G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

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

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.

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 changes

Option 2:
Change tac bomb to 10IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB change

On 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

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

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 buffs

Submarines 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 units

I started a thread on the cost structure of units over at G40
Essentially explaining what I think is the flaw in naval costs

To 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 18

Average 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

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 was

The 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 game

NOs 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

Updated OP:

3. Enhanced air units.
   Tactical bombers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   No other change.

4. Enhance naval units
   Submarines cost increased to 7 IPCs.
   Destroyers no change.
   Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
   Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
   Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
   Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
   -Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

9. Home Guard/Garrisons.
0-1 IPC territories - no roll
2-4 IPC territories - @1
5+ IPC territories - @2
NonCapitalVC territories - @3
CapitalVC territories - @4

Tech categories:
Army Doctrine (4 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.
-Improved Shipyards: Shipyards may produce non capital naval units as a minor IC. Treat the base as both a naval base and a minor IC. It may produce transports, submarines, destroyers and cruisers only.
-War Bonds: Collect an additional 1D6 IPCs during the collect income phase.
Naval & Aviation Technology (5 IPCs per token)
-Super Submarines: Defending submarines hit on a 2 or less.
-Rockets: Rockets from airbases (bombing raid). One rocket attack per airbase. Range 3. Damage 1D6. Airbase must be operational. Rockets are susceptible to AA.
-Radar: AA rolls hit on a 2 or less.
Combat Aviation (10 IPCs per token)
-Jet Fighters: Attacking fighters defend on a 5 or less. Become a A3D5 unit. Jet fighters intercept SBR at 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)

subs at A3D1 cost 8
subs at A2D1 cost 7
either would probably work

the second is much less change, would require no OOB setup changes
subs at A3 would most likely require a setup change as Germany starts with 5 subs within attack range of several seazones

Why was the carrier made cheaper?
Cruiser and BB to uncommen? Lower cost.
Submarine to strong? Increase cost.
But the carrier is already one of the most powerful ships in the game, why did you lower its cost by 2 IPC?
The cheaper TcB already cheapens the carrier indirectly.

Need to do some extensive calculations regarding carriers yet, tonight/tomorrow probably
yes cruisers are battleships are very weak OOB
it is a flaw in the cost system i beleive
as the combat value of naval units is worth 2x that of regular units
so the powerful units have exaggerated relative costs

i started a new thread over at G40 on cost structure
and proposed a new one for naval that better fits into the game
add the combat value of a unit + 4
specials (2hit, carry units) are worth 50% of the total cost each, and stack
subs A2D1 (3+4)) =7
dd A2D2 (4+4) =8
CA A3D3 (6+4) =10
BB A4D4 (8+4) =12. BB is 2hit. BB=18
CV A0D2 (2+4) =6 2hit + carry units CV = 14
TRN (0+4) = 4. carry unit TRN = 6

using battlecalc they all work really well, just need to do carriers yet
and now that i look again my formula would actually put carriers at 15 if you were to round up. so maybe 15 is where they should be
which would help them vs subs and destroyers, but BBs and CAs went down more in cost than carriers
average naval unit cost is reduced by 1 IPC, (less than 1 if carriers at 15) so its not so much game changing

it should increase cruisers and battleships, while reducing sub spam
submarines are still the best offensive unit, and best at convoy damage
destroyers are now the best defensive unit (was subs + destroyers depending on enemy air units), cheapest blockers
CAs and BBs bombard same and much more efficient at naval combat with regards to the other units.

I’d tie the German NO with Russia being at peace and bind it to Italy.  If Italy declares war on Russia then Germany loses the NO.  ATM, it feels like an exploit to allow Italy to spear head into Russia and have German units reinforce while still letting Germany collect the NO for being at peace with Russia.  Again, this is my opinion, feel free to argue me out of it.

Agree here, this is very cheesy.

I still really hate the whole US NO for the continental United States.  It’s too bloody hard to get it away from them and when you do, odds are almost certain you are going to win at that point.

This is one of the best NOs in my opinion, as it shows the USA economic boost when they went to war.
It also shows the real strength of the USA, its protected by a natural force barrier of hundreds of miles of ocean on either side.
Is it nearly impossible to take this NO away? Yes. As it was nearly impossible for the axis to do any real damage to USA economy in reality.
This NO is very historically realistic, and balances the game. Punishes the Axis for DOW early, and sets the tone for the game, RACE to equal economic footing for the axis once USA has entered.
Not to mention taking this away/changing it would likely hurt the Allies (it wouldnt help them!) and the game already requires a 9-12 allied bid.

Could do submarines with 0 defense but if there are only submarines in a sea zone under attack, you can only attack them for one round before they escape.  Still gives you the more realistic dive for cover, but lets you use them as meatshields for your surface fleet as well.

There would be probably as many reasons to dive as to not dive in many different situations, arguing this is completely pointless and irrelevant.
Realism aside, now you apply duct tape lol
And whether or not a submarine comes under attack by another warship, or it is doing the attacking, its still an underwater war machine loaded with armament enough to sink several ships double its size.

Think of the naval costs this way:
SS 7 IPC
DD 8 IPC (+1 combat value than SS)
CA 10 IPC (+2 combat value than DD)
BB 18 IPC (+2 combat value than CA, +1 hit to sink)

INF 3 IPC
ART 4 IPC (+1 combat value than INF)
TNK 6 IPC (+2 combat value than ART)

Carrier should be 15 IPC according to the cost structure. Slightly better OOB than both SS and DD, but CA and BB receive higher cost reductions.
This would leave the average naval unit cost reduced by slightly less than 1 IPC. And would actually improve the overall relative costs of all units.

Sealion survivor rate for Germans improves by about 3 units on average using low luck dice. (with 6 IPC transports)
Not sure this is game breaking.

Fleets have always been historically very expensive in these games, I think they are unrealistically cheap now as it is.

This statement doesn’t make anysense, and naval units have not changed since 50th except carriers (+2 IPC in G40).
Just because there is more money on the map doesn’t mean we should increase the cost of all units.
And increasing the cost of naval units while leaving land and air alone would upset the relative cost balance of units.

Russia Lend Lease NO should be expanded to Caucasus + NWPersia + Persia ; and Far East + SZ3
5 IPCs for each, leading to 15 total IPCs possible via lend lease for Russia