G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

@Uncrustable:

And the ‘gimmick’ would be not allowing other units to raid convoys

That was what I was saying.  Take the gimmick of letting other units do convoy raids out and put it back to only submarines.

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.

As for destroyer/cruiser, I’d still go DD = 10 IPC, and CA at 12 IPC.  Fleets have always been historically very expensive in these games, I think they are unrealistically cheap now as it is.  Can drop it to 8 IPC DD and 10 IPC CA with Improved Shipyards.

I’m good with submarines up to 7, not the 8 I wanted, but far better than the 6 it is now, IMHO.

In regards to objectives:

I agree, England needs the no German submarines in the North Atlantic.  I’d change the one for original territories to control of E. Canada, S. Africa, Egypt, Scotland, England, Malta and Gibraltar as well as Ireland either allied or pro-allied.  A little easier for England to keep it, but still requires them to defend the empire if they want it.

Russia should maybe have one for not being at war with Japan?  They did focus hard on Germany and only after Germany was down did they really concern themselves with changing gears to go for Japan (the US of course beating the to the punch by dropping two atomic weapons on Japan and getting them to surrender.)

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.  I am still in favor of just raising the property values of American controlled territories in the Pacific equivalent to the 10 IPC so it’s easier to take it away.  Maybe you don’t feel the same, but that’s just my opinion on the matter.

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.

The Persian Corridor lend lease is a very good idea.

Italy should have to work more for their Mediterranean NO, on top of no surface ships they should have to take all the islands and Gibraltar.

To your question on the Russian NO from earlier, the bonus for any territory with an IPC value is good, but I’d still exclude Libya and Ethiopia. That said it is a simpler way of tracking it.

@KionAAA:

Hello friends

@Baron:

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.

I’m sorry, but your calculation needs to be tweaked.
The sum of attack and defense damage is not a good measurement of the strength of a unit,
the product of damage and hitpoints is much better quantity.
If a unit has different values for attack and defense (as subs do),
it has to different values.

With this, your examples read as this:

OOB 2 SUBs (A8D4C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
cheaper Cruiser: 5 Subs (A50D25C30) for 3 Cruisers (A27D27C30),
Subs at 7:�  10 Subs (A200D100C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A147D147C70).
Subs at A3C8: 5 Subs(A75D25C40) for 4 Cruisers (A48D48C40).

And for me, Subs at A3D1C8 still seem to be a good solution.

You should open a specific topic on this point.
According to what you described, a must take any number of hits multiply by itself (yXy) then multiply by the basic A/D to get the combat value of a group.

Ex.: 5 subs= 5 hits x 5 x A2D1 = A50D25.

My question is why multiply number of hits by itself?

Why not another factor? Like ½ (yXy), for instance ?
5 subs x 5= 25 /2= 12.5 xA2D1 = A25D12.5  
Or anything else which can take into account the number of hits?

It is still different from my conventional evaluation of units:
5 subs = A10D5

I understand your arguments for the US NO. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I’ll let it go since that NO’s been around since basically forever and Larry never got convinced by me to change it, so I guess it should stay - if for no other reason than to keep the game mostly intact.

In regards to fleets, I think there are two decent options:

1.  Restore Convoy Raids to Alpha 2 rules (Submarines only, each Submarine can do up to 2 CRD assuming the sea zone can support the dmg.) Â
2.  Give cruisers anti-aircraft guns per the same rules industrial complexes/air fields/naval bases use for them (they cannot be hit extra, get up to 3 shots in the first round of combat against attacking planes @1)
3.  Reduce aircraft carriers in price, but make them one hit surface ships. Notice I said surface ship, not warship.  So a lone carrier cannot negate the Italian Med Sea NO just like submarines cannot. Â
4.  Price Structure: TRN-6, SS-8, DD-10, AC-12, CA-14, BB-20

This should result in a decent spread of ships. Â

• SS at 8 should probably be attack 2, defense 2 units like in Anniversary, Revised and Classic. Â
• DD at 10 will bring them on par with Battleships.  2 Destroyers vs 1 Battleship results in the Battleship usually winning, but battleships cannot detect enemy submarines, so this should make the two equivalent.
• AC at 12 will result in more and more carriers on the battlefield.  Thing is, if we make them 1 hit, you will need more and more carriers if only so that the loss of one does not result in the loss of planes as well.  Since carriers were a primary target for Pacific warfare (historically) having more and more of them sink would be in line with history, no?
• CA at 14 makes sense if they have AA Guns.  The AA Guns alone will make warfare more expensive if only aircraft attack, which will encourage more surface ships to defend carriers on both sides.  (ATT 3, DEF 3, AA Gun @1 for up to 3 Attacking planes, may shore bombard @3.)
• BB at 20 as the only 2 hit warship on the map.

_EDIT:
Russian NOs lost if any allied unit enters a Russian or Russian controlled territory.  However, don’t just ban them from entering?  Gives the players the option to give up NOs or keep them.  If we add NAs then Russia loses those as well if any allied units are present?

Just an idea…don’t have a problem with banning them, just an alternative._

I don’t have anything against the pricing you are advocating, what I am really looking for is Anti-Aircraft defense for fleets.  Technically, AA guns fit best on Aircraft Carriers, but if we make carriers 2 hit warships that carry two fighters AND they have AA Guns I think we’d have to raise the price of each carrier to 24 IPC or risk almost nothing but fleets of carriers on the board!

However, we do have a piece that is under utilized for fleet warfare and that’s the cruiser.  So if we take AA Guns and move them to the cruiser (and leave the price alone on the cruiser) I think we’d have a piece more readily purchased that fleshes out the fleet.  Really it would only take 3 or 4 cruisers to defend a fleet from air only attacks, but then, you usually only have 2 or 3 battleships so that’s realistic in terms of game play.

As for the change to AA, it’s interesting, but I am not sure what impact it will have on the over all game.

(also, were we not talking about staged technology levels where you had trees and you built off lower echelons of technology before moving on to better things?  I have a partial list, just not happy enough with it to post it, but it’s got 6 trees of technologies and 3 levels within those trees so level 1 is a slight improvement, level 2 is significant and level 3 is 1960s level of technology - or so the thought went for level 3.)

Hi Cmdr Jen,
just to let you know about my weird HR on cruiser (it works very well when you don’t want that the cruisers in the initial set-up become too dangerous vs planes, since it was OOB design without any AA capacity):

@Baron:

6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers do not require a naval base to move 3 spaces in either combat or noncombat move. They cannot however, move 4 spaces under any circumstances.

I like it M3 is good for Global. Cruiser A3D3M3C12, offshore bombard 1@3
I’m just sad you didn’t add an AA capacity.
Just a small one like 1 preemptive @1 vs 1 plane?
You seems to develop much more aerial dogfight and AAA phase inside.
Could the cruiser be a part of this change?

The last version I played is:
A3D3M2C11, offshore bombard 1@3,
gives 1@1AA preemptive when paired with CV or BB,
gives 2@1AA preemptive when paired with both CV and BB.
But no AA when alone or with other CA.

Lower cost help but the real incentive is still the psychological impact of getting a naval AA gun.

@Cmdr:

I don’t have anything against the pricing you are advocating, what I am really looking for is Anti-Aircraft defense for fleets. Technically, AA guns fit best on Aircraft Carriers, but if we make carriers 2 hit warships that carry two fighters AND they have AA Guns I think we’d have to raise the price of each carrier to 24 IPC or risk almost nothing but fleets of carriers on the board!

However, we do have a piece that is under utilized for fleet warfare and that’s the cruiser.   So if we take AA Guns and move them to the cruiser (and leave the price alone on the cruiser) I think we’d have a piece more readily purchased that fleshes out the fleet.  Really it would only take 3 or 4 cruisers to defend a fleet from air only attacks, but then, you usually only have 2 or 3 battleships so that’s realistic in terms of game play.

As for the change to AA, it’s interesting, but I am not sure what impact it will have on the over all game.

I think that a basic cruiser A3D3M2, bombard @3 which cost 10 IPCs will be buy more often to protect any fleet with 1 better @3 for 10 IPCs than just DD @2 for 8 IPCs and it will be almost an even match vs planes scrambled from an AB: TcB @3 and Fg @4/ 10 IPCs. But it can move with other ship, planes cannot without an additional 16 IPCs carrier.

This basic cruiser is not as an interesting unit (tactically and strategically speaking) than a boosted
cruiser A3D3M3C11 which could fire 1 preemptive @1 AA and bombard @3,
but it will be a real competitive units (optimized purchase) amongst other warships.

Naval & Aviation Technology (5 IPCs per token)
-Super Submarines: Defending submarines hit on a 2 or less.

Probably the Tech everyone will pray to don’t get.
“After all IPCs I invest in Naval &Aviation, I was full of hope and now, I missed those IPCs”

Subs are more an offensive weapon, even as a fodder for saving planes vs naval units.
Don’t you think?
The original OOB Tech isn’t Subs A3?

Because aircraft played a huge part in naval warfare in World War II, and because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships, it feels like such an important function that just is not represented at all.

Also, it seems kind of silly to see a few dozen aircraft attack a fleet of ships, sink them leaving nothing but the submarines behind and limp home causing the enemy severe losses (typically something Japan does to the entire allied fleet.)  With one or two cruisers, with AA Guns on them, that might not be risked as often.

I do recognize that Baron has a good point.  Cruisers with AA Guns at the start of the game could be devastating to Germany and, to a lesser extent, England.  So why not tie it to Radar Technology?  AA Guns fire @2 on land, Cruisers gain AA Gun shots @1.

@Uncrustable:

because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships

many planes were shot down all sorts of ways

If you send out an overwhelming force of air vs a small fleet of cruisers, and the cruisers are more than capable of hitting the enemy aircraft. You should win with minimal losses in this scenario.
The opponent is the one who took a risk, leaving his fleet vulnerable.

AAA guns on land represent a territory wide network of radar/AA
And unlike on water, they can be hidden where its virtually impossible to know where they are at untill they start shooting. Thus many aircraft are shot down before they even know whats going on.
But as the battle progresses, aircraft know where the heavy AA pockets are and can better avoid them.

This is simulated very well at the strategic level.
All units have AA ability, all units can shoot down aircraft, but AA simulates the above, the unknown.
You cant hide a fleet of cruisers on the open water, and it is silly to think that only cruisers would be outfitted with AA anyhow

Your historical rationalization about ground AAA seems sound to me.
And why G40e need a naval AAA after all, since cruiser are at 10 IPCs?

Once said, all I can oppose to defend a naval kind of AA  is, first, a “strategical game perspective”: it adds another interesting variety of naval weaponry to counter directly a massive air fleet and bomber spam strategy.

It  also adds a “psychological protective effect” to your fleet when someone launch subs+TcB against it: it adds a bit more uncertainty about casualties. The enemy may still get costlier air casualties instead of only loosing cheaper subs.

And, last, there was an historical fleet formation (deploy by USA in PTO) which can provide a better protection against planes. You probably both read or view it, nonetheless here is the link, for any other viewer of this thread:

Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

That’s why I have this special HR:
for 1 Cruiser+ 1 BB or 1 CV get 1 first strike AA @1 and
for 1 CA+ 1 BB+ 1 CV get 2 first strike AA @1.

It adds a layer of complexity but it increase the thrill during the game when trying to put together the newly built cruiser to joint the remnants of an older fleet (of BB+CV) to get a better and maximized protection against Air attack and enemy’s carrier.

Why don’t introduce a boosted transport as a naval technological development:
A kind of AKA, attacking cargo ship A1D1C8-9, same number of carried units?

Or at least can combat as the old transport A0D1C8, 1 hit.