G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[barney]

I would put ANZAC in there as well. It would make them more fun to play same as it does for Italy.

[Black_Elk]

For the tri-team game, (which has been attempted a few different times in previous editions although I’m not sure about global), the challenge is always how to make it viable for a normal head to head match up. So basically you can’t do a full FFA for the Allied player (the person playing the UK/US and Soviet block together at the same time) or they can throw the game by sacrificing one block to the other. Essentially what you need is a politcal category beyond the normal Hostile or Friendly dynamic, but which is more specifically defined than just neutral. Also typically the Soviet Union is way underpowered to stand alone without Western aid, so you need to accommodated them there as well. I think it could work, though I haven’t seen a fully articulated ruleset yet. Special rules for how to deal with co-located units, not allowing it in originally controlled territories for example. This could work for Japan as well if you want to split the Axis block in two. Special endgame rules would also be interesting allowing the two Allied blocks to treat each other as hostile after the Axis are destroyed.

I really do prefer a war bonds type scheme along the lines Jennifer just mentioned. I think it allows a lot of gameplay variability and it’s also easier to justify historically than some other bonuses.

Every nation tried to raise money from their civilian population or to make up costs via loans or rationing or forced labor etc.

The amount of money a nation could raise in a given timeframe was of course not always predictable, 1d6 rolled each round for each Major nation would reflect this and also be fun for purchasing options. Its seems well grounded, at least the historical rationale seems just as likely as any of the normal objective bonuses that are awarded OOB.

I think you could structure the balance such that every player nation behaves the same way, and they all get to make the income bonus roll. I dislike exceptions to general rules. If the Russians or Japanese roll every round, might as well allow Anzac to the same.

Maybe we can use a name more generic/expansive than war bonds, that might include other aspects. Something that includes War Bonds, foreign aid, rationing, workforce expansions and the like all under one umbrella term. Maybe War Chest?

I think it should be universal, just built into the normal procession of game phases. Roll 1d6 with the result awarded in extra ipcs.

[Argothair]

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

[Chris_Henry]

I agree with Jennifer and Black_Elk, a war bonds idea is a fun way to get more units on the table (who doesn’t want more units?!). Call it Lend Lease for the smaller powers, war bonds, whatever, but I agree that a simple 1d6 is a fun way to add a bit to it. Maybe this can be increased to 2d6 at some “desperate” part of the game? Like when a home territory is taken, Southern Germany for example, the Germans can role a 2d6 to show they are stripping the country bare of resources in a last ditch effort. Or maybe each nation is allowed a 2d6 just three times a game at their discretion.

@Argothair:

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

I also agree with Argothair, which goes along with what I was saying a few days ago. You can brainstorm all day, but at some point the groundwork needs to be laid with what you definitively want done and tweak from there. That could rule out a bunch of suggestions on here and get more to the point of what you really want input on.

[Black_Elk]

My thought initially was that we’d take suggestions for maybe a month, just to get a feel for what sort of big picture ideas people are interested in exploring. Then another month of fine tuning those once we know what they are. So you know, try to get a beta going by Thanksgiving, in traditional tripleA fashion, with plans to have the troops home by Christmas haha.
:-D

I’d like to make sure whatever mechanics we settle on can be handled by the tripleA engine, since it’s a more effective way to play test than face to face. This takes a little longer on the front end, but saves a lot of time and energy on the back end. It’s also fairly easy to tweak things  in tripleA once you have the basic framework in place.

Until then, storm away!
Back in a few.

[LHoffman]

Sounds good to me. I think this thread is putting a number of good and reasonable ideas out there that I would personally incorporate into my games. I don’t play TripleA, but more power to those of you who are and can figure out if some of this stuff will work or not.

[Black_Elk]

Well also just to clarify, I would like to create a mod which works first and foremost on the physical board, in face to face play.

In some respects this is more demanding than a simple tripleA mod would be. In tripleA it is very simple to change map elements or graphics (things such as starting territory ownership color, IPC values, even the shape/connections of the map itself.) But I’m not interested in a mod that only works in TripleA. Basically it has to serve the dual functions of being easy to adapt on the physical map, and easy to port into tripleA.

There are some rules or mechanics that would work in a face to face game on the physical board but which would be more challenging to do in TripleA. This would be things like entirely new unit abilities or mechanics, complex rules or “one time” events. If something similar already exists in Global (or one of the previous A&A games) then that is usually easier to work with.

Just as an example of what I mean, right now in TripleA, it’s very easy to give each player War Bonds. That’s because it already exists as a technology, so all you have to do is give each player this tech to begin with.

In case anyone is curious, that would give…

+3 up to +18 ipcs per round for Axis (the average is + 9 per round)
+9 up to +54 ipcs per round for Allies (the average is +27 per round)

Honestly, that might be enough right there to balance the OOB game by sides in a way that’s a lot more interesting than just a simple large bid for pre-placement units. Allies have the most potential for extra money, but Axis also get something out of the deal. And unlike a large bid, this boost to the Allies has to be evenly distributed between all the Allies (not just piled on to one) the total amount is necessarily limited since no one can get more than +6 in a given turn. And of course, unlike the usual bid, this War Bonds bonus is just to income, so units still have to enter play through the normal purchasing/production mechanics.

Given all that I think the amounts might actually be pretty close to what is needed for the OOB game to feel more balanced. The bulk of the money under such a scheme is going to go to the smaller powers, but this also seems like it might be a good thing. +6 ipcs to Germany or Japan or USA or Russia might be a drop in the bucket, but +6 ipcs to Italy, Anzac, UK/UK Pacific, or China would make those factions a lot more entertaining to play.

Simply by activating the war bonds tech for everyone, this rule would allow some randomizing of purchase options from the 2nd round on, while still preserving the normal starting income levels of each power. Which may be helpful in designing the balance of the opener.

From a testing standpoint, all you need to do is launch the OOB game, click “edit mode > add technology” and give everyone war bonds.

Here is a savegame attached below, with the War Bonds change already in effect. It took me all of 30 seconds…

If you wanted to have War Bonds effect starting income in the first round (instead of the second) this requires an XML edit, but is also achievable. Anyway, things like that are what I mean by seeing which ideas are easy to implement and which aren’t, once we’ve kicked them around.
:-D

G40 War Bonds for Everyone.tsvg

[Jennifer]

I’m good with it in the second round.

A little more concerned with the difference in income for allies vs axis.  That might be scaled down a bit if you limit the technology until a nation is “at war.”

[Black_Elk]

Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…

What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?

The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.

Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?

I may be in the minority, but I’m not a particular fan of the way it works OOB, especially for Carrier decks.

The game’s other repair system is related to bombing and facilities, with a direct cost in IPCs. Ships by contrast repair for free, but they need to be at an operational naval base (which costs 15 ipcs to build.) I’m just curious if we might be able to create a better or more forgiving system for Carriers? Unlike battleships, which don’t lose their special ability to bombard, the usefulness of the carrier is totally shot if it is damaged mid battle. This might be novel from a historical perspective, but in terms of the gameplay it’s pretty rough.

One possible solution would be to allow 1 fighter to land/take off from a damaged  (rather than the current system where it’s either 2 fighters if operational or 0 fighters if damaged.) The rationale here might be that the single unit sculpt represents a carrier task force which might include more than 1 actual carrier. So, as sometimes happened in the war, if the deck of one carrier was damaged, airborne fighters might be able to land on a the deck of a sister ship.
I think there were what like 3 or 4 carriers operating in the Pacific for the start date? And these are represented by a single sculpt. Japan likewise had more carriers than just the 3 they have as part of the OOB set up chart. So it would make some sense right? These sculpts are clearly representing larger carrier groups.

I just think it would be nice if at least 1 fighter could land on a damaged deck, because the carrier unit has no defense value by itself. Fleets are already so vulnerable to land based aircraft and the carrier is the only way to meet the land based air threat, by putting defensive 4s the water via fighters. Seems a shame that a 36 ipcs investment can be undone so easily, when the game just doesn’t provide many alternative options for fleet defense at a cost within reason vs land based aircraft.

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,

my thoughts concerning the capital ships, or the way they are represented in our games are the classic ones: Only our BB (C20, A4, D4, M2) can sustain 2 hits and they are immediately repaired after combat. CV (C14, A1, D2, M2) are sunk after the 1st hit.
I don’t like the game mechanic of moving BBs to the next NB for repair and than back to fighting.
Since (correct me if I’m wrong) WW2 carriers are not as well armored as BBs they get no 2nd hit in our games.

But that’s just the way we feel comfortable with it…

[LHoffman]

@The:

Since (correct me if I’m wrong) WW2 carriers are not as well armored as BBs they get no 2nd hit in our games.

Carriers were not as well armored as battleships, but many carriers took a great amount of (repeated) punishment before sinking… and many times they were saved to fight on. Minor repairs could be made at sea to get the ship combat ready, but after a major attack you had to get the ship back to drydock.

The repair mechanic is one that I really haven’t thought too much about. In terms of damage taking I have come up with this system as something I am working from:

• Light Carrier:   A0   D1   M2   1 hit, holds 1 fighter/tac   $10

• Fleet Carrier:   A1   D2   M2   2 hits, holds 2 fighters/tac   $15  (Yorktown, Essex, Ark Royal, Shokaku, Kaga, Soryu, Graf Zeppelin, Illustrious, Aquila, etc…)

• Heavy Carrier: A2   D3   M2   2 hits, holds 3 fighters/tac   $20  (Midway, Shinano, etc…)

• Early War BB/Battlecruiser/Heavy Cruiser:   A4   D3   M2   $12   1 hit, Can bombard on 4   (Graf Spee, Alaska, Nagato, Fuso, Nevada, Hood, etc…)

• Battleship:   A4   D4   M2   2 hits, Can bombard on 4   $18   (Iowa, Bismarck, King George V, Dunkerque, Vittorio Veneto, North Carolina, Kongo, etc…)

• Heavy Battleship:   A5   D5   M2   3 hits, Can bombard on 5   $24   (Yamato, Montana, etc…)

Seeing a heavy battleship will strike fear into everyone. They are badass and expensive.

EDIT:   I would love some input on these cost figures since I have never playtested a change like this. My goal is not to assign a arithmetic IPC increase from light to heavy, but to determine a sweet-spot for cost by balancing a number of factors. The factors that play into this for me are:   historical percentage of naval units by type, past costs in Axis&Allies, adjustment for the capabilities of the unit relative to other units, projected ability for a given Power to afford said unit, etc…

[The Hessian]

Good point LHoffman,
(though it won’t change the way we handle our carriers  :wink:)

What IPC-cost per ship do you have in mind?
Standard price +/- 2IPCs for light/early or heavy version?

[Jennifer]

I don’t mind the idea of putting a damaged battleship next to an industrial complex or naval base that is “friendly” to repair.  It would mean more if you have to take it as a “hit.”  I am also good with the same for aircraft carriers, but they can carry 1 aircraft token when damaged.

I mean, in a normal game (vs tripleA) you could have “repair ships” (transports with control markers under them) that could be dispatched for 7 IPC and “die” after “healing” the ship at sea so it isn’t damaged anymore (during NCM.)

[LHoffman]

@The:

What IPC-cost per ship do you have in mind?
Standard price +/- 2IPCs for light/early or heavy version?

Eh, not quite. I haven’t totally figured it out yet. I do have a list at home, but I don’t have access to it at the moment. I will edit my post above and put in what I can remember.

I don’t necessarily plan on doing a +/- 2 IPC offset, because the capabilities between the light/normal/heavy justify a bigger difference in cost. For example, if a heavy battleship was only 2 IPCs more than a normal one… well that is just a no brainer. Spend 2 IPCs more and you get an almost guaranteed roll (@5) plus you get another hit to take, which is basically like having another ship. My intent is to make the “heavy” units (battleships in particular) expensive enough that there are only a few on the board at any given time and they are a hit to your wallet, as they should be. But damn if they are not the biggest, baddest units in the game…  :wink:

@Cmdr:

I mean, in a normal game (vs tripleA) you could have “repair ships” (transports with control markers under them) that could be dispatched for 7 IPC and “die” after “healing” the ship at sea so it isn’t damaged anymore (during NCM.)

This reminds me of something from a real time strategy video game. I wouldn’t use it because there really is no historical basis for a repair ship like that, plus that is a lot of IPCs to spend and then burn (if they “die” after use) just to take a damage marker off your ships. I would rather save the money and get them back to a base and do it for free. Unless of course we are talking about having to spend money to do the repair in the first place.

[Argothair]

I kind of like the idea of an anti-aircraft cruiser. I would like to think more about how cruisers are supposed to fit into the rock-paper-scissor dynamic.

Without the cruiser, you have something like this:

CV + Ftr > BB
BB > DD
DD > SS
SS > CV + Ftr

As I understand it, the theory is supposed to be that carrier groups beat battleships, because the planes are cheaper, faster, and more versatile than battleships. Battleships beat destroyers, because they can soak up extra hits for more cost-effective kills. Destroyers beat submarines, because they cancel submarines’ special abilities. Submarines beat carrier groups, because they can sink the carriers and leave planes with nowhere to land.

There are two main holes in this theory: (1) battleships cost too much, so a group of destroyers will beat a similarly-costed group of battleships, and (2) submarines are too cheap, so a group of submarines will beat a similarly-costed group of destroyers, which is obnoxious because destroyers are supposed to be submarine-destroyers but they lose to submarines in a fair fight. I think you could probably fix both of those problems just by dropping the price of a BB and raising the price of an SS. It doesn’t require major surgery.

Then you add in the cruiser, either with or without a specialized anti-aircraft ability. Where do cruisers fit into all of this? Do we expect to see players building fleets with only BB + CA + DD to try to take control of the seas, moving in against carrier groups with impunity? Do we expect to see carrier groups adding in a CA or two for extra defense against enemy carrier groups? The historical role of a cruiser was to help protect merchant vessels near distant colonies / allies where the limited volume of trade didn’t justify dispatching even a single battleship, or where the extra fuel cost of sending an armored ship around the world was too expensive. Do we expect to see some countries (or some factories) building cruisers and other countries building battleships? It’s very hard on the A&A board to get the incentives right so that both ships are potentially optimal, depending on the situation. We also have the problem that we have limited data about what the costs should be, because the OOB cost means you should almost never build a BB and definitely never build a CA.

[LHoffman]

My philosophy is to reduce cost so you can afford more… but not to change the value of the ship types as it stands.

Carriers (w/planes)>Battleship>Cruiser>Destroyer>Sub

That should remain constant.

I never see fleets of just battleships, subs or destroyers. Even as it stands OOB, and with the addition of other special abilities, fleets are best served with a variety of ship types.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…
What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?
The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.
Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?

Historically, the picture looked roughly like this in WWII – “roughly” because it varied from country to country due to things like differences in ship design, differences in damage control practices, differences in training and differences in how much support infrastructure each navy could count on.  But basically, the answer goes like this.

Generally speaking, battleships could survive a lot more battle damage than carriers.  Battleships had the advantage that they were heavily armoured, and that the forward and aft main gun turrets (their primary weapons) were sufficiently far apart (except in all-forward designs like the Richelieu class) that one group of main guns could keep fighting even while the other ones were disabled.  To use a Timex watch analogy, battleships could take an awful lot of licking and still keep on ticking, as the Musashi and the Yamato demonstrated: each one absorbed an impressive number of bombs and torpedoes before sinking.  (On the other hand, an enemy shell or bomb reaching the main gun ammunition magazines could blow a battleship apart, as happened to the Arizona and the Hood.)

Carriers were much more vulnerable than battleships. Their huge flat decks were a juicy target for enemy dive-bombers, and the area beneath the flight deck was a huge empty space (the hangar deck) through which a bomb blast could propagate.  Most carriers had little armour protection (the major exception being certain British designs).  Carriers were loaded with highly combustible aviation gasoline (fuel for the planes), plus their own fuel oil, plus explosive ordnance for the aircraft (bombs and torpedoes).  Moreover, a single hit on the flight deck – even when it was non-lethal – could make it difficult or impossible for a carrier’s planes (its primary weapons) to operate.

That being said, good damage control protocols – even on carriers – could help enormously when it came to surviving battle damage at the moment when it happened and immediately afterwards.  The US Navy in WWII was particularly rigorous in its D/C training and practices, and this paid handsome dividends in ships (and lives) saved.  For example, US carrier crews in battle situations were trained to flush their fuel hoses with air (or some sort of noncombustible gas; I can’t recall) once they has finished fueling their planes, as a way of reducing the fire hazard posed by these fuel lines.  Another example: the US Navy discovered at one point that the standard cotton uniforms of its enlisted sailors had a considerable degree of resistance to flash fires, so it required American sailors in combat zones to wear full-length pants and shirts at all times (and prohibited them from rolling up their trouser legs and shirt sleeves), no matter how hot the weather was or how much they envied the handsome tans of the Royal Navy guys (who were allowed to wear tropical short uniforms).  The result?  US sailors tended to be burned less severely than their RN counterparts if battle damage caused a flash fire.

Any competent navy would train its men to make sure all watertight hatches and doors were shut when battle stations were sounded, and would train its men in D/C procedures: plugging hull breaches, putting out fires, and so forth.  Like first aid in humans, D/C is intended to address immediate damage as quickly as possible in order to stabilize the situation.  And it’s no laughing matter: Japan’s largest carrier, Shinano, was lost to a torpedo attack by a single US submarine largely due to incompetent damage control by its crew.

Looking beyond immediate damage control, we get into the issue of post-battle repairs.  Speaking in very general terms, battleships and battlecruisers with good crews, decent supplies of spare parts and adequate onboard machine shops could patch up minor damage themselves, and could often deal with more serious stuff to the extent of at least getting the boilers back online and getting under way (even if at slow speed).  The Yorktown – which had been patched up hastily in Hawaii after being heavily damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea – was put out of action at Midway, but managed to get herself back under way; if she hadn’t subsequently been torpedoed by a Japanese sub, the old girl would quite probably have made it all the way back to the ship repair yards at Pearl Harbor.  The most impressive of all carrier damage-survival cases is the story of the USS Franklin (CV 13), which I won’t even summarize here because you have to read it to believe it.

All that being said, however, I think it’s completely unrealistic to picture a heavily damaged carrier or battleships fully repairing itself.  Repairs of such magnitude require a shipyard or a drydock, either at a major port or naval base (or at the very least at an advanced naval base, of which the US Navy established several in the Pacific during WWII).  Realistically, all that’s expected of a warship which has sustained battle damage is that it deal with the immediate harm through good D/C, complete its mission if it can, then repair itself sufficiently to get itself back to a proper repair facility where it can be fixed up properly.

[barney]

the xeno game used to make you roll 2 dice to repair your BB. I always thought that was cool. You didn’t know how bad it was hurt. Made for more unpredictable situations, which helps realism imo.I could see where their bombard should be suspended or reduced to a 3 anyway as well.

I’d be ok with 1 fighter on a damaged CV. A playtest for sure. That would make for more powerful fleets. The defensive fleet has the advantage now. A little too much imo. It’s a lotta dough to build a fleet and a bad first rd of rolling can devastate it. Makes (me anyway) more conservative in the pacific, which leads to more of a attrition struggle.

[The Hessian]

@barney:

the xeno game used to make you roll 2 dice to repair your BB.

And what happens after you’ve rolled the dice? Do you had to pay the totalled sum in IPCs to get the BB ready for combat again?

[Flashman]

CVs taking 2 hits should be a UK NA only. British carriers had steel decks, and none were ever sunk, even by the Kamikazes.

American carriers were built for speed with wooden decks, hence the high loss rate to air attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck