Sweet!
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Got to thinking on it some more. If DDs and planes only have offense Dchrg and subs get first strike as well, fleets would be too powerful on the attack. So I ran it through triplea with DDs A2 D2 Planes A1 D1 and OOB was 52%win and 77% for offense only.
With defense added was 46%. With DD only 45%. Granted the makeup of forces makes a big difference, but giving them both 10 SS 10 DD 5 CV 5 TB 5 Ftr 2 CA 1 BB is what they scored.
62% with DDs D1 on Dchrg
The triplea calc can make big swings with just 1 or 2 unit diff so Idk. Anyway looks as if they need some defense Dchrg ability. Maybe DD only and/or Tacs @D1
2 subs 2 DDs vs 2 subs 2 DDs is 59% OOB to 57% SFR. Throw in a ftr and Tac it’s 54% to 50%. That’s with DDs A2 D2 Planes A1 D1
Anyway maybe this will help a little Baron
-
Got to thinking on it some more. If DDs and planes only have offense Dchrg and subs get first strike as well, fleets would be too powerful on the attack. So I ran it through triplea with DDs A2 D2 Planes A1 D1 and OOB was 52%win and 77% for offense only.
With defense added was 46%. With DD only 45%. Granted the makeup of forces makes a big difference, but giving them both 10 SS 10 DD 5 CV 5 TB 5 Ftr 2 CA 1 BB is what they scored.
62% with DDs D1 on Dchrg
The triplea calc can make big swings with just 1 or 2 unit diff so Idk. Anyway looks as if they need some defense Dchrg ability. Maybe DD only and/or Tacs @D1
2 subs 2 DDs vs 2 subs 2 DDs is 59% OOB to 57% SFR. Throw in a ftr and Tac it’s 54% to 50%. That’s with DDs A2 D2 Planes A1 D1
Anyway maybe this will help a little Baron
Thanks Barney,
can you try and report some…
DD A1 D2 C6 vs Sub A2 D1 C6 with only attack DC @1 like:
6 DDs vs 6 Subs and
12 DD vs 12 SubsDD A1 D1 C5 vs Sub A2 D1 C6 with attack DC @1 and defense DC @1
6 DDs vs 5 Subs and
12 DDs vs 10 SubsThen, DD A2 D2 C6 vs Sub A2 D1 C5 with attack DC @2 and defense DC @2
5 DDs vs 6 Subs and
10 DDs vs 12 SubsThanks,
-
While we wait on the numbers…
:-DI think the main appeal of this approach to the unit, is that it just “feels” more like a submarine.
I never really liked how a single destroyer could completely negate so many of the sub’s interesting abilities OOB and hold it frozen in place. This type of system, which preserves the first strike, and allows subs to move “under” blockers, makes for a much more unique naval unit all around. You still need destroyers and aircraft to effectively disrupt enemy subs with the depth charge, but the sub now has the freedom of movement and surprise advantage at all times, which allows it to operate more independently. I think it should prove a lot more engaging for the sub commanders, with some interesting choices to be made on both sides, whether you’re waging an unrestricted sub warfare campaign yourself, or conducting an ASW campaign in response. It gives a nation like Germany a way to remain competitive on the water, so you can have a battle of the Atlantic that doesn’t hinge on Germany being able to launch carriers or create a massive surface fleet. Instead they can use subs, like they actually did in the war, to harass the Allies.
The one element that is slightly more challenging, is finding a simple way to introduce the sub’s raiding aspect into 1942.2, (so the unit can be consistent across both maps). I think this will be the key to determining the appropriate cost and attrition rate for subs, because it changes their value and replacement cost over time. The longer a sub survives, the more chances it has to “pay for itself” with raids. A sub that can raid is much more attractive as a purchase option, and much less likely to serve as fodder or for fleet padding, because it would have something else to do.
With the sub change included, I think the San Francisco Rules can be broadly interpreted as a naval and economic warfare overhaul for A&A. Each of these rules we’ve proposed build off of one another in the furtherance of that aim, culminating in a ruleset that offers a somewhat more realistic and nuanced play pattern.
-
@Baron
SFR OOB
Group 1 DD A1 D2 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1
6 DD vs 6 SS
60-62% DD win 88-90% DD win12 DD vs 12 SS
66-67% DD win 95-97% DD winGroup 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
6 DD vs 5 SS
77-79% DD win 99-100% DD win12 DD vs 10 SS
84-87% DD win 96-97% DD winGroup 3 DD A2 D2 ADC2 DDC2 vs SS A2 D1
5 DD vs 6 SS
82-84% DD win 71-73% DD win10 DD vs 12 SS
91-92% DD win 78-80% DD winRan each battle 5 times. Idk if triplea takes into account first strike or maybe some other stuff such as OOL. I also swapped sides which I can send you as well. I’m gonna check some League games and run some big fleet battles.
@Black Elk
Yea it does “feel” more like it. :) They get a chance to get away. I’m not familiar with 42.2 raiding. I get some time I’ll look into it. -
I also swapped sides which I can send you as well.
Yes please. :-D
If you want to put OOB comparison for same IPCs basis on each side…
Group 1 (6DD A1 D2 C6 vs 6SS A2 D1 C6)
Group 2 (6DD A1 D1 C5 vs 5SS A2 D1 C6)
Group 3 (5DD A2 D2 C6 vs 5SS A2 D1 C5) it would be:6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub winSo the nearest “Destroyer on offense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1 C6
6 DD vs 6 SS
60-62% DD win12 DD vs 12 SS
66-67% DD winGroup 1 SFR OOB
6 SS C6 vs 6 DD C6 72-74% SS win 46-48% SS win12 SS C6 vs 12 DD C6 79-81% SS win 48-51% SS win
Group 2
5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5 61-64% SS win 16-20% SS win10 SS C6 vs 12 DD C5 66-68% SS win 24-25% SS win
Group 3
6SS C5 vs 5 DD C6 50-53% SS win 73-77% SS win12 SS C5 vs 10 DD C6 52-53% SS win 82-84% SS win
Thanks Barney. :-)
So the nearest “Destroyer on defense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 Destroyer A1 D2 C6 ADC1
6 SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6 DD A1 D2 C6 72-74% SS win
12 SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12 DD A1 D2 C6 79-81% SS win8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub win -
The nearest odds OOB “Destroyer on offense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 Attack Depth Charge 1,
61% DD win compared to 60% OOBThe nearest odds OOB “Destroyer on defense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 Attack Depth Charge 1,
73% Sub win compared to 88% OOBThis seems interesting but it is only relative to Subs vs DDs
Even with same cost and similar combat values,
Subs A2fs D1fs M2 C6 are now more powerful than OOB Subs due to always first strike and not blocked by Destroyer.
So this new Sub is a bit more powerful than Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship. But it is not the main issue.
Above of all, because it is same cost than Destroyer, Submarine compete with Destroyer as fodder unit.I can easily imagine that on defense, Submarine would be taken as casualties mostly coming from attacking’s Sub successful hit.
Simply because both attacking and defending get their roll, while Destroyers still have to roll.
Naturally, it is better to maximize number of rolls per combat round.So, it can be circumvent whether by a lower cost for Destroyer (5 IPCs),
or a special player enforced rule: “Submarine must be taken as last casualty amongst warship.”
Or both.Using 5 IPCs A1 D2 M2 Destroyers directly decrease other warships combat power, especially on defense (OOB D2 cost 8, now it would cost 5).
Hence, it is a call for a DD5, SS6, TP7, CA9, CV12, BB15 cost structure.Otherwise, (if Triple A cannot manage to “forbid Sub to hit Sub”, as Barney told us) it requires that we agree to try it with the special rule:
Submarine must be taken as last casualty amongst warship.That way, it may be balance to work on DD A1 D2 M2 C6 ADC1 (which is consistent with the basic 2 IPCs give 1 combat point or 2:1 IPC/pt ratio for Naval unit).
However, I strongly believe that Cruiser M3 C12 and Battleship 2 hits C20 needs stronger boost to be balanced with Destroyer A1 D2 C6.
Here, I’m thinking about AA capacity (which can be done in Triple, Barney proved us.)
And even something more or different for Battleship (1 Inf carrying capacity? an increase Convoy Raid of 2 Dices as Subs? other?).
On the other side, Destroyer should no more be able to Convoy Raid, because, on same IPCs basis, it means 3 Dice compared to 1D6 for Battleship.An issue remains about planes on attack.
They appear also weaker attack per cost ratio compared to Destroyer.
DD at 5 IPCs is extreme but 6 IPCs DD can still be an acceptable issue since many people complain about Fg being too cheap or OP.
Here, my single adjustment to 6 IPCs DDs should be on Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4-6, TBR A1 D6 damage and A1 Depth Charge, cost to be put at 10 IPCs.
This would slightly increase the attack ratio of TcB compared to Destroyer.
But, contrary to OOB, now Destroyer are much more cost effective against planes.Finally, keeping Subs and DDs at 8 IPCs is also problematic.
It takes 25% more IPCs to feed SZ in basic Naval units.
This will not help increase Naval interactions.
It can be suggested : DD C7 Subs C8 IPCs or DD C6 Subs C7, but need a few more AACalc comparison to find which is better. -
Good work Baron. How skewed would it be if subs cost 7 and the DDs 6, everything else remain the same ? It would make the DD the fodder choice over sub which is the main issue correct ?
I did some minor battle testing. Various combinations of SS DD Trprt Ftr on Attack Defense. The SFR SS had a slightly higher survivability than OOB. When I ran the battles it was definitely noticeable that SFR subs survived more due to being able to submerge if surviving a depth charging.
Maybe that’s enough to try them at 7 ?
I’ll post your battle request in a few minutes
-
Good work Baron. How skewed would it be if subs cost 7 and the DDs 6, everything else remain the same ? It would make the DD the fodder choice over sub which is the main issue correct ?
Can you run this simulation, and swap units to get both situations:
7 DDs A1 D2 C6 against 6 Subs A2 D1 C7?
7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% DD winsFor 6 Subs A2 first strike C7 vs 7 DD D2 C6,
Overall %*: A. survives: 51.3% D. survives: 48.7% No one survives: 0%So it is pretty much 50%-50%.
This seems to make Destroyer too powerful.8 DDs A1 D2 C7 against 7 Subs A2 D1 C8?
8 DD vs 7 SS ** 74-77% DD win**For 7 Subs A2 first strike C8 vs 8 DD D2 C7,
Overall %*: A. survives: 54.4% D. survives: 45.7% No one survives: 0%Slightly better for Sub on offence.
-
DD A1 D2 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1
7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win
6 SS vs 7 DD 50-53% SS win
8 DD vs 7 SS 74-77% DD win
7 SS vs 8 DD 55-56% SS win
-
DD A1 D2 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1
7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win
6 SS vs 7 DD 50-53% SS win
7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win for DD?, right
Can you edit in your last post to include 8 DDs vs 7 Subs, for completeness?
In this Sub is considered as an Air unit, if you give a Defensive AA to Cruiser and Battleship, both will be able to hit Sub in the opening combat sequence, right?
Probably 6 IPCs Destroyer and 7 IPCs Submarine is the most interesting niche in the cost structure.
Since, Submarine can also submerge on initial surprise strike sequence, it allows them to not be taken as casualty or provides an alternative “to be part of ensuing naval combat or not to be part of”. Survival to fight another day can be better than being sunk along the rest of the fleet.
Now, Submarine have the choice.
Weaker in offence, but much more able to survive on the long run. It seems OK to me. -
That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.
I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?
Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?
-
Finally, I would keep both units at 6 IPCs.
Defending Subs can submerge anytime and it is a game changer.
Sub is now directly vulnerable to Fg and TcB units attacking @1.
Sub commander can save them from their unfortunate low defensive stance, to the next turn into attacking upper hand unit.I like the 6 IPCs Subs A2 D1 because it remains OOB. One less thing to learn.
In some cases, it was already possible to make a few surprise attack on lonely warships.
Now, it is against every warships and Destroyers needs an arch-enemy, DD is very strong on defense.I like the 6 IPCs DDs A1 D2 because it is consistent with Larry Harris cost increment.
Also both units are some kind of mirror: SS A2 D1 M2 C6 vs DD A1 D2 Att Depth Charge@1 M2 C6I would try that one and adjust from there.
What do you think? -
That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.
I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?
Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?
Yes. I saw it. Thanks.
I still would try both at 6 IPCs.
Tac A3-4 D3 M4-6 at 10 IPCs to slightly increase plane offense against water. (10 is much easier to remember)I’m not too concerned about Cruiser now, since it gets M3 with Transport.
The issue is about Battleship. Now, there is no reason to buy it. None.
Nothing to gain if you simply built DDs and Carriers, much better.
All battles simulations involving DDs vs BBs are a lost cause for Battleship.
It needs an ability to make it competitive or a cost redux… -
Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB. -
Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB.If we try giving 1 infantry (we can call it Marines division without using a special unit) on Battleship, it is a bit better for defense with 2 hits, A4 D4 M2 ShoreB4 C20 than
Cruiser 1 hit A3 D3 M3 ShoreB3 C12 + 1 TP A0 D0 M3 C7 total 1 hit, 19 IPCs but 2 ground units and 3 Move, faster.
At least, it makes more sense to bring along some ground units, so you can use Shorebombardment ability.
-
Hehe well there’s never been a reason to buy a battleship, other than production restrictions.
I feel like we’ve been down this road before with the Battleship transporting 1 inf “Marines”, even in this very thread. I don’t mind it from a gameplay perspective, but I think CWOMarc made some pretty convincing historical arguments against this use of the BB.
I suppose if we’re drifting into a full scale revamp of the purchase costs for these other units, I’d go with AA fire or a price reduction as the simplest solution. Though I’ll admit, I can sense the ability to describe such a ruleset in a few simple lines suddenly slipping away from me. A few days ago, I was thinking it would be pretty simple to describe the basic gist in under 100 words. Perhaps it was too much to hope that a ready fix would come so easily.
:-DPs. I wonder if we can get away with something universal…
Like “all surface warships cost 2 ipcs less”
?New cost structure would be…
Destroyer 6
Cruiser 10
Carrier 12/14 (1942.2/G40)
Battleship 18Subs and Transports aren’t “surface warships” so their costs remain the same.
Then all we have to do is describe how subs work with a separate entry, that discusses subs, and subs vs dd vs air with the depth charge. Maybe I still have a shot at getting all this to fit on a single side A4 print out?
It would mean finding a replacement for the shipyards tech, or just a blanket no tech game, until we can come up with a more suitable tech system for use on both boards (as an add on). But that’s a secondary concern for me right now. I’d rather get the base naval game in order, since most play without tech anyway.
-
I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.
Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.
-
Maybe there is other possibility to try something without a complete overhaul. Keeping OOB set up as much as possible.
This roster can work and is pretty near the ideal cost structure and remains pretty balanced within himself.
ASA: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1Destroyer A1 ASA1 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundCruiser A3 D3 M3 C9, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C12, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C15 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZFighter A3 ASA1 D4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 M4-6 C10?, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1AIs it 2D for convoy raiding by plane?
I used ASA,
Do you prefer Depth Charge Attack DCA?
or
Anti-Sub Patrol ASP?
Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol ASAP?DCA doesn’t describe all kind of Aircrafts Patrol Attack.
Reducing TcB to 10 help toward all improved cost/defense ratio from warships.
Fgs+TcB OOB 21 IPCs/ 7 pts, 2 hits = 3 IPCs/pt vs BB 20/ D4, 2 hits = 5 IPCs/pt
SFR 20/7= 2.86 IPCs/pt, 2 hits vs 15/D4, 2 hits = 3.75 IPCs/ptMaybe to help Fighter you can reduced it to 9 IPCs, so you get 5, 9, 10 spot for aircraft.
Fg is same cost than Cruiser. TcB is slightly over.
This may saved cost ratio toward DD and BB.
But this can be a plan B, only if after playtest aircraft seems too weak for the price.In 1942.2 without TcB, maybe it is better to makes Fg A4 D4 C10.
It plays all Fighter, Fighter bomber and TcB bomber roles.
And increasing attack with lower cost can help against warships better defense ratio (DD A1 D2 for most part). -
**@Black_Elk:
I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.
Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.
The simpler road placing both DD and Sub at 7 IPCs. But 8 IPCs you hinder Germany U-boat production.
3 boats at 7 IPCs… Not much variety for purchase.Maybe, in that case TP may be put on 6 IPCs spot?
Or we can look on the other simulations with higher depth charge factor and weaker DDs such A1 D1.
This last one makes for a good fit inside OOB cost.
And simplify casualty selection because DD is cheaper, and weaker in itself.
A player will prefer to save a 6 IPCs First strike unit @1 over a simpler 5 IPCs @1.
Also, the offense /defense ratio between such DD and BB is only 5% stronger.
So BB is not outclass and since DDs no more block Subs, it is not as attractive.The cost effectiveness of such DD is far better than OOB but not the highest.
IMO, it needs a play-test to say it is broken. Also, it is still easy to implement.
However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
So Fg and TcB will both have part in attack and defense.Group 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
SFR OOB
6 DD C5 vs 5 SS C6 77-79% DD win 60-63% DD win5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5 61-64% SS win 90% Sub win
6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub winThis would be much simpler to test (and be in line with intended simpler SF rules):
This roster can work and is pretty near the OOB cost structure and remains probably much balanced within himself. Considering that weaker Subs (compared to this cheap 5 IPCs DD unit) have much survivability than ever.
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1Destroyer A1 ASAD1 D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any groundCruiser A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, no air operation if damaged
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZFighter A3 ASA1 D4 ASD1 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 ASD1 M4-6 C11, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 or 1? dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A** -
We should just go for it.
I have certain reservations, like about the naval spam against coastal air defense. Here just trying to recall that the roster favors the purchasing/production power of some nations over others and the map is not as even in the geography as a pure unit to unit Calc might recommend. The US and Japan in particular can get pretty huge over time. The UK and Germany rather less so. I don’t want to see the battleship spam delivering overly crushing bombardments or absorptions if that unit ever becomes too cost effective haha. But I guess I’d rather see it proved in the play out, than just making hypotheticals.
I say we put into effect like this.
Code name: San Francisco
Defenseless Strategic Bomber at 5
M3 Transports and Cruisers
AB+2Code name: Oakland? San Diego? LA expansion haha? Whatever sounds cool.
Maybe just West Coast Naval Rules for now.
All of the above plus
Submarine and shipyard improvements outlined above.Basically a complete overhaul to Naval cost structure. With the emphasis on the integration of the Submarine.
Just to keep it clear. SF rules I think I have my head around. The full naval expansion I think needs the proof of concept in tripleA.
Let’s just make the ideal roster, then see how the play patterns shakes out. Using the OOB starting unit distribution.
Suggested Topics
