G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

@Uncrustable:

-The problem is not so much underused cruisers

Right, cause 0 (in words: ZERO) bought cruisers is not a problem.

By the way, I already proposed a submarine change earlier in this thread, that I prefer to your proposal:

Increase submarine cost to 8, increase attack value to 3.

Why would you want a 2/2 sub? It will be just way to similar to the destroyer.
Better make it a glass cannon that needs to be defended by destroyers, carriers and ideally modified cruisers/battleships.

And we, who we argue very mathematical with IPC values and stuff, are well aware that the battle calculator only simulates the IPC values. We realize the worth of a unit is more than just the raw power in battles.
But calculating the raw power is a good way to check, how much better or worse a unit is, compared to other units. In this way, we can measure the worth of speed, range and flexibility.

In the armor case: The importance of having 2 range instead of 1 definitely justifies a 6 IPC cost.
In 1942 the axis are often times just mass buying armors. Sometimes the army doesn’t even consist of anything else.

Reducing the armor cost to 5 is benefiting the axis so heavily. Japan, because they need the range in China. And the Allies can’t afford them (India) or can’t buy them (China).
Russia will suffer a lot with reduced tank cost, because the Italian can opener will be even more dangerous. And if Italy builds armor too, they can can-open basically everywhere.

@Uncrustable:

Thanks toblerone,
here is my response to armor…

In most competitive games i follow i see mech spam, inf/art spam and sometimes even bomber spam.
I rarely see tanks, i wish i could find the thread regarding tanks in G40, but i cant. It was not so hotly debated as defenseless transports was. The majority seemed to be in agreement that tanks are overpriced.
Like i said i played alot of A&A when tanks were 5 IPC with 3 attack and 3 defense (spring42), and tanks were not overused.
But again i attempt to find a middle ground,
Maybe 3 purchased together cost 15 IPC, up from 2 at 10.

On another note, i arrived at a revelation earlier today on naval purchases.
-The problem is not so much underused cruisers, and BBs. But overused destroyers and submarines. Carriers are perfect.
-All the changes so far addresses everything but submarine spam.

-Here is my proposal:
Increase cost of subs to 8, while increasing defense to 2. (no other OOB rule changes)

Very simple, but game changing.

Thoughts?

I personally would go in a different direction which is out of harmony with the overall goal(s) of the G40 Enhanced project. It probably would cause a major revamp in subjects already pretty much agreed upon amongst the contributors to this thread. I also think my thoughts on this would be in the minority at best.

However I am enjoying the discussion and like a lot of what I see.

@Baron:

Fg D4 vs Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D4C8 = A6D12C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits
Here Armor will be better on defense because of 4 hits but, at least, this is the same Def factor.

Actual Fg D3 vs  Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D3C8 = A6D9C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits

I think you have at least to either keep Armor at 6 IPCs or boost Fighter on defence somehow.

Don’t forget that Armor C5 or also good on offense and much better than Fg.
Also, Armors don’t have to be under a direct hit (loosing at least 8 IPCs) during a Combat Air Phase, they should have plenty of Inf as cannon fodder (loosing a few 3 IPCs).

The more I think about it, the more I wonder the usefulness of the actual FgA2D3C8M4.

On a fully loaded CV:
1 TcB A3D3M4C10 + 1 Fg A2D3M4C8=
           1TcB+1Fg= A6D6M4C18 12 A/D points
compare to 2 TcBs = A6D6M4C20 12 A/D points
or              2 Fgs  = A4D6M4C16 10 A/D points

Same attack, same defence, just the 2 IPCs lower cost, and even A-2 with 2 Fgs, with no further advantage on defense.
And for strategy, you don’t have to always paired your TcB, you have no real gain, and you can have 2 different targets without impairing any air support attack (using the Fg).

Now, vs TcB + Tank
Here you are: A7D6C16,  2 IPCs lower cost and +1A factor. 13 A/D points.
Greatest mix!
Why bother to buy Fgs for Germany or Russia?

For a rare scramble, defender’s choice (for 1 single round) situation in a AirBase Territory?

Anyway, I’m Russia, I have a lot of TcB, I go Scramble without any Fg,
if Germany attack with Fighter there will be no more dangerous than TcB in Combat Phase,
and still less dangerous after this single round.

Fg Defense must raise to D4.

So Full CV 1 TcB A3+1*D3M4C10 + 1 Fg A2D4M4C8

1TcB+1Fg= A6D7M4C18 13 A/D points
vs 2 TcBs = A6D6M4C20 12 A/D points
or 2 Fgs   = A4D8M4C16 12 A/D points

Now there is much more strategical choice for carriers and her flight units.
And the optimal choice in A/D/C will be the mix of 1 TcB and 1 Fg.

Fg need D4 or
a bonus which give it D4:
like being paired with TcB, at least,
any Air superiority bonus: if no Fgs on the attacking side means D+1?

Or have a much wider scope for Air combat which includes Naval and can work outside AirBase territory…

Let’s think about it…  :?

Another way to see how feeble is a Fg A2D3C8
is by taking a OOB Fg A3D4C10    A/D points = 7 pts /10 IPCs = .7 A/D point/IPC
.7A/D point/IPC x 8 IPCs = 5.6 A/D points rounding up = 6 A/D
keeping A2 then D4 is needed to get the same ratio for this new Fighter.
Convinced?  :wink:

@Uncrustable:

You take my words out of context here, and not sure why.

I don’t see how that is out of context. You say that overpriced cruisers are not the problem. Well, you could increase the cost of every other unit in the game, so that the cruiser is on par, I give you that. But since that is bullocks, yes - overpriced cruisers are indeed the problem.

Concerning your submarines at 2/2.
I know they and destroyers are not the same unit.
But:
Since every fleet usually contains at least one destroyer, there are no first strikes in the battles. Even the blockers are destroyers, so no first strike here, either. You’d only build submarines, when you know you’re gonna be able to convoy the opponent. I see no other incentive to buy them with your proposal. So yes - in my opinion they are very similar. Submarines convoy better, destroyers do everything else better.

@Uncrustable:

Submarines at attack 3 with cost 8, would severely favor the attacker.

You don’t say!
That’s the purpose.
You don’t argue against bombers, saying “bombers at attack 4 would favor the attacker”.

@Uncrustable:

If USA were on the offensive vs Japan, USA can (for 8 IPCs) purchase a unit with 3 attacking power (same as cruiser). USA would almost never need to purchase cruisers or battleships.

Japan could do the same? And yes, they’d never need to purchase cruisers or battleships. Like right now already. Both of them need an overhaul anyway.

@Uncrustable:

And how would Japan have a chance defending against a 3hitpower unit that only costs 8 IPC?

1.) Counter them with carriers. Submarines are horrible in defense …. especially against planes. Both sides need to care for air-only attacks, so you can’t go for subs only.
2.) Build submarines too. USA would never be able to position itself at, say, philippines, if the Japanese fleet is at FIC. If USA spams submarines, they can’t defend their fleet.

@Uncrustable:

And for the sake of logic, why would a submarine be 200% better in an offensive?
Whether in defense or offense, it is a fighting submersible on open water.

How shall I answer this question? Sorry, but I’m neither an engineer, nor an ex-marine or whatever. I guess for the same reason it’s 100% better in an offensive already. My general understanding of a submarine is that they have huge torpedoes with dangerous offensive capabilities but defensively basically rely purely on being hard to find submerged.

You can go in between with subs:
A2D1M2C7 +1A when paired to another subs (Wolf pack attack capacity).
1 Sub A3D1 and the other Sub A2D1.

Basically, 1 Sub have 3 A/D pts for 6 IPCs = .5 A/D pt/ IPC
2 Subs get 7 A/D pts for 14 IPCs= .5 A/D pt/ IPC

A lonely sub is getting weaker now.

@Uncrustable:

So on defense a submarine would not use it’s torpedoes?
Lol “we are under attack, don’t use the torpedoes”

But you make overall good points Roboto.
Maybe submarine should be left alone afterall.

Baron:
You combine attack and defense and use that total value to compare units, this does not translate to any real game scenarios.
Tacbomber: For 2 IPCs you get +1(to +2) attack, with same defense.
Very useful for a nation on the offensive (Germany)
The fighter however is the same defense but 2IPCs cheaper. By far better at defense (Russia)

When you compare units for buying, you balance all aspects: A/D/C/M and strategical potential.
Fg at 8 IPCs is costlier than Armor at 6 or 5 IPCs,
on defence, have same number @3 but not the same odds of survival on IPC vs IPC basis,
on offence, it is outmatched by Armor @3,
and only move 2 spaces further (but can fly over SZ or an enemy territory),
can not stay in a conquered territory,
can not conquered any territory.

Russia will buy Armor instead of Fg and for plane will buy TcB.
Germany will do the same for sure.

You combine attack and defense and use that total value to compare units, this does not translate to any real game scenarios.

I’m not sure to understand your meaning here.
For me, it is not about game scenarios, it is about game mechanism for balancing units.
There is some gross rule of thumb to apply for ground units, naval units, and air units.
In enhanced HR, you downsized the Fighter’s OOB stats, so I apply the ratio of this unit specifically.

If you don’t believe in this way of reasoning, at least take a careful look about carrier+planes and Fighters vs Armors.

The missing D+1 will appear when you compare the units and want to get an optimized purchased as any player will do if he plays a 1940 enhanced game.

@Uncrustable:

So on defense a submarine would not use it’s torpedoes?
Lol “we are under attack, don’t use the torpedoes”

In Atlantic sub warfare, when a single sub was find, it didn’t have a lot of time to launch a torpedo (much less time against a destroyer going toward them) : on surface, they have same speed as merchant’s transport, submerged they were slower. Destroyer were all the way faster. In addition, Sub wasn’t able to dive and launch torpedo at the same time. Torpedoes weren’t that accurate at that time. (More develop at the 9th minute of the last part doc below: Death blow 2/4.)

The only escape was going under the sea, as much deeper as they can and have to wait until the DD abandoned or believe the sub is destroyed.
“Subs were only running silent, running deep.” Nothing else they can do.
There is many rationalization behind Subs defending @1.

Here is a good documentary about all this:
First part describe Subs on attack vs DD defense of convoy:
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 1/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMiXJuJkpTA

This part describe better the Subs on attack but under counter-attack from DD.
Around 2 min 30 s.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 2/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBW7aEk4VHw

Convoy: War For The Atlantic: Wolfpack Rising 5/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjm-SD3Os80&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

This part describe better the Subs on defense and under attack from aircrafts & escort carrier.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 5/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfP8o_OPX_Y&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

Around 7 min. 30 s.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: Death Blow 1/4 and 2/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNV4IBWMfNA&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

5 first minutes, after it is carrier,  aircrafts and DD on patrol against Subs “on Defense”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D92MTIYBiX4&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

The US and Germany used their submarines to destroy convoy and supply lines. The German submarine was actually a Swedish design they copied. They maximized patrol time and efficiency at the cost of crew comfort, and focused on primarily on convoy raiding. The US did the  same but due to longer patrols and generally being able to provide US servicemen with more comfort across all branches, US submariners had an easier patrol. Both the German and US submarine services however had essentially the same goals.

The IJN was different as their submarine force was primarily focused on destroying large capital warships and toward the end of the war began designing “wonder weapons” such as submarines that could carry aircraft.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

@toblerone77:

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

I agree with you.

I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.

I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.

It is the best I could do to :

model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.

Once I said it,  it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.

On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

I agree with you.

I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.

I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.

It is the best I could do to :

model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.

Once I said it,  it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.

On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

Baron,

Please understand I did not mean my post to be offensive. Essentially this effort to create a G40enhanced is a worthwhile effort. However I have my own house project that I am working on which has nothing to do with this. My understanding is that this is a collaborative effort with hopes of becoming an officially endorsed variant. I have many disagreements with this variant, but I also understand that many of my views/opinions are in the minority and are not supported by those competing in league, online and TripleA.

With that said, I have some disagreement with what has already been semi-finalized in this thread. I also realize through consensus that there is relative agreement already established in this project. I agree with you on much of what you have posted in this project. However it is a “democratic” project and all who participate have some say. You could debate any issue or proposition of this project infinitely. Ultimately however it will depend upon those who choose to support this project and want to play it to come to some sort of agreement.

Honestly I like “chiming-in” on this project but I still will probably operate my games in the same way I always have. If I chose to play online, and should this project become an “official” rule set I may give it a go.

Lastly, I would love to see people like ImperiousLeader, CommanderJen, Gargantua, Wittmann, Gamerman, and any others who are active and wishing to enhance G40 to please contribute.

Hi Toblerone and Baron Munchausen.
I have been reading these posts and have some observations, but am happy to let you and those who have put in the work say their piece.
I suppose I am afraid of rocking the boat or offending those who have thought and worked hard at these projects.
I, like most here, have problems with Global, but do not play enough to try to change things. (I am not fortunate enough to have a regular play group.)

If I was to say anything, it would be that I think Fighters cannot be as cheap as 8.

My wife is filing her Tax Return, so must go!
I will read your posts again soon. As always, I commend you on the work and time you have all put in.

@Uncrustable:

-The problem is not so much underused cruisers, and BBs. But overused destroyers and submarines. Carriers are perfect.
-All the changes so far addresses everything but submarine spam.
-Here is my proposal:
Increase cost of subs to 8, while increasing defense to 2. (no other OOB rule changes)

Nyet!

The problem is over used Submarines (per the argument presented) increasing their defense AND cost does not solve the problem.  In another thread I mathematically proved the cost of warships to be equivalent to 2 IPC per attack/defense die and 2 IPC for each special ability.  This gave a Submarine a value of 8 IPC with A2D1 + Submerge (which in turn allowed sneak shot, retreat, etc.)

To fix the destroyer issue, we just add shore bombardment at 1 to their abilities and they go to 10 IPC each. (A2D2+Shore Bombard) since their anti submarine ability is passive.  It also satisfies those players who want destroyer bombardments back.

If you expand it out, you get:

Submarine - 8 IPC (A2D1 + Submerge)
Destroyer - 10 IPC (A2D2 + Shore Bombard)
Cruiser - 14 IPC (A3D3 + Shore Bombard)
Battleship - 20 IPC (A4D4 + 2 Hit + Shore Bombard)
Carrier - 10 IPC (A0D2 + 2 Cargo + 2 Hit)
Transport - 6 IPC (A0D0 + 2 Cargo)

If you give the cruiser AA Guns as a “passive” ability they become more cost effective.

Sorry to be a pessimist but I created a collaborative house rule thread once called Delta+1 and it didn’t work due to participants arguing (which I’m beginning to see here). Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible (never mind a whole set of rules). Official rules come from Larry Harris and he always rejects our ideas due to legalities, and if he ever did endorse a house rule that came from A&A.org (which has never happened)… he would just credit his own team for the modification. My suggestion to everyone is to draft an entire set of Global house rules on your own and compare them to others here. I’m not trying to kill Uncrustable’s thread… I’m just trying to help put it back on track, because from my experience with collaborative rule creation, it looks as though it might derail.

@Uncrustable:

@Young:

Sorry to be a pessimist but I created a collaborative house rule thread once called Delta+1 and it didn’t work due to participants arguing (which I’m beginning to see here). Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible (never mind a whole set of rules). Official rules come from Larry Harris and he always rejects our ideas due to legalities, and if he ever did endorse a house rule that came from A&A.org (which has never happened)… he would just credit his own team for the modification. My suggestion to everyone is to draft an entire set of Global house rules on your own and compare them to others here. I’m not trying to kill Uncrustable’s thread… I’m just trying to help put it back on track, because from my experience with collaborative rule creation, it looks as though it might derail.

I was looking for more ‘endorsed (AA.org)’ than official.
Similar to both AARHE and AARe

What are your thoughts on what we have so far YG?

It’s hard to say… I absolutely love 1940 Global and think that the changes needed to fix it should be minor. That said, I do understand some peoples need to completely advance most of the game mechanics in order to create some kind of “super” Global edition. This is where I am of no use, as the changes I like to endorse should be small, simple, and subtle. I encourage you to continue your endeavor… as many of the ideas here only further the creative process of developing house rules.