@general-5-stars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9hEmdJIno
G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.
-
@Uncrustable:
Is there many occasions that a capital has no unit on it?
No, but the Home Guard gets one roll regardless if the territory is empty or not.
Sorry, I missed to read the post.
I thought it was only for empty territory.
Otherwise, it is adding something “invisible” with stack of units.And are they permanently resurrectable?
That’s why I was just thinking about no army territory.
-
Updated OP
fighters, tacbombers, submarines, carriers updated
home gaurd updatedadded enhanced technology:
Tech rules:
A nation purchases tech tokens and places them in the category they wish. (And pays the proper amount)
Each turn said nation rolls for each token in all categories it has a token in.
A 6 is a breakthrough, a 1 rolled is token lost, roll to see what tech you get (within that category)
Once you get a breakthrough within a category, all other tokens in that category are removed.
A nation can never get more than 1 breakthrough in a single category per turn.
Other categories are not effected by success/failures in another category.
Unsuccessful tokens not lost, remain until that nations next turn.
Each nation begins the game with 1 token to place in a category of their choosing.Tech categories:
Army Doctrine (5 IPCs per token)
-Paratroopers: From Airbases. OOB, Consult Rulebook.
-Adv Artillery: Can pair 2 infantry units with 1 artillery.
-Improved Mech: Mech can blitz alone. Mech can pair with a tank for +1 attack (1:1) A Mech cannot pair with both a tank and an artillery .
Infrastructure (7 IPCs per token)
-Increased Factory Production: Minor IC produces at 4, Major IC produces at 12. Repair 2 damage for each 1 IPC. Maximum damage not increase.
-Rockets: Rockets from airbases (bombing raid). One rocket attack per airbase. Range 4. Damage 1D6. Airbase must be operational. Rockets are susceptible to AA.
-Radar: AA rolls hit on a 2 or less.
Naval & Aviation Technology (10 IPCs per token)
-Super Submarines: Defending submarines hit on a 2 or less.
-Long Range Aircraft: +1 to range of all aircraft. Stacks with airbase bonus to +3.
-Heavy Bombers: Strategic bombers roll 2 dice when attacking or strategic bombing. Select the best result (dice does not add). LL roll = 5. (LHTR) -
How is going down to 9 techs from the OOB 12 an “enhancement”?
-
How is going down to 9 techs from the OOB 12 an “enhancement”?
Yes War Bonds, Jets and Improved Shipyards need worked in.
-
Fixed the spelling errors in the OP.
;)On technology, i almost think OOB is best. Just add Anniversary style tech tokens.
They can be placed in either category. 5 IPCs each.
Each turn roll for all the tokens you have in each category (roll categories separate).
A breakthrough in one category removes all the tokens you have within that category (Tokens in other category not affected).
You must pick which technology you want within that category, and hit the corresponding number.
You may not roll for more than one technology within either category on the same turn.
You may however decide on rolling for different technologies on different turns.
-e.g. your not stuck rolling for heavy bombers on turn 2 if you missed it on turn 1.
There is no limit on tech token purchases.Germany, Japan, USA, Russia and UK each receive 1 free tech token to place in the category of their choosing on their first turn of the game.
-
Q: Do we really need rules for interceptors and escorts? I know it’s part of the game now, I just wonder if they are really necessary or if they just overly complicate things? (no wrong answer, just a question.)
Q: If we need rules for interceptors and escorts, wouldn’t it just be easier to say all attacking fighters/bombers are @1, all defending fighters are @2 and limit it to 1 round of battle?
As for costs I like:
- Fighter: IPC 10, Attack 3, Defend 3
- Tactical Bomber: IPC 10, Attack 3, Defend 2 (Attack 4 if paired with fighter or tank.)
- Strategic Bomber: IPC 12, Attack 4, Defend 0 (SBR @ 1d6+2, can detect submarines - it was a use for them in the Atlantic) (NOTE: detect submarines, cannot attack them. But cruiser + strategic bomber could attack submarines even without a destroyer since the sonar buoys would guide the cruiser in for the kill.)
Also, had a thought in another thread might work:
Improved Naval Yards:
- Battleships now take 3 hits to kill (after two hits the attack/defense value of the battleship goes to 0/1)
- Aircraft carriers now take 2 hits to kill (after first hit carriers cannot carry aircraft)
- Submarines have first strike, FIRST ROUND, capability of attacking at 3. Each subsequent round attack goes back to 2.
Normal units:
- Battleship: 22 IPC, Attack 4, Defend 4
- Aircraft Carrier: 12 IPC, Attack 0, Defend 1
- Cruiser: 12 IPC, Attack 3, Defend 3, AA Gun
- Destroyer: 10 IPC, Attack 2, Defend 2
- Submarine: 8 IPC, Attack 2, Defend 0, CRD 1-6 dmg per submarine on station in a convoy zone. (up to 6 damage if available land territories permit - no dice!)
Speaking of CRD, no more surface ships doing it. Submarines only, in my opinion. (goes for planes too.)
My opinions of course, I won’t be offended if you don’t like them, just let me know if you don’t like them.
-
Hey Jen,
I like your ideas, especially regarding submarines and convoy raiding. So now a single sub can convoy raid England for 6 points instead of having 2 or 3, or 1 sub and a number of warships.
Curious though, why no surface warships being able to convoy raid? Is this an attempt to get people to buy more subs? -
Germans built BBs with the sole purpose of raiding convoys
And this makes nonsense anyhow, so all of a sudden surface ships and planes cannot attack convoys…maybe a new rule in the Geneva convention?I really do not want (and seriously doubt anyone does) anymore auto die units
Subs and bombers at 0 defense is not a good thing, it means they don’t roll and auto die on defense when alone
It also makes 0 sense, why would subs not defend themselves ?On intercepts and escorts, I’m not sure what your commenting in…
Are you saying get rid if OOB rules regarding fighters in SBR?3 hit battleships, regardless of how it may or may not help in balance, would be to tedious to keep track of in F2F games
Your naval cost sytems is similar to what we have now (just reversed)
But carriers at that relative coat would be OP
I also think increasing destroyers and giving cruisers AA might be too much. Think one or the other would do -
My thoughts are that if we increase the cost of submarines again, we need to give them something unique. For instance, tanks cannot blow up factories, even though it was one of their major roles in combat - we reserve that right to bombers. Technically, infantry could send in sappers and destroy manufacturing facilities as well - heck, that was a major role for Paratroopers (drop in, destroy lines of communication, take out bridges, etc) so what we are looking at really isn’t historical accuracy, what we are looking at is game play mechanics.
Right now, submarines are rarely purchased (compared to previous games.) Destroyers have twice the defense ability of any submarine and can hit air units. Unlike submarines, destroyers can block enemy movement. Really, the only utility for submarines are convoy raids.
Also, keep in mind, surface ships did no convoy raids for most of the Alpha projects so we’re not really taking anything away, we’re just not adding the extra stuff Larry tossed on at the end. Also, I don’t think giving cruisers convoy damage of 1 or 1d6 really adds anything to the game.
The other thing that does not really seem to add to game play, that I think was just thrown on at the end of the Alpha projects, rolling dice for convoy damage. Taking that off and giving submarine significantly more punch (up to 6 damage per submarine - provided the convoy zone supports that much damage) really adds some more significance to a unit that is under represented (in my opinion) currently.
Of course, we do not want them to become TOO powerful, so to counter that we say all submarine commanders always dive for deep water when under attack and therefore cannot defend themselves (defense 0, Attack 2 or 3 with technology) and we raise the price to 8 IPC.
The idea, also, is to make the fleet costs more expensive over all. Carriers went down in price, as I listed them, but I also made them weaker (1 hit to sink, defend at 1 instead of 2) since their main goal is to bring planes into combat. Battleships and destroyers are 2 IPC more expensive, but cruisers got AA Guns. The idea here is to get more cruisers on the board without losing the destroyer utilities of anti-submarine and picket ship status, as well as to drive the cost of fleets up a bit (and when you have Japan and the US making a combined 150+ IPC a round, a slightly more costly fleet isn’t to unexpected in my mind.)
And yes, a submarine or two would be sufficient to reduce a convoy zone to debris. I’m not saying surface warships, aircraft and troops did not conduct economic warfare against the enemy. But in terms of game play, I don’t think it is effective to park 5 loaded aircraft carriers off the coast of Italy to convoy raid. If they are there, odds are good, they are there to protect the transports from the Luftwaffe and are probably not out and about looking for private yachts that have been pressed into service to smuggle in oil from Jordan.
As far as aircraft go, I was thinking of going back to just SBR. Send in the bombers, if they live GREAT! roll damage, if they don’t well, sucks to be you. I don’t really have a problem with interceptors and escorts, I just think it really slows down the game because now you have to wait for interceptor orders on every SBR run (virtually…) Yes, you need to wait for scrambles for coastal naval battles, and that slows things down as well, but - at least in my games - SBRs happen way more often than naval engagements off the coast of anywhere…(short of the Sea of Japan, LA Harbor, Philippines, England or Italian coasts I don’t see scrambles being an issue.) In fact, I think it would be better to declare what units are flying Cover Air Patrol and do away with waiting for scramble orders altogether - planes are on CAP or not on CAP and the attacker knows for sure what is there.
As for strategic bombers with no defense ability: when was the last time you heard General Smith scream at his lieutenant for failing to scramble the bombers to defend the airbase against attack? If anything, they try and get the bombers in hangers or at least spread out so they are not juicy targets, but B-17s were not really known for their dogfighting abilities, right? So give the fighter ATT 2, DEF 4 and the tactical bomber ATT 4, DEF 2 and have them both be 10 IPC units. For example.
-
@Cmdr:
Really, the only utility for submarines are convoy raids.
This is not true. Submarines cannot be hit by air units without destroyers. This has at least 2 major ramifications. One is that once the enemy’s ships are all sunk and only air is left in the battle, submarines can work on sinking transports even if the battle is still raging. This has been significant more than once in my games.
The other is that submarines are the only ships that can approach an enemy with immense air power (like Japan) without getting ripped to shreds because it takes at least 1 destroyer for EACH ZONE that submarine(s) are in to even be attacked. Then often those destroyers can be counterattacked.
Submarines have utility beyond convoy raids, even if they cost more (same as destroyers, I think you guys are talking about?). Oh, and then, of course, there’s the surprise strike capability - and no, the enemy does NOT always have destroyers present!!
-
Right now, submarines are rarely purchased (compared to previous games.) Destroyers have twice the defense ability of any submarine and can hit air units. Unlike submarines, destroyers can block enemy movement. Really, the only utility for submarines are convoy raids.
There are 3 false statements here.
Gamerman pointed out the 3rd, but i’l elaborate. Submarines are the most unique unit in the game right now. They are, in effect, the (only) stealth unit in A&A. Destroyers are the detector unit. Without destroyers submarines can literally run rampant, sinking ships without return fire! They also are 2X better per unit than any other unit at convoy raiding. And the fact that they are the cheapest only further compounds this.
Submarines are 267% better than destroyers at convoy raiding! 400% better than cruisers!!!
Submarines are purchased very often (much more than CA or BB) in all A&A versions going back to 50th. I follow many games on this site and this has always stayed true.
It is because they are by far the best offensive unit, the cheapest and because of the low price are many times the best on defense aswell (depending on enemy air)
Submarines are actually better on defense (sightly) than destroyers! Though this is a very common misconception.Here is MrRoboto ealier in this thread…
Submarine = By far the best in offense. Best in Defense due to being so cheap cannon fodder. Strong convoy. Bypass blockades without dd. Requires DD to negate first strike.
Also, keep in mind, surface ships did no convoy raids for most of the Alpha projects so we’re not really taking anything away, we’re just not adding the extra stuff Larry tossed on at the end. Also, I don’t think giving cruisers convoy damage of 1 or 1d6 really adds anything to the game.
I feel this is very poor reasoning to make a change.
The alpha projects were a community wide beta program, with the purpose of improving the balance aswell as the game as a whole. The fact that ultimately convoy raiding is where it is, is because of community feedback and playtesting.
The cruiser is the weakest unit in the game per IPC, and you want to take something away from it?
Were not cruisers essentially smaller/faster/cheaper battleships? Would not this make them better at convoy raiding?(defense 0
This would be a detriment to the game, transports are one of 2 units in the game (AAA-which G40e fixes) that has no defense and auto dies. You want to make more units defenseless and create more auto death scenarios?
It also makes zero, and i repeat zero, sense for a war machine such as a submarine to have zero response to an attack.The idea, also, is to make the fleet costs more expensive over all.
I know your reasoning is Japan and USA make so much more than previous versions, but what about ANZAC, Italy, UKpacific and Russia?
Nearly half of the playable nations in G40 (excluding France and China) start the game with 17 IPCs or less.
This is more a matter of opinion, but fleets already cost 2X-3X as much as ground forces.
Right now a 6VC pacific is required to force the USA into pacific action.
This is mainly because fleets are so expensive OOB.Carriers went down in price, as I listed them, but I also made them weaker (1 hit to sink, defend at 1 instead of 2) since their main goal is to bring planes into combat.
Carriers are the one unit that is nearly perfect in the game.
They are not OP nor are they nearly ignored altogether.
Most current purchases involve subs, destroyers and carriers.
I do not see any reason to change a unit that works/fits so well into the game as is.The idea here is to get more cruisers on the board
Atleast we are in agreement here ;)
The question is how. Obviously.I’m not saying surface warships, aircraft and troops did not conduct economic warfare against the enemy. But in terms of game play, I don’t think it is effective to park 5 loaded aircraft carriers off the coast of Italy to convoy raid. If they are there, odds are good, they are there to protect the transports from the Luftwaffe and are probably not out and about looking for private yachts that have been pressed into service to smuggle in oil from Jordan.
This is a contradictory statement, which carries a entirely irrelevant assumption (“odds are good, they are there to protect transports from…”)
The fact is surface warships and planes did conduct convoy raids in WWII, submarines may have been more efficient at it. I pointed out above that the game shows this very well. Extremely well actually.I don’t really have a problem with interceptors and escorts, I just think it really slows down the game because now you have to wait for interceptor orders on every SBR run (virtually…)
So you want to do away with intercepting and escorting SBR because you often have to wait on an email from your opponent while playing via email/forum?
A bit irrational don’t you think?
Regardless, intercepting is a mitigating factor. Even so SBR is almost too powerful. 1 bomber essentially auto disables minor IC and naval/air bases. 3 bombers will average 15 damage, that’s 5 infantry!
If AA is all the stands in the way of SBR, it will become even more powerful.In fact, I think it would be better to declare what units are flying Cover Air Patrol and do away with waiting for scramble orders altogether - planes are on CAP or not on CAP and the attacker knows for sure what is there.
Again, this is based purely on you being annoyed having to wait for your opponent in pbe games on tripleA.
Again it is irrational.
Regardless your solution is both complicated and tedious.
You seem to view the game solely as a pc video game yes?
If so do realize that A&A is, and always will be at its core, a table top board game. Meant for face to face matches.
TripleA and GTO are merely a means. (A means i use quite often i might add, though i still prefer live game with timed turns)As for strategic bombers with no defense ability: when was the last time you heard General Smith scream at his lieutenant for failing to scramble the bombers to defend the airbase against attack? If anything, they try and get the bombers in hangers or at least spread out so they are not juicy targets, but B-17s were not really known for their dogfighting abilities, right? So give the fighter ATT 2, DEF 4 and the tactical bomber ATT 4, DEF 2 and have them both be 10 IPC units. For example.
Again you contradict yourself by stating earlier in your post that the game is ahistorical and gameplay is most important, then say this…
Regardless, bombers do not scramble during airbase raids. Or scramble at all for that matter.
If you want a realism argument, you forget that turns span much time yes?
If so bombers would have plenty of time to get into the air at some percentage of efficiently to drop bombs on attacking land divisions, just not as productively as if it were a planned offensive.Ultimately i feel as if we are just not on the same page.
What do you feel about some the other G40e points so far?
The AAA change and “scorched earth” seem to get purely positive feedback, aswell as cheaper cruisers and battleships. -
Submarines cost increased to 8 IPCs. Attack value increased to 3 or less.
I’m not so sure of this change.
Maybe just 7 IPCs A3, or just let them be as OOB.There is at least 3 (TT, CA, BB), and even 4 (CV???), naval units at a lower cost, there will be more navy units buying because those units will be cheaper and more attractive vs other unchanged unit: DD & Subs?.
Example: OOB 2 SUBs (A4D2C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
now, 5 Subs (A10D5C30=15 pts) for 3 Cruisers (A9D9C30=18 pts),
or maybe 10 Subs (A30D7C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A21D21C70).
5 Subs (A15D5C40= 20 pts) for 4 Cruisers (A12D12C40= 24 pts) seems a too drastic change, IMO.Remember everyone:
actually, our intuitive reference about Subs is OOB 1940 Global, not the revised cost of G40E, until someone play-tested it. -
Maybe just go back to OOB air units
Change tac bomb to 10, no other change
What should the carrier cost with this? -1?Either or, air supremacy bonus should require atleast one friendly fighter to obtain.
But with the way were going, to further simplify, and to prevent tacs from becoming too powerful, remove the air supremacy altogether.Option 1:
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tecbmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14
No other OOB changesOption 2:
Change tac bomb to 10IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB changeOn fighter intercepting SBR at 2:
SBR is a bit powerful currently OOB.
Many times bombers will be sent alone with no fighter escort even when their are enemy fighters, this is because you can easily overwhelm the fighters with bombers with all @1.
With interceptors @2 it will force more escorts to protect bombers.
It’s also OOB 42.2 I believe.
So nerf SBR a little, and add a bit of historical realism (higher risk for sending bombers unescorted)
Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR -
@Uncrustable:
Either or, air supremacy bonus should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain.
Option 1: After all, what we come through it is my favourite one!
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2 Rolls of one may be allocated to enemy air units (choose your own casualty applies) Still there?
Tac bmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14 Good change, not so radical in combat.
No other OOB changesOption 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB changeOn fighter intercepting SBR at 2:
SBR is a bit powerful currently OOB.
Many times bombers will be sent alone with no fighter escort even when their are enemy fighters, this is because you can easily overwhelm the fighters with bombers with all @1.
With interceptors @2 it will force more escorts to protect bombers.
It’s also OOB 42.2 I believe.
So nerf SBR a little, and add a bit of historical realism (higher risk for sending bombers unescorted)
Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR.For SBR combat, you should come back to my version of SBR 1942.2 slightly modified from OOB
(I erased the First Strike of the attacking bomber but kept it for escorting Fighter):
Fg A1_First Strike_ D2
TcB A1 D1
StB A1 D0Interesting idea to discuss.
Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR.
-
I meant +1s for bombers from airbases (tho maybe 2s could work)
You make air supremacy to tedious and rare to be worth it
SBR needs a nerf
Interceptors at 2 is the nerf
It also provides a deterent/counter to bomber spam strategies -
@Uncrustable:
We need stop beating on this dead horse :?
We make no progress in this way
Air units OOB
Tac to 10IPC
Interceptors at 2 (1942.2 OOB)I’m going to test some of this next week
Let’s at least return the half dozen consecutive and lengthy
posts on air units back to the proper thread that you started Done.It’s just burying everyone else’s posts and it’s detrimental to this thread
No offense meantI thought you should have known about implications of Fg A2D3C8 unit, specially in carrier operations.
Obviously, your opinion evolve on this point.
However, there is not much indication of this evolution (and the reasoning behind it) on the thread while, at the same time, I was agreeing with you on that specific point (on Fg A2D3C8).
I never knew you was coming back to OOB air warefare.I will post on my own thread about Air units for any exploration of a nearer OOB Fg unit:
TcB as A3D4C10 +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9 any “1” rolled hit a plane.Showing calculation to keep balance vs BB and CA (at -2 IPCs) with OOB CV A0D2C16 or at C15?
because both planes will be -1 IPC .For BB and CA, are you still keeping C18 and C10?
-
I am not saying submarines have no function in combat. I am saying their utility in the game is really in convoy raids.
So what I am proposing is to make them REALLY good at convoys and drop the gimmick of letting fighters and destroyers convoy raid. Let each submarine do 1d6+2 convoy damage (just figured now that they should be equivalent to bombers) to each convoy zone (capped at maximum value of the territories of course.) It’s now the naval version of the bomber. They can still join in an attack like normal, but they are now the only convoy raiding unit on the board, and they do it really well!
To offset it a bit, they have no defense value. This makes sense since the defense of a submarine is to dive for the bottom of the ocean and hope the enemy gives up and goes away.
I mean, it’s just an idea.
In regards to planes, I think I like the cost of tacs and figs being the same, but I would invert their abilities.
For example:
Fig: IPC 10, ATT 2, DEF 4
Tac: IPC 10, ATT 4, DEF 2That way some units excel at other tasks then other units and the real benefit comes in pairing them up (as I think was originally designed.)
-
Idk if you read my post or not answering yours
But submarines are already ridiculously better at convoy raiding than any other unit
And the ‘gimmick’ would be not allowing other units to raid convoys
Submarines are already so good at everything they need no buffsSubmarines with no defense is absurd, most fleets have atleast one destroyer so the whole ‘dive for the bottom notion’ is both silly and impractical in terms of gameplay
No one wants anymore defenseless auto death unitsI started a thread on the cost structure of units over at G40
Essentially explaining what I think is the flaw in naval costsTo make a long story short (you can visit the thread) I came to this:
TRN 6
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 14
BB 18Average naval unit cost down just 1 IPC
So very little, if any, change in terms of overall gameplay balance
But much better relative purchasing balance between the naval units -
I checked the first page, where do we stand on NOs? Before anything else the weakest one in the game, the UK Europe one has to be amended. Instead of having to worry about Italy trolling African territories or Cyprus to nullify it, just narrow it down to Egypt, Trans-Jordan and Gibraltar as Oztea has suggested. On top of that I would restore the no sub bonus.
For the Russian communism NO (the cheesiest one), replace Axis territory to any European territory, including Turkey and Allied-friendly ones like Greece and Yugoslavia. Should also get a bonus for Korea.
The Japanese and American NOs need plenty of revision as well, but that is already being addressed in another thread.
-
UK should get a NO for no axis subs in the Atlantic
This was in first edition I believe
The other UK NO makes sense and is better than the original wasThe Russian NO you speak of was changed to where it is now because of cheese
Are you saying go back?
Or just exclude African territories ?I’m not big on adding NOs, there are almost too many as it stands
It starts to become very tedious and detracts from the gameNOs shouldn’t be all easy, but some are there purely for balance and historical reasons (USA ones)
The lengthy japan NO regarding the islands was added post 1st edition to give them more incentive to take islands, aswell as incentive for the allies to make an attempt to defend them