G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[regularkid]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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 Tank

AAA 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 Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

@Baron:

@barney:

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:

@Razor:

@shadowguidex:

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.

@trackmagic:

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.

[regularkid]

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

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 :

1. 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,
2. 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,
3. 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

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

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#msg1284230

Re: Cruisers - Combined Arms
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1357920#msg1357920

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

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:

@toblerone77:

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#msg1260861

1942.2 & G40 Improving historical accuracy of amphibious assault
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33217.msg1262175#msg1262175

This 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 Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@barney:

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 Infantry

Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

Elite 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

[regularkid]

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.

[LHoffman]

@regularkid:

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

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

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.)

@regularkid:

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 IPCs

Tnk + 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 D4

A) 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 D4

I 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 Infantry

Elite 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 D5

But 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

[Black_Elk]

I really dig the idea of elites, it’s one sculpt we can almost certainly include that would add some cool variety to the roster. I really like the concept of the battleship transporting 1 as well.

[baron Münchhausen]

Barney,
do you know if there is a Triple A version of HBG Global War 1939?
According to the question below, it seems that Transport unit works almost like I would like to introduced in Redesign.
1 hit, no defense vs warships, regular AA@1 defense vs up to 1 plane.
If yes, then you can borrow XML codes to add in your next version of Transport unit for G40 Redesign.
Question about HBG Global 39
@Ju87Stuka:

Hi,

got 2 question about the transport and the aircraft carrier. They only firing against air units only in the first round of comabt or every combat round ?
In a battle i lost all my units execpt my transporters , they are destroyed or can i fire back with the transporter till it gets a hit ?

thx

@SS:

Question 1 : They fire at planes for every round of combat.

Question 2 : Transports are destroyed if all alone with enemy ships unless there’s still planes attacking. Then transport get a shot at planes. Transports do not fire back against ships.

Next time you have question go to the Global War thread to ask any more questions for HBG Global 39.

Welcome.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

unfortunately I don’t think you can have DDs negate the submerge of subs on a 1:1 basis in triplea. It may be possible with some sort of negative triggers but IDK.

Do you think it is possible to limit on tripleA the DD’s blocker capacity vs Subs for the first combat round only?

Even if 1:1 blocking is not possible to install, at least, with 1 round it will gives more survivability to Sub.
I know that some use this HR with 1 DD block unlimited number of Subs, and it seems better.
This feature worth a play-test, IMO.

[barney]

Hey Baron
There is no Global 1939 for triplea, not the one you’re talking about anyway. We’d probably all be playing that if there was. :) I did run across a thing called maxAArounds that determines the number of rounds the aagun fires. IDK if you can give a transport a aagun or not,you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work), but if you can you could come close to what you’re after. I’ll take a closer look at it.

Sadly I don’t think there’s anyway around the sub issue. I haven’t asked anyone but that’s how it looks to me. It does seem like there are a few more developers around these days and nerquen altered the code for his house rule so maybe somebody will take it on in the future.

[regularkid]

@barney:

. . .you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work). . . .

Barney, not sure if you mean to say that a battleship can’t serve as a transport because it has an attack value, but it can. Here is how u do it:

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“battleship” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”></attatchment>

In this case, I changed regular transports to have 11 transportCapacity, and set the transport cost for the units as follows:

Marine: 4
Infantry: 5
All other land units: 6

This ensures that only a single marine can ‘fit’ onto a battleship (or cruiser), while the usual unit combinations will continue to fit onto a regular transport (which can also carry two marines).

Also, I’ve play tested the Marines with a number of good G40 players over the last couple of days, and it seems that the optimal cost for the unit is 5 PUs (you’re getting an artillery powered unit that doesn’t require a transport). No number restriction is necessary.

Also, we tried playing with your Militia unit (0 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement, 2 cost, no artillery support), confining it to china. It worked great. Again, no number restriction was required.

When we gonna do our 1 v. 1 playtest, Barney?    :P

[barney]

Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree  you’d have to go 5.

Just finishing stuff up. That NAP is gonna work great now I think. I’ll see how things go and pop on tommorrow night. Unfortunately I’m having trouble trying to edit the Vichy map. It keeps freezing on me. I’ll give it another go tomorrow

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree  you’d have to go 5.

I agree, too.
Any unit going up to Attack or Defense 3 should be at 5 IPCs.

Once said, I wonder if you could be interested by Mechanized Artillery at 5 IPCs, or is it outstretched?
Looking at how you both make miracles and tripleA dreams come true with XML files, I’m sure there is some possibilities to start from MI with blitz pairing with Tank and upgrade a new unit to at least a A2 D2 M2 giving +1A to MI or Inf.
Black Elk opinion on that one is mandatory I believe.
How far this 5 IPCs ground unit is missing in the roster to really improve Eastern front German-Soviet war for people is not clear.

I know from Calc POV that any 11 IPCs paired units which gives A6 D6, 2 hits is a close even match to A4 D4, 2 hits at 9 IPCs.
9 A3 D3 vs 11 A2 D2 gives near 50% odds of survival.
And this explain why 2 AA50 Tanks were slightly OP at A6 D6 M2 C10 and Classic Tank A3 D2 C5 was on this spot (A6 D4 C10, 2 hits) when averaging offense and defense.
So, a unit A3 D3 C5.5 is even matched to a unit A2 D2 C4.5.
Said otherwise, A2.5 D2.5 C5 is a balanced match too.

To summarize for same ability to Move 2, here is balanced numbers between them:
A7 D7, 2 hits, 12 IPCs or A3.5 D3.5 Cost 6
A6 D6, 2 hits, 11 IPCs or A3 D3 Cost 5.5
A5 D5, 2 hits, 10 IPCs or A2.5 D2.5 Cost 5
A4 D4, 2 hits, 9 IPCs or A2 D2 Cost 4.5
A3 D3, 2 hits, 8 IPCs or A1.5 D1.5 Cost 4
A2 D2, 2 hits, 7 IPCs or A1 D1 Cost 3.5
A1 D1, 2 hits, 6 IPCs or A.5 D.5 Cost 3

---

That is why I gave to my MechArt +1 A/D pairing bonus with Tank.
Alone MA A2 D2 M2 C5 cost higher than 4.5 IPCs, hence slightly underpowered.
With MI, this gives A4 D4 M2, 2 hits for 9 IPCs, just on the line.
With Tank, it gets A6 D6 M2, 2 hits for 11 IPCs, right on the same line.
Finally, MA+MI+Tk could reach A8 D8 M2, 3 hits, 15 IPCs,
for an avg/unit: A2.67 D2.67 for 5 IPCs.
However, this 1:1:1 combined arms is slightly above the line.
And this can be a balance issue for M2 units.

An Elite A2 D2 M1-2 C4 + MI A1-2 D2 M2 C4 is not OP on offense because you get A3 D4 M2, 2 hits, C8, avg/unit A1.5 D2 for 4 IPCs.
This is still on the line at 1.5 for 4 IPCs.
This table also reveal that its defense factor D2 would be slightly above the 1.5 line.
This can be acceptable since Elite Infantry is not always a M2 unit and is not better than Inf or Art or MI on defense.

Balanced MA at 5 IPCs should not be higher than stats below (example of too high values: A2 D3 M2 C5, +1 to Inf or MI), otherwise it would be better than Tank (in the last example, clearly better on defense, for 1 IPC less, and a bit better on attack, too, when pairing with MI):

Mechanized Artillery
Attack 2-3
Defense 2-3
Move 2
Cost 5
Can either be paired 1:1 with MI/Inf or Tank, not both.
Gives +1A to Inf or MI
Gets +1A or +1D when paired to Tank
Can blitz when paired to Tank or with Tank+MI.

Another reason to keep it paired 1:1 with either MI or Tank is because of the Tech:
Improved Mechanized Infantry which gives to all MI A2 D2 M2, blitz alone.
If 1:1:1 combined arms is allowed, then this Tech will not make any difference or could rise to a high A9 this combos (A3 avg for each unit seems too high).
1:1:1 is A1+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A8 for 15 IPCs, 3 hits : A2.67/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise to A2+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A9

1:1 only is A1+A2+1A+A3= A7, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : A2.33/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise A2+ A2+1A+A3= A8

In both case, same defense: D2+D2+1D+D3=D8, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : D2.67/hit/5 IPCs.
So my Mech Art suggestion combos creates an average per unit A2.33 D2.67 M2 C5, and averaging offense and defense makes for 2.5 A/D for 5 IPCs, right on the line! See table above.

[barney]

Here’s another update:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/00bksz

There are 4 maps.
Td no armor or mech builds at new or captured minors.
TdMECH You can build armor and mechs
TdMECHSHIPYARD same as above with shipyard prices
TdMECHVICHY same as MECH with regularkid’s Vichy rules

All maps have updated game notes.The following is the same for all.

Russia/Japan NAP
Removed the 3 PU cost to declare war. Changed the Lend-Lease NO to SZ 5 and control of Amur. You get a extra buck if Japan declares on Russia but not if Russia declares on Japan. SZ 80 also gets a extra buck. SZ 5 has no convoy symbol for now.

The Strategic Islands NO for the US and Japn has been removed.

The All Island Conquest NO goes into effect for the Allies after Japan takes them and after turn 4 for Japan.

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Left the valueless island boost to 1 objective the same for now. If It’s a J1 it won’t matter anyway, otherwise it may influence Japan to consider her options.

Militia is the same. You probably wouldn’t have to worry about China spamming them if they were unlimited since they don’t have the dough. I wouldn’t want to see a pile of them in Moscow or Italy or anywhere else though. Thought about boosting UKPs build limit to 4 to counter the J1, but you can still get a Russian mech force there pretty quickly. Anyway they’re the same for now.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

If Elite cost 5 and are boosted by Art +1A for A3, there is no difference with Marines A1 doing debarkment +1A with Art+1A = A3, except for 1 IPC lower.

To make a real play-test for Elite Infantry viability, it should be 4 IPCs and no Arty boost.
That was the core of my idea: no A3 footmen unit.
Otherwise, better keep Marines as they are.

[barney]

yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out.

Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.