G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

I wished I could convince you.  :cry:

The aerial combat is only for 1 round.
After, all Fgs vs Fgs revert to A2  vs D3 for the rest of the battle!

Or at least this one:
Just a little more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1 for single air combat round ?

@Uncrustable:

MrRoboto: Wish you would just read this. You would understand.

Fighters are the best on defense, and can escort and intercept SBR.
Tactical bombers are (on purpose) the best on offense, and the best all around (again on purpose) pure combat air unit. However tactical bombers can no longer SBR, they cant escort SBR, and they cant intercept SBR.
Strategic bombers have a good offense (nearly exact same as unsupported tacticals), but with increased range. and the ability to SBR

3 units, 3 different roles. balanced among themselves. and, if you do the math the new fighter is actually slightly better than the old fighter.
the 3 roles are historically accurate aswell…what else would you want lol

on the battlefield a tactical bomber is going to be more efficient both in the air and vs moving ground units than a strategic bomber

again one more time…
Fighter = Best defense, air superiority (SBR escort and intercept)
Tactical = Best offense, best all around air combat unit
Strategic = Long range, good offense (better than fighters not as good as supported tacticals), can SBR

Yes I’ve read it multiple times. It’s what you want to achieve and it’s also what I want to achieve!!!

But your current model just doesn’t result in this!

The balance of Fighters to Tacs is right at the moment. Fighters are way better in defense and air-combat, unsupported tacs are better in attack. Supported tacs are way better.

But your strategic bomber is balanced totally wrong! You want the attack to be between unsupported tacs and supported tacs. And that’s where it should be.
BUT IT ISN’T

I try to explain it to you one more time.

Compare the Strategic bomber (12 IPC, 4 attack, 1 defense) with your fighter (8 IPC, 2 attack, 3 defense)

6 Fighters: 48 IPC, 6 HP, 12 Attack, 18 Defense
4 Strats: 48 IPC, 4 HP, 16 attack, 4 Defense

Get this: In your current model, even fighters attack better than strategic bombers (They are ahead in about 55% of the time). Not to mention their defensive value. Even with the greater range, I would never prefer a strategic bomber over a fighter.

Compare the Strategic bomber (12 IPC, 4 attack, 1 defense) with your Tactical bomber (10 IPC, 3-4 attack, 3 defense).

5 Strats: 60 IPC, 5 HP, 20 Attack, 5 Defense
6 Tacs: 60 IPC, 18-24 Attack, 24 Defense.

Now you planned to have the attacking strat somewhere between unsupported tacs and supported tacs. But that’s not the case. EVEN UNSUPPORTED tacs are stronger in the offense, than the strategic (Tacs are ahead 60% of the time!).
Why would I ever want to buy a Strategic instead of a tactical? The Tac is ALWAYS better in offense, incredibly better at defense and if I can support them, they are more than doubling the offensive power compared to a strategic bomber. Range alone does not justify that.

Have not read through everything YET nor really thought too hard on any specific detail, but just off the cost, I love the transport price reduction to 6 IPC.

At 7 IPC, before coffee, with kids nagging you for your attention, it’s just plain annoying to figure out how many transports + units and keep it under a certain cost.  All other warships are even numbers, this makes the xport even as well.

As for cruisers, I liked the idea of giving them AA guns and leaving them at 12 IPC.  Maybe add the bombard increase of yours to 4, but leaving them at 12 ipc.  Maybe I’m just stupid, but I like to buy cruisers as is - not a whole lot, but I find them really effective anchor points for reinforcement fleets, etc.  (5 destroyers, 3 transports and 1 cruiser being moved from W. USA to the fleet in the Philippines for instance.  Cruiser makes a HUGE difference in whether or not that little fleet is attacked by Japanese air power, and if attacked, should do more damage than if it was 5 destroyers, 3 transports and 2 submarines.)

Just some quick thoughts…as I said, really didn’t look and think too hard at it.

Well Jen if you invest your money in destroyers, instead of cruisers, you’re always off way better (WAY!!! better).

The sole and only argument for cruisers is, if you have exactly 12-15 IPC or 20-21 IPC and need to defend immediately against one attacking plane.
If it might make a difference if you can hold a seazone with 1 cruiser instead of 1 destroyer, maybe to defend transports, in the first case. Or 1cruiser+1 dd instead of 2 dd in the second case. Then yes, in these extremely rare cases, a cruiser purchase is slightly better.

How about?
Fighters ADMC 2-3-4-8  Air combat AD 1-2
TB.          ADMC 3/4-2-4-9 Air combat AD 1-1
SB.          ADMC 4-1-6-10

I would suggest a read through of WWII aircraft. I think these stats are pretty graduated and fit historical military roles while accomplishing the task to model increased air combat before land battle.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II

Sorry working from my phone, but please read.

@toblerone77:

How about?
Fighters ADMC 2-3-4-8 Air combat AD 1-2
TB. ADMC 3/4-2-4-9 Air combat AD 1-1
SB. ADMC 4-1-6-10

This seems better. Although I’d probably never buy fighters.

In the offense, 2 unsupported tacs (cost 18, attack 6, air combat 2) are about as strong as 1fighter+1tac (cost 17, attack 6, air combat 2). In the defense I’d be better off to just build AAA and inf, skipping the air combat.
There is no incentive to buy fighters.

Let me suggest this:

Fighters
8 IPC
Attack 2
Defense 3
Aircombat attack 2
Aircombat Defense 3

Tacticals
9 IPC
Attack 3, improved to 4 with paired fighter/tank
Defense 2
Aircombat attack 1, improved to 2 with paired fighter
Aircombat Defense 1

Strategics
10 IPC
Attack 4
Defense 1
Range 6, ability to bombard for 1d6
No Air combat

@MrRoboto:

Let me suggest this:

Fighters
8 IPC
Attack 2
Defense 3
Aircombat attack 2
Aircombat Defense 3

Tacticals
9 IPC
Attack 3, improved to 4 with paired fighter/tank
Defense 2
Aircombat attack 1, improved to 2 with paired fighter
Aircombat Defense 1

Strategics
10 IPC
Attack 4
Defense 1
Range 6, ability to bombard for 1d6
No Air combat

Looks good to me. This is Uncrustable’s project though. I’m just contributing.

@Uncrustable:

It was a typo that i somehow didnt catch lol, it has been fixed. South Africa because of historical reasons. British Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, and Newfoundland were considered autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Yes, all six became (for most purposes) self-governing Dominions under the 1931 Statutes of Westminster, with the ability to decide on their own whether or not to declare war (rather than automatically going to war when the UK did, as happened in 1914).  One qualifier, though, is that as a result of an economic collapse trigged by the Great Depression, Newfoundland asked the British government in 1934 to resume ruling it directly; it retained Dominion status, but in essence it was governed as a Crown colony.

@Uncrustable:

your chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter      30 attack  | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic   40 attack  | 10 defense

Dude can you please calculate correctly? It is completely wrong, you made 3 calculation errors!
The chart looks like this:

120 IPC (Tacs costs only 117)
15 Fighter  30 attack      |  45 Defense
13 Tacs    39-52 attack  |  36 Defense
12 Strats  48 attack      |  12 Defense

@Uncrustable:

BUT, each unit now has a unique roll to fill…
Fighters - SBR escort and intercept. best air stats by being cheapest and having defense of 2 in air. Best defense and cheapest.
Tacbomber - the best all around fighting air unit, best offense + good defense
Strategic bomber - same attack as unescorted tac, not quite as good as escorted tacs (AS IT SHOULD BE), but long range and SBR, poor defense

Dude, you are driving me mad. I told you already I know what you want to achieve. But your models just does NOT WORK THIS WAY.
You are not even responding to the facts that I showed you.

One last time, I hope you will read it and really think about it this time.

Your strategic bombers are just too weak. Fighters beat them in offense and  of course in defense. I bolded that part in my last big post to you and you just ignored it. Unsupported Tacs beat them too.
Range alone won’t be enough to buy a Strategic bomber, if they are so much weaker in everything else than fighters and tacs.

@Uncrustable:

as OOB tacticals are a rare purchase (more rare than cruisers)

This is not even remotely true. Tacs are bought every single game, by more than one power. Cruisers are built absolutely never.

@Uncrustable:

Fighters - SBR escort and intercept. Best defense and cheapest. Best air stats.
Tacbomber - the best all around fighting air unit
Strategic bomber - comparable attack to tactical, not quite as good as escorted tacs, but long range and SBR, poor defense, cant scramble

All these roles are much better represented in my setup.

Since I’ve enhanced the air combat value of fighters and tacs (but fighters still got more), the purpose of fighters is mainly participating in air combats.

Please have a look at my setup again:
Fighters: Att|Def|Air-Att|Air-Def|Cost  -    2  |3  |  2  |3 |8
Tacs:    Att|Def|Air-Att|Air-Def|Cost  -  3(4) |2 |1(2) |1 |9
Strats:  Att|Def|Cost                      -    4    |1 |  x  | x|10

Now if you’re defending against air attacks, fighters are obviously the best choice. They are the best planes in defense against ground units, but still far, far worse than every ground unit.
But since they’re so good against air-attacks and still doing halfway okay against ground units, they are worth buying.
If you’re attacking with air only, you will need the fighters as well, since they boost your tacticals and also protect AND boost them in the air-combat.
Tacticals are the best attacking unit, when supported (just as you want it). They are better than strats, cause they cost 10% less. While they lack the range of the strats, they make up for it by having some small defensive capabilities against ground and air.
Strategics are pure glass cannons with high range. Their high range and very strong attack makes them worth buying. They serve for SBR and attacks that are far away.

@Uncrustable:

I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense. And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.

Some WWII tac bombers were quite weak on defense.  The Stuka is perhaps the best example: it did great in Poland and France, where the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, but the Stukas that participated in the Battle of Britain were cut to pieces by RAF fighters (and were soon withdrawn from action) because they weren’t operating in a secure environment.  Torpdedo bombers such as the TBD Devastator were likewise extremely vulerable because their attack runs required them to fly low, level and straight towards their target; at Midway, the American TBDs who attacked the Japanese fleet had (as I recall) close to 100% casualties.  Both the TBD and the Stuka had rear-cockpit machine gunners for self-protection, but those gun positions didn’t seem to make much difference in their survivability.

@Uncrustable:

15 Fighter      30 attack  | 45 defense
10 Strategic   40 attack  | 10 defense

You are insane if you look at that chart and say “fighters are better at offense”, they are not.

Oh my. I begin to understand why it make no sense to argue with you. I am not insane. It is math. My statement is true.

15 hp, power 30 is BETTER than 10 hp, 40 power.

If you don’t know how to calculate that, you can easily put it in tripleA and let the software simulate 50.000 battles. Just put in 15 attacking destroyers (15hp, 30 power) against 10 defending fighters (10 hp, 40 power). It should be something like 63% for the 15hp/30power.

If you’re looking for more sophisticated, mathematical evidence:

24 IPC              24 IPC
3 Fighters   vs   2 Strategic Bombers
6 Attack           8 Attack

The fighters score 1 hit averagely in round 1. The Bombers score 1 and 1/3.

Second round, Strats only scored one hit first round (2a):

2 Fighters        1 Strategic Bomber
4 Attack     vs  4 Attack

Fighters win in 2/3 = 6/9 of the times directly
One fighter lost in 2/9 of the times (see 3a)
No one hits in 1/9 of the times.

Since no one hitting replays the round, the chances are:
Fighters win: 6 out of 8 times = 3/4
One fighter lost: 2 out of 8 times = 1/4

Third round (3a):

1 Fighter      1 Strat
2 Attack  vs  4 Attack

Fighter win in (1/3)(1/3) = 1/9 of times
Draw in (1/3)(2/3) = 2/9 of times
Strat win in (2/3)(2/3) = 4/9 of times
No one hits in (2/3)(1/3) = 2/9 of times

So chances here:
Fighter win in 1 out of 7 cases
Draw in 2 out of 7 cases
Strat wins in 4 out of 7 cases

Overall chance after 2a (Strats only scoring 1 hit first round):

Fighters win in (3/4) + (1/28) = 22/28 times. (approx 78.5%)
Draw in 2/28 times (~7%)
Strat wins in 4/28 times (~14%)

Second round, Strats scored 2 hits first round (2b)

1 Fighter  vs  1 Strat
2 Attack        4 Attack

This is the same as (3a):
Fighter win in 1 out of 7 cases
Draw in 2 out of 7 cases
Strat wins in 4 out of 7 cases

**So overall chances of the battle:

Fighter win in (2/3)(22/28) + (1/3)(1/7) = 12/21 times = ~57%
Draw in (2/3)(2/28) + (1/3)(2/7) = 3/21 times = ~14%
Strats win in (2/3)(4/28) + (1/3)(4/7) = 6/21 times = ~28.5%**

In TripleA, 20.000 battles will show:
Fighters win 58%
Draw 14%
Strats win 28%

So, you see - my calculation is indeed correct. Your fighters attack stronger than your strategic bombers.

@Uncrustable:

Strategic bombers essentially now DO NOT change from OOB,
Tactical bombers received a slight buff to both offense and defense
Fighters received a nerf on offense, and a slight nerf on defense

How, when those 3 sentences are true, could you say fighters are better than bombers?

Because these 3 sentences are NOT true.

Fighters received a BUFF on offense. 8 IPC for 2 attack is BETTER than 10 ipc for 3 Attack!!!
In a direct duel, your new fighters are ahead in 60% of the time compared to the old fighter.

You can simulate this by putting into tripleA: 5 destroyers (5hp, 10 power) vs 4 defending cruisers (4 hp, 12 powers).

I URGE you to read my last post! It PROVES mathematically, that YOU are wrong and that I am right. I am calculating correct, you are not.

Also, you did not even mention the fact that you miscalculated the simple 120 IPC chart of mine.

It is not about opinion or believing. It is simple math, non-debatable truth. So you do not need to be convinced, you only need to understand the math. And the math says: In your proposal, fighters attack stronger than strategic bombers (a lot better, even). And that is a huge design flaw, given they also are better in defense (Air combat AND ground)