@FranceNeedsMorePower good point
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Barney:
Went back and forth on that. But you surmised correctly: the reason that “Vichy” ownership counts for both objectives is because, otherwise, there is not enough incentive to utilize the “Vichy” feature. Also, “alliedownership” in the XML automatically includes ownership by friendly neutrals, so the objectives are already written that way.
One thing we have been talking about is making it so that Axis occupation of Southern France results in the removal of ALL “vichy” units (not just those in Southern France) to help incentivize respecting the armistice.
-RK
-
Barney: Playtested your mod some with the AI.
Thought you might appreciate the in depth feedback, since u obviously put a lot of time and effort into the mod. Below are the game notes for ur mod, with my comments in boldGlobalRedesignT
**In this download, there are a like a dozen different versions of ur map, the differences between which are unclear. I would just keep one authoritative version of your mod, and update it from time to time with all the changes you deem fit to for play testing. **
. . . .What’s different
NAP Japan/Russia Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. I would remove this. It is unclear what this “fee” represents, in real world terms, and there are plenty of ways to disincentive war, without imposing arbitrary fees on conduct u don’t want. You already have this with the lend-lease increase, and Mongolian trigger
Mongolians behave the same as OOB. When Russia is at war with Germany and Japan she receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus from SZ 4. The 2 PU lend lease bonus should only apply if Japan declares war on Russia unprovoked.
New/Changed NOs
When Russia is at war with Germany:“The Great Patriotic War” Theme:Soviet Sphere of Influence. 5 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian TTs. I like this
“Arctic Convoys” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Arctic Supply Route. 2 PUs each if SZs 125 and/or 124 have no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Archangel is Russian controlled. Why the addition of sz 124?
“The Northern Trace” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Northwest Staging Route. 2 PUs if SZ 4 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Archangel is Russian controlled. I assume you mean Amur, not Archangel? Should be sz 5.
“Persian Corridor” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route. 2 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), French Madagascar, Persia, Northwest Persia are Allied controlled and Archangel is Russian controlled. Simplify this to require allied control of Persia only. Unclear why Madagascar and Archangel are included. Also, since Persia touches Caspian Sea (through which lend lease aide passed, historically) unnnecessary to include North West Persia. For simplicity’s sake, each lend-lease route should be one land territory, and one sea zone.
“Red Advance” Theme:Propaganda Value and Spread of Communism. 2 PUs for each originally owned German, Italian and Pro-Axis Neutral European (includes Scandanavia) territory that Russia controls. This excludes all African TTS, Iraq and Mediterranean Islands. 3 PUs for control of Korea. Is there a historic or gameplay justification for including Korea in the context of WW2? Undermines the goal of discouraging war between Japan and Russia.
“Pacific Island Control” When Japan is at war with any of the Western Allies (excluding Russia) all Pacific Islands valued at 1 or lower receive 1 PU. Controlling Power must be at war to receive bonus.
"UK Convoy Zone"UK receives 2 PUs if SZ 104 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports). Is there any special/historic significance to this sz that isn’t already captured by the convoy zones in 109 and 119?
“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.
“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.
“Island Conquest” 2PUs for conquest of any 2 value Pacific Island TT or less, excluding PHIs.
“All Island Conquest” adds the rest of the Pacific Islands to the “Island Conquest” NO after turn 4.
**The Pacific island objectives seem more-or-less like you’re just trying to make the islands worth 1 PU each. The result is a bit convoluted. Why not just make them worth 1 PU each. Or, if you want to use national objectives to get the desired effect, they would be structured the same way existing OOB Nos are. For example:
USA
� 3 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
� 3 PUs if USA is at war and Allies controls 3 of: Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.Japan
� 3 PUs if Japan is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
� 3 PUs if Japan is at war and Allies controls 3 of: Gilbert Islands, Solomon Islands, New Britain, New Habrides.**
Removed NOsRussia Controls Berlin for 10 PUs
Japanese Strategic Defense Perimeter, control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomon Islands for 5 PUsTerritory Value Changes
Sierra Leone is now Pro Allied Neutral (it still shows up as true neutral).
ABs and NBs
ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. The additional restriction on bomber production seems unnecessary, since you already require an airbase to build them, and spamming strategic bombers from newly constructed minor factories is not really a problem with the game. The less special rules the better. So Germany may only build bombers in Western Germany and Germany. Germany must also have a AB. May not build at a AB with 3 or more damage.
NBs are required to build all naval units. BBs,CVs,CAs and Escort Carriers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. These TTs must also have a NB. May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.
Primitive Terrain
Non Coastal Asian and Soviet Far Eastern TTs all land units may only move 1. Air units exempt. Once you’re out of China and past the Urals, Novosibirsk and Kazaksthan movement restriction ends. Discussed on page 8 of this thread. Note: If you don’t start in a primitive TT you can move your full movemnt including moving through primitive TTs. Primitive TTs are editable.
New and Modified Units
Bomber A3 +1 when paired with fighter 1:1, D1, M6 +1 with AB, C12
Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB. No boost when paired with fighter or tank. Why do tac bombers have a higher default attack value than strategic bombers? Are these changes really necessary. What are they designed to addressl?
AAgun A0, D1, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C5. Game starts with these.
AAgun1 A0, D0, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C4.
CruiserAA A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Crusiers only. OOB crusiers bombard at 3. Why the reduced bombard? Also, if going to give cruisers AA capabilities, just make it 3 planes, so its consistent with existing AA guns. Is there any reason why it would be only 2?
Escort Carrier A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD. Love this unit, especially. Don’t understand giving it destroyer capabilities when regular aircraft carriers don’t have them.
Transport333 Same abilities as OOB transport except may carry 3 inf or 2 inf and 1 other land unit. (will also carry 2 heavy land units which is not intended). Use caution when purchasing as they have the same image as OOB transport. Since u’ve changed some initial unit placement, would it be better to simply remove the OOB transports from the board completely if ur going to increase transport capacity? Also, see below, for discussion of Marines below
Militia A0, D1, M1, C2. Limited by country. Discussed on page 3 of this thread. May only conquer Completely empty TTs. No infrastructure. Includes primitve. Consider making the restrictions on the number of militia uniform across all factions.
Flying Tiger Same abilities as fighter. When ending turn in Chinese controlled TT it changes into a Chinese fighter. US starting PHI fighter is a Flying Tiger. US may only have 1 Flying Tiger at any time. May fly over and land in UKP TTs when US is neutral. Cool
Marines Same as infantry except +1 during amphibous attack. Artillery bonus stacks. So A3 with artillery on amphibous attack. Limited by country. Japan 4 US 6 UK 1 UKP 1 ANZAC 1. **Rather than putting faction-specific limitations on the number built, consider increasing the cost to 4 or 5 and giving the marines the added benefit of being able to travel 3 to a transport. So your standard transport can either carry the usual number of infantry/big units, or 3 marines. Can be accomplished by giving transports 10 carrying capacity, making marines 3, infantry 4, other units 6. **
Very impressed with what you have accomplished here. Keep up the good work!
-
Hi kid
Thanks for the feedback. Cool you got a play test in. To answer your questions,The different versions are for testing different things. At the top of the notes it will tell you what’s different. I need to update the game notes again as I have just been listing the changes in this thread. For example mech means you can buy mechs and armor at new minor factories. The original version only allows inf and artillery builds.
Ahh I misunderstood that Russia doesn’t get a extra lend lease NO when they declare on JPN. I thought a little extra disincentive might be required. Yea this probably isn’t necessary.
Archangel is a typo. It is SFE and SZ 4 is correct. The reason for SZ 4 is so JPN must use a bmbr or carrier air to reach it. SZ 124 is for more Atlantic action. Being a open SZ allows for it to be contested more. Same with 104. I’ve used it for a while and it seems to work well.
The thought was to encorage disruption of lend lease going around the Horn. Churchill was concerned that JPN could have taken Madagascar easily and shut it down. Creates more game options. Yea NW Persia shouldn’t be required. Guess you wouldn’t necessarily need Caucusus but wanted 1 Russian TT required the same as the other routes. I guess you could get rid of it for simplicity. If Germany owns all those TTs it’s not looking goood for Russia anyway. I suppose you could get rid of Madagascar but it doesn’t really seem that complex to me.
The Korean NO has been removed.
The islands have been changed to just the valueless ones getting the bonus. Been thinking about just making them a buck from the start. Probably will. With the 2 PU conquest bonus I don’t think the strategic island objective is necessary either. There isn’t any Marshall or Golbrert Island NOs.
People expressed intrest in having their heavy units only built in their home factories. They didn’t like the idea of B-29s and CVs being built in Norway. :)
When the bmbr was dropped to 3 and the fighter was switched to support it to 4, the TB was jacked to 4 so people would buy them.
This was discussed quite a bit here and a few other places. 2 seemed to be the concensus with 3 being too powerful. The bombard was dropped to 2 because at 10 bucks they might prove OPd. The OOB CAs bombard at 3 so they don’t disrupt any opening battles.
The anti sub is Baron’s idea. It represents the small carriers the British used in the Atlantic hunting subs. Also it’s so people will buy them.
Someone suggested a 3 carry transport this allows the option.
Yea I was concerned about spamming and wanted to reflect manpower totals somewhat as well. I suppose everybody could just get 6. I’ve been playing this way a long time so I’m used to it.
That’s a good way to do it if you want to carry 3. I got the Marine idea from Midnight. I cut 2 from JPN though. Mostly for the Pacific. JPN and US each get 6 and ANZAC and UK 1. Don’t want them spammed and raising the price seems like you’d be better off with artillery unless you did 3 to a boat. I like the way they work.
Anyway I’ll clean up the notes and change a couple things discussed here. Thanks again for the feedback.
-
The anti sub is Baron’s idea. It represents the small carriers the British used in the Atlantic hunting subs. Also it’s so people will buy them.
Someone suggested a 3 carry transport this allows the option.
Yea I was concerned about spamming and wanted to reflect manpower totals somewhat as well. I suppose everybody could just get 6. I’ve been playing this way a long time so I’m used to it.
That’s a good way to do it if you want to carry 3. I got the Marine idea from Midnight. I cut 2 from JPN though. Mostly for the Pacific. JPN and US each get 6 and ANZAC and UK 1. Don’t want them spammed and raising the price seems like you’d be better off with artillery unless you did 3 to a boat. I like the way they work.Anyway I’ll clean up the notes and change a couple things discussed here. Thanks again for the feedback.
Here is a much simpler Marines/Elite units and less OP during amphibious assault.
A2 D2 M1 Cost 4.
3 units can be carried on TP.
1 can be dropped by Air TP.
No pairing bonus with Artillery. -
What about making Mechanized Infantry use the same room as Infantry on Transport?
That way US can bring 1 MI and 1 Tk on 1 TP. -
Sorry to chime in so late, but I would definitely allow that. Only for the US though. The US Inf were all mechanised anyway. It really should be allowed to land in Morocco and race to Egypt, I think.
I have been watching and following the discussions, by the way. I feel 1940 needs a big shake up. Glad you have got so far with your ideas and plans. -
@Baron:
The anti sub is Baron’s idea. It represents the small carriers the British used in the Atlantic hunting subs. Also it’s so people will buy them.
Someone suggested a 3 carry transport this allows the option.
Yea I was concerned about spamming and wanted to reflect manpower totals somewhat as well. I suppose everybody could just get 6. I’ve been playing this way a long time so I’m used to it.
That’s a good way to do it if you want to carry 3. I got the Marine idea from Midnight. I cut 2 from JPN though. Mostly for the Pacific. JPN and US each get 6 and ANZAC and UK 1. Don’t want them spammed and raising the price seems like you’d be better off with artillery unless you did 3 to a boat. I like the way they work.Anyway I’ll clean up the notes and change a couple things discussed here. Thanks again for the feedback.
Here is a much simpler Marines/Elite units and less OP during amphibious assault.
A2 D2 M1 Cost 4.
3 units can be carried on TP.
1 can be dropped by Air TP.
No pairing bonus with Artillery.This is “simpler” than what Barney suggested? Don’t think so. On further reflection, I do agree with Barney that limiting the number of Marines built is the right approach. Otherwise you will get tons of Marines in the European theater (which is highly ahistorical).
-
I just looked at the 3 marine to a trprt thing. If they A2 all the time with no arty boost and C4 trprt3 I don’t think the US would hardly buy inf. If you went A2 only on amphib with no arty boost C4 would that balance them out ? The no arty boost would carry over so they’d only be A1 after there amphib attack. Don’t know if I necessarily like that. I guess you could have them turn back into regular infantry after a amphib attack but that seems to be overcomplicating things.
They’re pretty powerful with arty at 3A (only on amphib) but regular inf gets a 2 so… I guess you could raise the price to 4 and have them unlimited for everybody with the way they are currently or just go with the limited by country which is what I prefer.
It’s supposed to reflect the Pacific theatre but since it’s a what if game there’s no reason the US couldn’t send the marines to normandy. Is there a reason to justify giving Germany a couple and maybe Italy 1 ? I don’t see Russia using them.
Right now it’s JPN 6, US 6, UK or UKP 1 and ANZAC 1
Yea I like the idea of letting the US pack a mech and a Tank at the same time too. I guess you could make it for everybody. I don’t think it would be that big a deal for JPN but Italy could benefit. US/UK only or give it to everybody ? I kinda like US only.
-
Barney,
Here are the economics of marines if u allow 3 to a transport and charge 4 per unit.
Assume you have 60 PUs to spend on an amphib landing force. Lets look at two alternative forces: a conventional ‘OOB force’ and a ‘marine force’
Conventional Force:
4 transports
4 infantry
3 artillery
1 armorCost: 58
Attack: 16
Defense: 17
HP: 8Marine Force
3 transports
7 marines
1 artilleryCost: 53
Attack: 17 (amphib attack); 10 (conventional attack)
Defense: 16
HP: 8Conclusion: While the cheaper Marine force is more cost effective for the initial amphibious invasion (53 PUs vs. 58 PUs), the costlier conventional forces wind up being better for pressing the attack after the initial landing. You get something for the extra money you spend on the conventional forces. I don’t think “spamming” would be an issue.
That said, a restriction on the number of marines built makes sense to preserve their character as “elite” forces, and prevent overrepresentation in the game. The restriction should be the same for all powers (perhaps 6 – two transports worth) so that it doesn’t seem like your trying to force an outcome with faction-specific rules.
As for jamming mech infantry onto transports with artillery/tanks–don’t think so. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Your mod already has dozens of ideas haven’t really been play tested. Focus should be on winnowing them down, and fine tuning, not adding more, in my opinion.
Marines lose their bonus, so you don’
-
yea i don’t really think of it as my mod. I just try to put in things so people can test as many things as possible. W/e the final product is remains to be seen. So you think the marines should get A2 +1 w/atry on amphib, 3 to a trprt, C4 limit 6, attack as regular infantry if not an amphib attack ? Not sure about the whole 3 to a trprt thing. It just seems odd. We’ll see what happens.
-
If you allow 3 to a transport, but don’t allow +1 with artillery support, the Marines will serve their historic role as amphib shock troops (their advantage over artillery+infantry being that you need fewer transports to transport them; their disadvantage being that the 2 attack only applies to the initial landing). Just an idea. . .
As for “throwing everything in” to the mod, I think you’d be doing a greater service if you kept it to just a few, carefully considered concepts, to allow focused play testing. Otherwise it is doubtful that any of the maps will be played by a significant number of people, or that we’ll be able to come to any meaningful conclusions regarding any of the particular features.
-
Probably too complex, but it gives a link about this thread on Marines/Elite units
@Baron:
Here, I will try to work in the opposite direction: “generalized system that would apply to elite forces for any power rather than specifically just to Marines”
In the actual cost structure for grounds units, there is already 2 units at 4 IPCs:
Artillery A2 D2 M1 C4, +1A to Inf or Mec Inf
Mec Inf A1 D2 M2 C4, can blitz when paired to a TankAAA is at 5 IPCs, but it is not relevant here,
so there is still a room for Self-Propelled Artillery/Gun unit A2 D3 M2 at 5 IPCs,
(combined with Tnk can get around A5 D6 M2 C11, for example.)
I know tob77 you have a lot of HBG sculpts. :-)Finally, when doing combined arms or putting 2 ground units together, there is a small gap between 10 and 12 IPCs:
Art + Inf = A4 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Art + Mec Inf= A4 D4 M1-2 8 IPCs
Tnk + Inf = A4 D5 M1-2 9 IPCs
Tnk + Mec Inf= A4 D5 M2 10 IPCs
Tnk + Art = A5 D5 M1-2 10 IPCs
Elite Tnk+El Inf= A5 D5 M2 11 IPCs in amphibious assault and A3 + A2 first strike in reg combat
Tnk + Tnk = A6 D6 M2 12 IPCs
This is a perfect niche for 2 Elite units (Elite Inf 4 IPCs + Elite Tnk 7 IPCs) which can also works as Marines.
As showed earlier, these cost stay within acceptable limits for putting on a single transport 3 units Elite Inf or 2 Elite Infs and 1 Elite Tnk compared to 2 regular units on a transport (6.33 vs 6.5 IPCs/unit and 7.33 vs 8 IPCs/unit.)Elite Infantry A1-2 D2 M1-2 C4,
in Regular combat:-
Gets offensive pre-emptive strike each round.
Defender casualties from this strike are removed immediately with no counter fire.
Thanks Knp7765 :wink: -
Get A2 when attacking alone or only with other Elite Infantry.
(This is in addition to the pre-emptive strike: think of it as commando raiders.) -
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Artillery unit (as any Inf or Mec Inf),
-
Get A2 & M2, but no blitz, when supported 1:1 by Elite Tank
in Amphibious assault:
-
can load 3 Elite Infantry units in a transport or 2 Elite Infs & 1 Elite Tank,
-
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Artillery unit (as any Inf or Mec Inf),
-
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Elite Tank
Elite Tank A3 D3 M2 C7 , can blitz as OOB Tnk.
in Regular combat:-
Gives +1A supporting 1:1 Inf, Mec Inf or Elite Inf, same as Artillery unit
-
Gives +1M supporting 1:1 Elite Inf, but Elite Inf cannot blitz.
-
Give blitzing to Mec Inf when paired 1:1. (As OOB Tank.)
in Amphibious assault:
-
can be load on a transport with up to 2 Elite Infantries, or 1 regular Infantry.
-
Gives +1A supporting 1:1 Inf, Mec Inf or Elite Inf, same as Artillery unit
There is various offensive situation in regular combat for Elite Infantry:
Alone or with other Elite Inf, it get A2 first strike.
When supported by Art or Elite Tank, it gets also A2 first strike.
Then, Elite Infantry stay A1 first strike when attacking with other units.On amphibious assault, there is no first strike, and it remains A1 unless there is some support from Artillery or Elite Tank to raise it to A2.
The preemptive strike in regular ground combat was a required incentive.
Something was needed to make Elite Infantry better than cheaper Infantry and having some interest over Artillery unit at the same cost but having a basic A2 and giving +1 bonus. -
-
@Baron:
The anti sub is Baron’s idea. It represents the small carriers the British used in the Atlantic hunting subs. Also it’s so people will buy them.
Someone suggested a 3 carry transport this allows the option.
Yea I was concerned about spamming and wanted to reflect manpower totals somewhat as well. I suppose everybody could just get 6. I’ve been playing this way a long time so I’m used to it.
That’s a good way to do it if you want to carry 3. I got the Marine idea from Midnight. I cut 2 from JPN though. Mostly for the Pacific. JPN and US each get 6 and ANZAC and UK 1. Don’t want them spammed and raising the price seems like you’d be better off with artillery unless you did 3 to a boat. I like the way they work.Anyway I’ll clean up the notes and change a couple things discussed here. Thanks again for the feedback.
Here is a much simpler Marines/Elite/ Paratrooper units and less OP during amphibious assault.
A2 D2 M1 Cost 4.
3 units can be carried on TP.
1 can be dropped by Air TP.
No pairing bonus with Artillery.This is “simpler” than what Barney suggested? Don’t think so. On further reflection, I do agree with Barney that limiting the number of Marines built is the right approach. Otherwise you will get tons of Marines in the European theater (which is highly ahistorical).
I don’t like arbitrary limit numbers.
Here is a different shot from another POV on Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1, or 2 if paired 1:1 with Tank or Mechanized Infantry.
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other unit.So, it will be only combination which can rise on offense to a high A5 =
(Marines A2 + Tank A3)
No other combined arms.This higher attack factor with Tank can be explain by the use of amphibious specialized mechanized weapons, such as LVTs / Amtraks, landing crafts, etc.
It won’t be spammed because 1 Inf + 1 Art cost 7 IPCs and gives the same Attack factor @4 than 1 Marines and 1 Art, or 2 Marines which would cost 8 IPCs, 1 more.@Baron:
Some very simple way to think about Marines:
@Vance:
If you amphibiously invade an island with 1 infantry/1 artillery per transport you can call them “Army”; if you use 1 infantry/1 armor you can call them “Marines”. Problem solved.
Historical explanations:
Every nation had their elite or specialized troops. I’m totally against adding Marines. My experiences as a soldier in the Army also bias me since Marines are nothing special.
Do you want US Marines ?
I wish I could smite you, but that option was taken away by the mods one year ago. Fortunately you are allowed to change your opinion one time, and do the right thing, before I close this poll.On topic:
You are correct, every nation had elite forces.US Marines was not some lame elite force, it was a million man army inside the army. And they had Landing Craft’s. As you propably should have figured, amphibious assaults do favor men that come with Landing Crafts. So basically the Marines unit is not superhumans, but plain infantry that happen to use Landing Crafts. Lets imagine you pay 3 IPC for the inf and the extra 1 IPC is for the Landing Craft. Happy now ? Only USA had this advantage during WWII. The other nations had to use canoes when they invaded some crap island.
@Col.:
The amtrac actually saw more and more use in the Pacific as the war went on. The Higgins had trouble getting stuck in the coral, and the amtrac offered exit in the rear of the vehicle instead of the door lowering in the front.
I never liked the idea of armor or artillery being good at amphibious assaults. I think only marine units should get to attack on a 2 during amphibious assaults and everything else is a 1. Since this would make it very hard to land troops maybe BBs and CAs could fire every round during an amphibious assault to return the balance, but make the amphibious assaults rely more on naval/marine units instead of land units.
-
Barney:
Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.
Here is the epiphany: in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!
Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.
U like?
-
Barney:
Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.
Here is the epiphany: in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!
Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.
U like?
Interesting idea which should be tested, regularKid.
For both Cruiser and Battleship units.This additional transportation move could also fit into my
universal Elite/Marines/Paratrooper unit:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Cruiser or 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.Air movement bonus: Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus: Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).
No other combined arms.
On amphibious assault, this unit imply a +1 extra-punch per TP carrying Tank on offense:
A2+A3 = A5 compared to Inf + Art, A2+A2 / Inf + Tk, A1+A3.
And 1 Inf + 1 Elite Inf gives A1+A2 in all circumstances, less than 1 Inf + 1 Art, A2+A2,
but better than 1 Inf + 1 usual Marines outside beachlanding A1+A1.This higher attack factor for Marines/Elite unit with Tank can be explained by the use of amphibious specialized mechanized weapons, such as LVTs / Amtraks, landing crafts, etc.
It won’t be spammed because 1 Inf + 1 Art cost 7 IPCs and gives the same Attack factor @4 than 1 Marines and 1 Art, or 2 Marines which would cost 8 IPCs, 1 IPC more.
Giving extra +1 move paired with Tank would be too strong compared to 1 MI +1 Tk combination (A4 D5 M2 C10) vs previous idea 1 Marines + 1 Tk (A5 D5 C10).
However, a +1 bonus move with MI is quite distinctive.This Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs gets :
- the basic attack factor of an improved Infantry combined with Artillery (A2) without the need of combined arms, which is far below any @3 value,
- on amphibious assault, gives the same attack factor than a usual Pacific Marines without the OP combined arms with Artillery attack @3, but you keep the higher A5 combo with Tank,
- some special combined arms movement features on Sea, Air and Land, a kind of SEAL unit before the letter.
At A&A Strategic level, this Elite Infantry unit could represent all kinds of special forces with extra training which can do more with less logistics than Regular army men.
Here is where on this thread I started talking Elite Infantry:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1458486#msg1458486 -
Barney:
Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.
**Here is the epiphany: in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!
Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.**
U like?
Another reason to try it is that it is partly an idea of Black Elk on Battleship.
However, rising to 4 IPCs Marines units which can use this movement feature is a way to limit both carrying capacity and the useful number of Marines.How to make battleships a more attractive purchase
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1284230#msg1284230Re: Cruisers - Combined Arms
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1357920#msg1357920@Baron:
So speed is out, the game doesn’t do speed well. But how about Maneuverability?
Maneuverability might be something we could try to represent somehow. What if the Cruiser could ignore blockers on non combat? “Race past” Or if you don’t like that, then Cruisers move 3 on non combat?
Short of a movement type advantage, the idea to have them attack at 4 is at least something. Attack 4, defend 3? What value would you have it bombard at then though? Still a 3?
Other concepts that I have tried were Cruisers and Battleships can load a single infantry unit, which I liked, since it basically provides a kind of alternative to defenseless transports (albeit really expensive ones) but definitely makes the unit more attractive as a purchase. In this case, we said that the infantry units loaded onto these Warships represent marines, whereas the units loaded onto transports are more like army soldiers. These dudes are the marines, which was fun with the non com move at 3 idea. For launches, with these units first on the scene in the Pac.
Given that there is no marine unit represented in the game, the idea was that, when loaded onto a Cruiser or Battleship the infantry unit just is a marine or naval- amphibious infantry unit.
Cruisers and Battleships carrying 1 Marines Infantry unit are interesting since it can depicts some historical fast deployement of US Marines.
I like it when you show it that way.Since there is some move @3 via NB, why not input the 1914 Cruiser Move?
A Cruiser basic move is 3 spaces CM and NCM and get no bonus from Naval base.The high 12 IPCs with the lesser combat value will be explained and balanced by the extended range and Marines deployment capacity.
Battleship heavier firepower can even gives a +1A as Artillery capacity to help Marines assault. (Toblerone77 get this idea first, I think)
Cruiser and BB get their one shot shore bombardment @3 or @4, which is forbid with Naval combat.
But Battleship can still provide a +1A to her Infantry unit on board for every combat round of an amphibious assault.So Cruiser gets 3 moves, while Battleship gets an Artillery support capacity.
I think this will makes more interesting depiction of Pacific Invasions.
@Baron:
Without getting too wild, and fitting within game mechanics, you could simply boost firepower to land units + 1 in uncontested amphibious assaults for all rounds just like artillery does making BBs more valuable. this could be modified to include cruisers too. BBs can support 2 INF and cruisers can support 1. Do this for all rounds of combat and not simply a bombardment.
Interesting idea which I completly forgot could be used as a way to promote BBs and CAs (when we were trying to introduce a more historically accurate shore bombardment for Destroyers and in general).
Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment? (1942/1940) http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30249.msg1260861#msg12608611942.2 & G40 Improving historical accuracy of amphibious assault
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33217.msg1262175#msg1262175This should be kept within the limits of only paired Infantry units being unloaded from transports in an Amphibious assault get this bonus.
But any INF cannot get both bonus from Art and BBs or Cruiser. It is still a combined arms, right?Even if it is for all combat rounds, this will be a limited bonus since Infantry units is always the first casualty taken.
It will mostly fade by itself in subsequent rounds, due to attrition.
As read another time, by " boost firepower to land units + 1" do you really intent to make Armor A4 and Art A3 during a debarkment?
Probably, it is in this post you got the first development of this idea of BBs and Cruisers providing support to Infantry/Marines:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg1101675#msg1101675 -
@Baron:
Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?
Correct.
Cruiser Cost 12 A3 D3 M3, no NB bonus, bombard @3, preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
With all these additional capacities, even if not directly optimized on AAcalc vs other warships, +1 move and AA would be a test to see if people want to buy it at 12 IPCs.To summarize my POV on Marines and the rest according with OOB cost structure with TP at 7 IPCs:
Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryBattleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryElite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Cruiser or 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).No other combined arms.
With SS5- DD6-TP8-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure, Cruiser should be different:
Cruiser
Cost 9
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)Battleship
Cost 15
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry -
Why do cruisers get AA capabilities and not battleships? Is there any historical justification for that, or is it just to “make cruisers more attractive to buy in the game?”
Also, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities, why do they only fire at 2 planes, when AA guns fire at 3? Is there any historic or game-play justification for this?
Why do Marines get a movement bonus from mech infantry? Why not regular infantry too then?
Also, Marines need to cost 5, imo. The player who uses them is already saving 7 because no transport is needed.
-
Why do cruisers get AA capabilities and not battleships? Is there any historical justification for that, or is it just to “make cruisers more attractive to buy in the game?”
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36596.msg1452254#msg1452254
-
Also, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities, why do they only fire at 2 planes, when AA guns fire at 3? Is there any historic or game-play justification for this?
From my POV, first Barney made the unit on his file that way.
Second, I still have in mind my own AAA which shoot every round at up to two planes, one roll max per plane, so this could eventually be consistent.
Third, for play-test, I believe it will be easier to observe if it is OP, than if it was only a single shot.It is a start, the consistency issue between sea AA Cruiser and /or BB and ground AAA will have to be resolved after feedback testing. (Your point is still valid.)
Why do Marines get a movement bonus from mech infantry? Why not regular infantry too then?
Also, Marines need to cost 5, imo. The player who uses them is already saving 7 because no transport is needed.
Both a cost issue, at 3 IPCs you keep the basic unit, basic. So, no combined arms with MI.
At 4 IPCs, it needs some special abilities, hence MI pairing movement bonus.
Rising Marines at 5 IPCs seems high for footman soldiers, rather de-boost somehow to keep it at 4 IPCs.
The 4 IPCs Elite unit is on narrow spot which gives its specific and balanced nest compared to all other ground units combos:
MI + Inf = A2 D4 M2/M1 7 IPCs
MI + MI = A2 D4 M2 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.Art + Inf = A4 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Art + MI = A4 D4 M1/M2 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
2 Artys = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.Elite + Inf = A3 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Elite + MI = A3 D4 M2 8 IPCs
Elite + Art = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCs
2 Elites = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCsTnk + Inf = A4 D5 M2/M1 9 IPCs
Tnk + MI = A4 D5 M2 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Art = A5 D5 M2/M1 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Elite= A5 D5 M2/M1 10 IPCs
Tnk + Tnk = A6 D6 M2 12 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.So, if adding 1 Elite to Cruiser is OP, then I believe it should be limited to Battleship only, but cost must remain 4 IPCs.
To figure if it is OP or not, a comparison on 32 IPCs basis can be made:
2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A4 D4A) 2 DDs + 1 TP /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C32, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
B) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1 TP/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D4I concede, it seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
2 Offshore bombardment @3, higher off/def.
Is it too much? Probably.
2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers.
Same offense on land.
Though, Cruisers are much vulnerable to Subs attack.
Marines cannot move as fast as Tank.
Battleship+ Elite/Marines = C24, BB A4 D4 + 1 Elite A2 D2
1 DD + 1 TP / 1 Tank + 1 Inf = C24, DD A2 D2 + Ground A4 D5
This comparison with BB seems better balanced.
High off/def at sea but weak on ground.
vs
Low off/def at sea but stronger on ground.So, it is probably more balanced to implement these units that way:
Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryElite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).No other combined arms.
According to SS5- DD6-TP8-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure, Battleship carrying 1 Elite is better of course, but maybe OP too, IDK.
2 (Battleship C15+ Elite/Marines C4) = C38, BB A8 D8, 4 hits + 2 Elite A4 D4
vs
1 CA9+ 2 DD12 + 1 TP8/ 1 Tank + 1 Inf = C38, warships A7 D7/8vsAir, 4 hits + 2 Ground A4 D5But with TP at 7 IPCs,
2 CA18+ 1 DD6 + 1 TP7/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C38, warships A8/D8/9vsAir, 4 hits + 2 ground A4 D4.
This gives almost an even match in Naval combat: 52% vs 38%.So, if such feature for 15 IPCs BB is introduced, the low cost structure should put Transport, 1 hit, A0 D0, reg AA1 at 7 IPCs to be balanced.
It would be easier to remember compared to OOB TP, at least.
But becomes a more interesting unit to use as naval fodder compared to DD A2 D2 C6.
That is my own issue to get ride of “chosen last” rule and revert back to owner select all casualty order.
Which I believe is better to implement less scripted tactical battle in the Atlantic between Subs, TPs and Destroyers.So, this reduced cost for TP imply the following cost structure:
SS5- DD6-TP7-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure,
Fg10, TcB12, StB12,
Inf3, MI4, Art4, Elite4, AAA4, Tank6
Suggested Topics
