Give Germany super subs?
And give USA war bonds,
I like giving enhanced shipyards to UK, but not to ANZAC
Adding units such as, escort carriers, are more for a smaller tactical game
I would argue they are already represented in the game
I thought about this today,
It goes along the lines of letting Cruisers hit planes when they roll a 1
If unit X rolls a 1, then…
-Super Submarines on offense only can choose surface target hit (TRN, CV, CA, BB) cannot choose destroyers or other subs, transports are valid
-Destroyers on offense and defense can choose a submarine hit (SS)
-Cruisers on offense and defense can choose an aircraft hit (FG, TAC, STRT)
-Battleships on offense and defense can choose a surface target hit (TRN, DD, CV, CA, BB) transports are valid targets
-Tanks on defense and offense can choose ground hit (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA)
-Fighters on defense and offense can choose air hit (FG, TAC, STRT)
-Tactical bombers on offense and defense can choose ground target (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA) Land combat only
-Strategic bombers on offense only; the defender will choose 2 hits instead of one (Bomber killed 2 guys instead of 1) Land combat only
This would be a ruleset for a G40 ‘enhanced’ version
Cruisers would also have a +1 movement
I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
Is it because of A2 only?
At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).
I also answered your former post in the other tread, which is specially about carrier.
@Baron:
I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
Is it because of A2 only?
At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).I also answered your former post in the other tread, which is specially about carrier.
Because subs at 6 IPC choosing targets everyother time they hit would be overpowered ?
And submarine torpedoes were terrible in early WWII ?
but with tech advances…
Now the supersub tech is almost as good as heavy bombers ;)
@Cmdr:
Per your post: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new Baron - I like where you are going, but you didn’t list how to differentiate between carrier types. =^_^=
I’ve also played with escort carriers (again with a control marker under them) but they cost 12 IPC, can only hold 1 fighter, but can move 3 spaces (at the same time, our destroyers for all nations were increased from 2 spaces to 3 spaces.�
I’d give all nations hunter-seeker destroyers: Â Cost 6 IPC, Move 3, Attack 1, Defend 2, can detect submarines. Â The idea are these are unsupported ships that travel in maybe groups of 3, mostly fodder units (to replace the loss of being able to use transports as fodder, if you so desire) but their main job is to go out and clear out convoy raiding submarines. Â
Thinking about it,
I rather prefer hunter-seeker destroyers like this:
Fast hunter-seeker DD A2D1M3C7 ASW.
I see them as an advance patrol craft which is faster, has more operative range but is less armored than regular DD.
There is no need to lower the cost to 6 IPCs since it is a give and take: M3 but D1.
Caution: Multiplying ASW ship will unbalance vs Subs.
“Danger and addiction grow with consumption.” :wink:
Now, you have 3 types of ship in this advance Task Force vs Subs:
** CA A3D3M3C12 1 hit, bombard 1@3.
Fast DD A2D1M3C7 1 hit, ASW.
CVL A0D1M3C11 1 Hit, ASW, carry 1 plane.
1 Fgt A3D4M4C10 1 hit, can attack sub when paired with ASW.**
I’d argue the formula is correct, the cost of certain units are not. For instance, there are too many cruisers because they are cheaper than they should be. Just as one example.
@Cmdr:
I’d argue the formula is correct, the cost of certain units are not. For instance, **there are too many cruisers because they are cheaper than they should be.** Just as one example.
You really want to argue about these 2 OOBs units?
3 BB are a better than 5 cruiser on any battlecalculator.
Same 60 IPCs. 66% survival for BBs 28%, for Cruiser.
Cruisers are overpriced.
Is this a Global anomaly in your game?
Are they bad purchasers?
@Cmdr:
I’d argue the formula is correct, the cost of certain units are not. For instance, **there are too many cruisers because they are cheaper than they should be.** Just as one example.
I suggest also to try this the next game. If they still buy cruiser then they are definitively lost… :wink:
@Baron:
Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.
Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?
I like this HR for BBs but it is too powerfull vs cruiser as we all can see:
BB 1@1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
And 28 % of survival will decrease probably around 20%.
I heard this: why repair what is not broken? :|
If I ever introduce this BB HR, for sure, I will give 1 preemptive AA shot/cruiser. Just to counterbalance a bit.
Below is a copy of the listing I had for all naval units, using a non-complicated algebraic equation:
2(Attack Value + Defense Value) + Special Ability 1 + Special Ability 2 + Special Ability 3 - 2 Corrective = Cost of Naval Unit
(if the unit does not have a 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd special ability, input 0 for these numbers.)
As you can see, the Cruiser cost isn’t different. Maybe it should be raised to 14 since it really is better if you look at them on a per round purchase scale. For instance, if a nation has 24 IPC are they purchasing 1 battleship, or would they go for 2 cruisers? (Let’s assume they have destroyers already and aircraft carriers.) Not unheard of, ANZAC, India, the United States (if they split build) Italy, Germany and England may all be in that situation numerous times during a game. If you compare 2 cruisers to 1 battleship, the 2 cruisers far exceed the value of the battleship as they have greater attacking punch, greater defending punch and more shots per round, which is a small price to pay since you cannot afford a destroyer with the 4 IPC left over from the battleship purchase.
If we look at the prices, we see they are almost identical to what is in the book, but some units are changed. (Note: the cruiser isn’t one of them!)
The submarine went back up in price to 8 IPC. I would say, to justify this cost, we take a page from the AAR:enhanced rulebook. Submarines, when attacking without aircraft or surface ships, may “call their shot” on the first shot. Before the first round, dedicate what ship each submarine will be aiming for (transports are valid for this) and then roll each attack separately…by that I mean, if there are 5 submarines aiming for the carrier and 3 for the battleship, then roll the 5 for the carrier, determine hits, then roll against the battleship. That would certainly justify returning the price to the historic norm, at least for me.
Battleships went up in price, again by 2 IPC, but we agreed to give them plunging fire allowing them 2 shots in round 1 (1@1 and 1@4.)
The sticking point are the aircraft carriers that went down in price from 16 to 14 (a minor change.) Considering Larry seems perfectly happy with them costing 13 IPC (he did allow it if you had shipyards tech) it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to assume they may be a little over priced. However, to justify it, we could bar them from engaging the enemy on an attack so they cannot even be used to soak hits, which makes historical sense. Japan and the United States went to great lengths to keep their carriers out of combat when attacking and to focus their attacks on attacking the enemy carriers, why would either of the two fleet admirals suddenly want to push their carriers up to the front lines to soak hits? So now, if they cannot use their 2 hit ability on attack, but only on defense, a minor shift downward seems logical.
The rest of the units are not changed.
Cmdr Jen,
Why erasing OOB BB?
You can certainly keep the one A4D4M2C20, 2 hits, 1 bombard @4.
And create your Bismarck/Yamato class super BB:
A4D4M2C22?-24-26, 3 hits, 1 bombard @4, 1@1 First Strike Plunging Fire vs DD, CA, CV, BB.
Isn’t?
We could, I thought it would be easier to just have one battleship.
If we took the bonus of plunging fire off, the battleship is the same with my formula. It just keeps coming back that Submarines and Aircraft Carriers are mispriced…lol
@Cmdr:
We could, I thought it would be easier to just have one battleship.
If we took the bonus of plunging fire off, the battleship is the same with my formula. It just keeps coming back that Submarines and Aircraft Carriers are mispriced…lol
Then why making it a 3 hits unit?
2 hits and Plunging Fire seems enough, no?
Why cant it just be a super battleship ?
We already have super subs…thru tech
@Uncrustable:
Why cant it just be a super battleship ?
We already have super subs…thru tech
I buy this idea.
Super BB technology:
A4D4M2C20 (OOB) , 3 hits, 1 bombard @4, 1@1 First Strike Plunging Fire vs DD, CA, CV, BB.
It will explain the longer gunning range for Plundging Fire first strike and additionnal 1 Hit.
Because, as I said earlier, giving 1@1 first strike to regular BB make them too powerful against poor overpriced Cruiser.
Wouldn’t it be a million times easier to just say attack/defense 5. 2 hits
Similar to super subs
Should not be 3 hits to kill, as it is still a ‘task force’ and not a single unit
The task force would most likely only consist of 1 super BB, only what 5 total Bismarck and Yamamoto BBs were built in the war?
Giving it 2 hits would not only be a gross exaggeration but also difficult to keep track of in game
Also it brings up how many hits are repaired each turn?
Way to much complication, and fantasy, leave at 2 hits
@Uncrustable:
Wouldn’t it be a million times easier to just say attack/defense 5. 2 hits
Similar to super subsShould not be 3 hits to kill, as it is still a ‘task force’ and not a single unit
The task force would most likely only consist of 1 super BB, only what 5 total Bismarck and Yamamoto BBs were built in the war?Giving it 2 hits would not only be a gross exaggeration but also difficult to keep track of in game
Also it brings up how many hits are repaired each turn?
Way to much complication, and fantasy, leave at 2 hits
Because rising the hit ratio to 5 will also apply against planes and subs. Instead:
History reveals Admirals better prefer launching planes against Yamato and Bismarck.
And the Plundging first strike capacity vs surface vessels was inspired by the longer range of their guns. Of course the demise of H.M.S. Hoods help finding the name of this first strike.
I seriously dont think 1 single ship would have that much impact on a game of this strategic level
@Uncrustable:
I seriously dont think 1 single ship would have that much impact on a game of this strategic level
Of course, we are talking about HR, in which someone create special tech for it.
It won’t be a game changer one way or another.
I just think creating a super BB need some historical background.
Plundging was at first an idea to replace the AA platform Jen insist to add to BB which I found historically inaccurate.
@Baron:
To Cmdr Jen,
about your BB problem,
if there is so few BB in your game, give them a little something that as some historical basis.
Instead of giving a non-historical AA, since Battleships were the big guns-carriers with the longer range over any other ships:
When fighting any ships and not just planes,
each BB get 1@1 additionnal attack & defense in first rnd against any of Sub, DD, CA, CV, BB. The player taking the hit choose his own casuality, including plane if he prefer. This hit is treated as a regular casuality.
So, it won’t give any limitation for the player’s which chose casuality.What do you think about this?
@Baron:
Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.
Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?
BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)
subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now
Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.
Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.
I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units
