the first SZ.Do you see how the attacking forces will be less powerful than under the twin powers can-opener?
So, is their other conditions to think about which can imply Cruiser, so you can have both world?
Thinking out loud:
Cruiser could be the naval unit required to perform such destruction of the blocker (rationalized as doing an advance scouting mission to open the way to the main fleet)?
To perform a Naval Blitz, 1 Cruiser unit must controlled a given SZ in which pass through all the other Naval units.So, in a sense, Cruiser, same as Tank, is needed to perform the breakthrough. Tank help MechInf to reach the second territory.
Cruiser help the whole fleet to reach the second SZ, but it must stay behind, in the first SZ.And, for instance, if there is 2 US Destroyers blockers, probably Japan must at least wipe them with 1 Cruiser and other units, such as Subs and Destroyers or even planes.
Of course, the cheaper the better (Subs), and if Japan is unable to gain control of this SZ with her Cruiser unit (for example, all units were destroyed), then it can only move all his Naval unit into this SZ.
In some unlucky cases, such a Naval blitz move would be costlier for Japan than just controlling cautiously the blocked SZ by moving all his Naval Units in the first SZ only.So, probably blocking with 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine (14 IPCs) can become an interesting mix (and be much more historically accurate).
Because, the attacker wouldn’t be able to protect the Cruiser (with a few planes) without also bringing a Sub or a Destroyer, in case the the defending Subs get a hit or a surprise strike hit.What do you think of this?
-
I think that allowing such Naval Blitz will make the game much like a lot of smaller skirmishes instead of a single massive conflagration of two whole fleets.
And, instead of adding IPCs, here is the solution to play-test it:
Yeah I think for ease of use, it might be desirable to just give “Auto-Tech” improved shipyards to everyone standard. As you pointed out earlier, the values here are very nearly the same…
Unit IPC cost
Battleship 17
Aircraft Carrier 13
Cruiser 9
Destroyer 7
Transport 6
Submarine 5 -
I like this concept, the cruiser that breaks the block, and which must control the sea zone in order to pass through it to an adjacent zone withe the main fleet. This would capture the spirit of what we wanted to achieve. Here is a higher value unit which must be risked against the dd and which must survive the action to secure the sea zone. I think it could work and would feel similar to the land blitz.
You could still use the tacs here but the cruiser must survive, which means potential air casualties. The question here is how best to restrict the attack, to avoid it just becoming a double naval attack.
I think having a cruiser required to survive in the initial clearing action could be a cool way to approach it.
-
I like this concept, the cruiser that breaks the block, and which must control the sea zone in order to pass through it to an adjacent zone withe the main fleet. This would capture the spirit of what we wanted to achieve. Here is a higher value unit which must be risked against the dd and which must survive the action to secure the sea zone. I think it could work and would feel similar to the land blitz.
You could still use the tacs here but the cruiser must survive, which means potential air casualties. The question here is how best to restrict the attack, to avoid it just becoming a double naval attack.
I think having a cruiser required to survive in the initial clearing action could be a cool way to approach it.
If you like more similarities, you can HRuled that TacBomber can also get a +1 Attack bonus when paired 1:1 to Cruiser (in such blitz operation)…
Or just the reverse, that Cruiser get +1 Attack bonus if the Tac Bomber is supporting her on 1:1 basis.How best to restrict the attack, to avoid it just becoming a double naval attack?
No one will risk a single Cruiser against a blocker.
The attacker need to put aside a few additional units which will not be part of the main fleet attacking the second SZ and any attacking surviving units will stay in the first SZ (splitting the fleet in two smaller groups).
At best, the planes supporting the Cruiser would land on Carrier in the other SZ, but risking planes is costlier than Destroyer or Subs (as fodder for Cruiser) and if the blocker is made of 1 DD and 1 Sub, it becomes mandatory that the Cruiser get a hit or that the attacker brings also a Sub or a DD to escort the Cruiser.Because of this implications, it is clearly from this POV not a double naval attack like moving a whole fleet in the first SZ, then to the second to conduct the main battle (a la RISK).
-
I like that idea, and it seems to fit very well the goals for the naval blitz. I want to try it in my next game.
Excellent suggestions! Thanks man -
The pleasure was on my part, Black_Elk.
I like to find ideas and optimized them inside specific guidelines.
These last one was invented while writing on it, never know that something that I found also interesting could come out of it!However, it needs someone like you to come with the big picture and completely outside the box ideas.
I will be watching for feedback from your game-plays.
See you around.
Baron
Suggested Topics
