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

@Cmdr:

By your formula, shouldn’t it be {(Attack Value) + (Defense Value ) + (Opening Fire Value)} * 2 + 4 (Number of Hits Unit Can Sustain until Sunk) or:�  
=2(4+4+1)+4(3)
=2(9)+4(3)
=18+12
=30 IPC?

This formula was essentially base upon face value of unit and usually didn’t consider special capacity, since every unit got one, and doesn’t even consider the number of extra move.
Example DD= A2D2=4x2 total 8 IPCs
(ASW is not part of the formula)

Optionnal HR Plunging Fire was meant to all Battleships. And as such imply a bonus capacity to increase buying and interest in them at no additional cost.

@Cmdr:

By your formula, shouldn’t it be {(Attack Value) + (Defense Value ) + (Opening Fire Value)} * 2 + 4 (Number of Hits Unit Can Sustain until Sunk) or: 
=2(4+4+1)+4(3)
=2(9)+4(3)
=18+12
=30 IPC?

You made 4(3), but it is 4(2), because it is only additional hit which cost IPCs, the first hit value isnt part of the formula.

Proof of this rule of thumb:
CV A0D2 (2*2= 4 pts)  1 additional hit (4 pts)

• 2 planes A3D4= (14*2= 28 points)= 36 IPCs
  36 minus 2 Fgt (10 IPCs each)= 16 IPCs for CV only. (1940 version)

Convince about the 4 points value of an extra-hit?

@Cmdr:

Yea, we tried posting same time.

Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me.  2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine.  I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.

How did you establish the different value?

I suggested mine base on a simple inference from regular combat unit.
But, it doesn’t work for planes, neither for AAA guns.

@Cmdr:

I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values.�  It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.

If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.

Why are you trying to revised all the established cost?
If your formula isn’t able to predict the basic units, for me the formula need correction.

The formula that I applied is A and D point1 for ground unit.
A and D point2 for naval unit.
Planes and AAA seems arbitrarily fixed by Larry upon long experience.
Transport are another difficult case.
Special ability are not part of the formula but developped differently.
Inf A1D2= 3  Art A2D2= 4 MecInf A1D2+1M=4 Arm A3D3= 6
Sub A2D12=6  DD A2D22=8  CA A3D32=12
BB A4D42+4 (1 hit)= 20 IPCs.

I can tell that’s the second capacity which cost something.
But, I find CA cost too much, so I add M3.
A CVL A0D1M3 ASW and carry 1 Fgt.
1 Plane 72= 14  +(12)=2 + 2 for 1 xtr Move + 2 for ASW= 20
So, it will cost only 10 IPCs.
Unless you made it A1D1 but in 1940, CV has A0.
Is it too low 10 IPCs?

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.**

@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?

http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=5&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

@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.

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?

@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?