Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

The only thing that concerns me is the Aircraft Carrier.  Reducing it’s price is just going to result in more of them.

Again the formula can be correct if you consider a fully loaded carrier with 2 fighters on board as the effective combat unit. The carrier isn’t suppose to work on is own like the other ships.

The cost will be as OOB 16 IPCs. Considering an additional hit add 4 IPCs to the price.

2 fighters = A6D82+ A0D22= 32 IPCs for 3 units (2 fgts cost 20 IPCs) 32-20= 12 IPCs
So 1 CV A0D2M2 1 hit, carrying 2 planes will cost 12 IPCs.
(For me, it can be a combat unit with a few core ships like Yorktown class fleet-carrier as the Entreprise.)

1 CV A0D2M2 2 hits, carrying 2 planes will cost 12+4= 16 IPCs
(For me it is a combat unit with a few core ships like Essex Class fleet-carrier.)

Now you can say that carrying plane capacity cost 2 IPCs, minus 2.
Following the formula, you get the OOB cost.

@Cmdr:

The only thing that concerns me is the Aircraft Carrier.  Reducing it’s price is just going to result in more of them.  However, these units really are pretty useless for anything other than carrying fighters.  They cannot attack (can soak hits on attacks, but we’re also talking about removing that ability and forcing them to stay behind) and they can defend.  If they are a defensive unit only (ie they cannot enter the sea zone of combat until the non-combat movement phase) then the price reduction, imho, is justified.  I actually like keeping them out of combat, naval commanders of the time didn’t send their carriers into harms way, they did whatever they could to keep them out of harm’s way while still being close enough to use them against the enemy. The battle of midway, pearl harbor, carolines, et el were all about trying to sink enemy carriers - carriers attacked by planes and on the defensive, not carrier’s out shelling the other carriers.

For strategic sakes, let’s the offensive player decide whether or not he will expose his fleet-carrier.

Remember, sea-zone are a large ocean territory. Patroling it to find the enemy may required a landing ship for planes.
Historically, both USN and IJN groups exposes their carriers when they were in aircraft range from each other.
Keeping CV in an other non combat sea-zone simply means the attacker was very cautious to not overtly exposes his own carrier.

In this strategical game level, we can even say that keeping a carrier 2 sea-zone away from battle is not historically accurate since 1 turn is a few months length in time.
All planes have to go back and forth (every single day) to their carrier for refueling and maintnance.
And when a fleet-carrier Task Force was in combat mission, they were historically all in a same sea-zone with the ennemy.

So keeping carrier unit behind, is just a game twist.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_sea_battle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_la_mer_de_Corail
vs Midway Battle (same sea-zone) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

If you change the price, and alter the units in such a way as to have the same IPC amount for both sides, you get 10 submarines vs 4 battleships or 66% odds in favor.  A much better result considering you have 2:1 odds in just number of ships!

Actually, you oppose 10 DD vs 4 BB.

10 Subs vs 4 BBs will give 80% vs 20% survival odds.

It is part of A&A system that cheaper unit makes much more survivable units than costlier.

The total A/D combat value of units is suppose to be the same when IPCs are the same.
The difference rest upon the number of hits that can be taken and ratio of A/D points.

For 24 IPCs
4 Subs= A8D4= 12 pts and 4 hits / 3 DDs A6D6 = 12 pts and 3 hits / 2CAs A6D6 = 12 pts and 2 hits.

A/D/IPCs for A/D/IPCs. So Subs are better than DD are better than CA and BB.

It is part of the game and strategy to provide cheap fodders to protect higher hit ratio unit (which cost more).

@Cmdr:

• DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
• CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
• AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
• BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2

The battleship went up a bit in price, since you’re all complaining they’re too valuable compared to the cruiser and if you add in their plunging fire in opening fire on round 1, a modest 2 IPC increase isn’t unheard of, in fact, I’d say it’s quite balancing.

I think the formula as written does a really good job of justifying costs for units.

[2x(#Attack+#Defend)+2x(Special Ability)]-2 gives a very nice, simple way to determine the cost of naval units in a non-partisan manner.  If we take all special rules that we’ve talked about off we get:

Submarines - 8 IPC
Destroyers - 8 IPC
Cruisers - 12 IPC
Battleships - 20 IPC
Aircraft Carriers - 10 IPC
Transports - 6 IPC

I still think your SuperBattleship which differ from OOB BB, must remain at 24 IPCs because it is a 3 hits ship.
The regular DD, the smallest surface ship worth 8 IPCs.
8 IPCs/ hit should be the lower limit to keep balance.

OOB CV C16, 2 hits 16 IPCs divided by 2 = 8 IPCs/ hit.

OOB BB 20 IPCs/ 2 hits = 10 IPCs/ hit.

The CA is at 12 IPCs/ hit.
That’s why I think:
any multiple hit surface vessel unit must remain between a range from 8 IPCs/hit to 10 IPCs/hit.

The only exception I made, is about an earlier “spagghetti on the wall”:
HR Armored Cruiser unit, CA A3D3M3, 2 hits for 15 IPCs.
Which was as low as 7.5 IPCs/hit.
But 16 IPCs can be a standard cost (+4 IPCs for 1 additional hit, OOB cruiser 12 +4= 16 IPCs)

For reference:
@Baron:

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

After what I saw, I would reverse the cost:
CA Armored Cruiser A3D3M3C16 2 hits, SBombard 1@3.
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C15 1hit, SBombard 1@4.

@Cmdr:

Super Battleships w/Plunging Fire: 26 IPC  <==3 hits, plunging fire round 1 only
Reg. Battleships no bonus: 20 IPC <== per current rules
Cruisers: 12 IPC <== per current rules
Aircraft Carrier: 10 IPC <== per current rules
Destroyers: 8 IPC <== per current rules
Submarines w/Called Sneak Shots: 8 IPC <== if attacking by themselves (no other units), during opening fire, may choose their target, may only engage in one round of battle  Return fire if destroyers present
Transports (2 ground unit carry): 6 IPC <== per current rules
Escort Carrier: 5 IPC <== defend at 1, carrier 1 fighter or tactical bomber
(units highlighted in red are denoted by a control marker under them.  ie: Aircraft carrier with control marker and 4 white chips = 5 escort carriers)

So cruisers and battleships are rarely purchased OOB, lets make them even worse by massively lowering the cost of carriers (to the same as fighters), and while were at it, add a carrier unit that costs less than tanks…  :-P

Genius

@Cmdr:

2 infantry was just an example.  **Any two ground units would be the same cost adjustment for the transport. ** 6 IPC for a unit that can neither attack, nor defend, nor participate in a battle and cannot carry anything that can participate in a naval battle is pretty fair, and it’s only 1 different than how Larry Harris has them now.

The aircraft carrier is just a concern, not a lament. :P  They are fighter delivery platforms, nothing else really, and they shouldn’t be anything else really, which is why they have 0 attack value.  If we amend it so they cannot take hits until all other warships are sunk (something all the warships would have tried to do anyway by keeping the carriers back behind the lines on an attack and defending them as best they could against counter attack) I think the price is right at 12 IPC.

I better see what you are trying to do.
You create a generic formula, then apply to every units on the board.
Of course, you know you are creating a somewhat different game and dynamics by doing this.
The modified cost can have a price: affecting the balance and be difficult to make it acceptable to other players.

Maybe your friends want it, but not mine. I know them.  Too much is too much sometimes.

However, Uncrustabble got a point about carrier vs battleship.
And this rise the question of your original intent.
What kind of game sea warfare do you want to play? A more tactical inspired one?
Many of your ideas let suggest, it is what you want.
But it is better you let us know for sure.
After, we can start formulating constructive suggestion to develop your own A&A naval games (like some triple A variation, which can include 6 IPCs TT or a CVE at 5 IPCs and other things).

For my part, my approch was different, I was trying to find the generic formula behind OOB rules to better adjust and keep the balance of new HR units and modified OOB units vs OOB units.

That’s the difference between what you want about a 6 IPCs TT and what I said to explain the rationalization behind the 7 IPCs TT.
I think I found some real ground about it, as well as for the cost of carrier and other warship units. (Ex.: 4 IPCs for 1 additional hit, adding 2 FG to the CV to rate is A/D ratio and cost., etc.)

By formulating it, I let everyone be the judge about the accuracy of my formula to explain OOB cost.

Sounds like you need to go to A&A minis, war at sea

Either that, or design your own game from scratch

@Cmdr:

I’m really looking to flesh out naval combat in such a way that you don’t necessarily end up with 1 fleet attacking another fleet, but you have many fleets around the ocean. I’d even consider slicing up each of the sea zones into 4 sea zones (just because it’s easier to draw a + in the middle of each and have 4, then screw around trying to cut them up randomly) and increase the speed of all ships to 3 sea zones (4 with naval base.)

The idea is to be able to attack and kill carriers, but not bring carriers into harms way on an attack.�  I see the carriers as fighter delivery systems.� Â

Cruisers, destroyers, battleships and aircraft launched from airstrips and carriers (not necessarily airbases, air strips, land side, you know) being the main focus of both attack and defense for all engagements.�  So they have attack and defense values and are the units hit before carriers and transports.

**Submarines I see more in the ambush role of naval warfare.**�  **Sneaking around enemy fleets to snipe at reinforcements moving to the front, or trying to get around and shoot at under-protected transports and aircraft carriers, hence the first round called shot function.**�  They can engage with surface vessels and aircraft, but they lose almost all of their real utility (they still engage in combat, but they no longer have special powers) and while it may be important to bring them as extra punch, using them as cheap fodder is frowned upon (they are no longer cheaper than destroyers.)

Meanwhile, all these ships (And I have not yet looked at ground units and aircraft) all fall within a mathematical formula that can predict any future changes and tweaks.�  If battleships suddenly get 5 hits and 30 attack dice round 1, we just input the new variables and get a new price out (yes that’s ridiculous, I am using it to demonstrate a point, not advocating that they should get 5 hits and 30 attack dice!)� Â

If you want more little fleet and not just the big massive armada waiting for a massive slaughter with another one, here is what I can suggest, inspired by World War II Expansion rules form David Schwartzer (which I played many times, instead of revised rule, before cruiser and destroyer appear in A&A).

Split naval groups in 3 different groups. A-Surface warships, B- subs, C- escort ships and transports.

So, even if those 3 groups are in the same sea-zone, attacker have the following options:

First, Subs operate alone (attack and defense) and can no longuer serves as cheap fodder for warships. Attacking subs only group is a combat in itself.

Second, when Subs attack, they choose between TTs & escort or warships.

Third, when warships attack, they can choose to attack warships only, or warships + TTs & escort.

Fourth, planes group choose between TTs & escort (plus planes from warships group which can intercept attacking planes and defend TTs) or warships.

TTs can be escorted by DD and real CVE (slow escort carrier A0D1M2C? ASW + 1 plane)
You can also create DE Destroyer escort, if you wish (A1D2M2C8 +1 defense when paired with CVE).

That is the basic. Let’s think if it can get the result intended.

(By the way, now Subs operating alone should stay at 6 IPCs.)

@Cmdr:

@Uncrustable:

Sounds like you need to go to A&A minis, war at sea

Either that, or design your own game from scratch

Toying with designing one and sending it to Larry for approval and implementation, lol.  Axis and Allies: Atlantic or some such.Â

Why Atlantic?
In Pacific, there was much more japanese convoy destroyed by USA subs than Allies convoys by U-Boat.
Kind of Bushido code, don’t need to protect the weak or feeble. A warrior is made to fight warships (“knight”), not to protect cargo from subs.

I was serious about this way to generate more little fleet in the ocean.
For starter, you should read about these rules: probably someone can provide you a copy of World War II Expansion rules 1 for Axis and Allies from David Schwartzer. He was a real visionnary, he creates destroyer, destroyer escort and convoys for TTs, cruiser, anti-sub mission for them, air patrol mission against subs, and much more.

During these games, there was many different fleets: many subs in many sea-zone, at least 1 big warship fleet and many escorted transport groups.

@Cmdr:

Baron,

Splitting it up like that is an interesting idea, but I can see the complaints from others already: "too complicated!"  (which was the primary complaint behind revising the tech trees into poor technologies building into better technologies.  Like tech A + tech B open up tech C as an option, etc.)

It might be easier to just limit naval engagements so that only the first 20 naval units with up to 10 fighters/bombers + any number of strategic bombers can engage the enemy.  So if you have 30 defending ships with 4 fighters on carriers and an airbase only 20 of those ships but all of those aircraft can defend.  If you have 20 aircraft carriers with 40 fighters, no matter what, only 10 of those fighters can defend, but all the carriers can since they are in the same sea zone and less than the 20 unit limit.

That would be for both attacker and defender.  So you could still put 50 naval units in a sea zone, but if you lost the battle, the 30 that did not engage would be forced to retreat one sea zone.  That might encourage divided fleets while not preventing players from keeping their units together?

I first think along this line. But then, I forsee many battles with the maximum ship in each fleet. How fix this maximum? According to which criterias? You say 20, but why not lower or higher? Why a larger group cannot gain advantage over a smaller one? Etc.

Then I remember unofficial Expansion Rules.
Separating subs and transports seems complicated but is not.
It is a way of creating “different sea-zone” in the same sea-zone instead of splitting it in 4.
Subs and transport have already different rules.
It is just a step further without creating a totally different game. The same pieces played just a bit differently.

@Cmdr:

Because there’s already an Axis and Allies: Pacific.� � :P

Atlantic could be interesting as well, maybe prevent the allies from making submarines altogether to really focus on the German U-boat supremacy?� �

As for limit of 20, it was arbitrary mostly, but I could see 10 aircraft being a nice maximum and if those are half the warships involved then 20 is okay.� � 20 Really is a decent sized fleet too, come to think of it.� � 20 warships would be akin to 3 battleships, 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers, 4 submarines (since Aircraft Carriers have no attack value, you wouldn’t choose to bring them, right?)� � Add in 10 fighter/tactical bombers and unlimited strategic bombers and you have a really good attack fleet right there.

Why not just 1 unit of each kind of ship: 1 Sub, 1 DD, 1 Cruiser, 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship, 2 planes.
Here is a basic task force.
Maybe we can had 1 sub and 1 DD for additionnal protection and cheap fodder.
Sum: 7 ships + 2 planes.
If you have escort carrier, then 8 ships + 3 planes.
Any battle can add planes from nearby airbase for extra offensive punch.
No limit here for attacker. Scramble limit for defender.

We can rationalize that more units are too hard to coordinate.

So every group of warship is present, (don’t forget, each unit is standing for many similar ships).

It will be also an incentive to buy Cruiser and Battleship to get a complete Task Force.

That is a less arbitrary number because it is based on this rule: all type of units are part of a complete Task Force.
If you get large battle, you oppose full Task Force vs full Task Force and remaining ships vs remaining ships, all in the same turn.
So, it will be possible that ships from both sides survive after the battle.

Addendum:
If any task force is under 7 ships, then smaller one can be substitue for larger ship unit who is missing.
Example: 1 battleship is missing, but there is another cruiser in the sea-zone, then the Task Force will be: 2 Subs, 2 DDs, 2 CAs, 1 CV, 2 planes.

Actually, with 7 ships + 2 planes, it is near the 10.
Maybe we can limit the fleet to up to 10 units, never more than 2 of the same kind of unit.
It can be another way to get almost the same result.

This discussion has officially reached low-earth orbit lol

@Uncrustable:

This discussion has officially reached low-earth orbit lol

Always the right word.  :-D

The prime question is : is this a real problem ?
Big massive armada waiting for a massive slaughter with another one massive armada.

Do we really want more little fleet over the board and not just those big and long awaiting battle between 1 axis and many allies joined together?