G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.

@Gamerman01:

For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.

I took a look at this. I’m not a league player myself. Should it come up I’ll point them your way.

LOL I think we all have some projects going on.

Sure, just check back with us in 6 months and see if we have a finished product that you might enjoy playing

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

I do really like the idea of establishing some more realistic form of air combat. I have some suggestions I need to work on before I present them but I like this idea.

@Uncrustable:

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

Yeah you’re right when you show it in a combined arms model taking the entire force into account. I’m thinking about it from a different angle.

@Uncrustable:

I will disagree with subs being the best fodder unit on defense. Destroyers are better on defense, and they can hit and take hits from aircraft.

I could show you a complicated formula to prove my point, but let me just tell you:

On sea the best possible defense you can have is 5 subs per each full carrier (+2 fighter). Of course you need at least one destroyer to negate first strike from the enemy submarines. Nothing else beats this combo in defense. In offense the best combo is pure submarine :-)
This combo obviously has one big problem: Air-only attacks. You don’t have cannon-fodder here.
That’s why the ideal defensive fleet is: Full carriers (with fighters), as much destroyer as needed to defend against air-only (approx 2 per carrier). rest submarines (5 subs per carrier). Since submarines are the best in offense too, this combo is something like the dream team.

@Uncrustable:

2 Range for the BB IC bombard seems a bit much though for WWII era warships. The long range rockets were large and would hardly have been efficient being carried and fired from surface ships. Reduce it to 1 and i love it.

Yeah I feared it would be unrealistic. However, in the game you would only be able to use this, after you’ve won the naval battle already. There are not many situations, where your battleship is on the enemy coastline, before you’ve defeated the enemy fleet. If the range is only 1, battleships might be slightly too weak.

@Uncrustable:

On the cruiser bombard, i like going back to removing the hit before the battle. This seems more realistic.
I would propose the cruisers participate in the bombard phase (where the casualties are removed immediatly) and the 1st round of normal combat. They would bombard at either a 2 or 3 for both. During the normal round whatever the cruiser may hit is not immediate removed (treated like a current oob bombard)

Well one bombard@2-3 + participate in one normal combat round should be roughly equal to one bombard@5, right? This is just personal preference now. Since your rule is a bit more complicated to read, this might shift the decision. But your way would work too I guess.

@Uncrustable:

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

some quick math
5 Fighters (40IPC) �Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
3 Strat �(39IPC) � �Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

Okay let me have a look at this.

Tacs without support are not stronger than fighters in attack and far worse in defense. They excel however, when combined.
Strats however are too weak. Even unsupported tacs are stronger than strats (which means that even FIGHTERS are stronger than strats!!!) and they have obviously no defensive capabilities. Higher range does not justify this. Reduce the cost to 12 please.

Math for 12-ipc strats:

Fighters vs Strats

3 Fighter: 3 HP, 6 Attack. Or 6 fighters, 12 attack.
2 Strats: 2 HP, 8 Attack. Or 4 Strats, 16 attack.

Actually Fighters are very, very slightly stronger in offense than Strats. Still not enough power for strats.

Tacs vs Strats

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

Still, unsupported Tacs are still as strong as Strats, while also having defense and the option of combined arms.

Conclusion: 12 IPC is still too high for strats. I would not buy them as a player. It seems they have to cost 11.

But we have other problems now:
Actually we changed fighters - made them weaker and cheaper. What followed was, that we had to reduce tacs and strats too. But now a carrier might be overpriced. We could reduce carrier cost as well or increase it slightly but allow them to carry 3 planes.
Also, with weaker fighters we might think about allowing 4 planes to scramble against amphibious assaults.

@Uncrustable:

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

Well I guess I’m just misunderstanding figures then. You seemed to be giving the defense value of a TacB equal to fighter because of the fact that it is battling in multiple facets of combat thereby making it make sense considering all units present within the battle between land and air . I agreed with your math when compared at total value of cost+attack+defense. Thereby giving it a better value in defense with all factors considered.

My perspective was when looking at the actual units, tac bomber vs a fighter in single combat. The fighter’s primary role is to shoot down other aircraft and would easily destroy a tactical bomber. Whereas the tac bomber is meant to destroy ground units, carries a heavier armament, and is far superior to a fighter when attacking ground units.

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense. Q1: Range 6?.

Fg : air combat value 1/2 vs
TcB: air combat value 1/1

Question 2: is it possible to give a slightly better Air Combat attack factor to Fighter over TcB?
Question 3: is it needed and historical?

Give Fgs A2D2 vs Air and keep A2D3 vs ground.

Or just a more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1?

@Uncrustable:

Math with bombers at 12 IPC
15 Fighters. 30      A/D 45
12 Tacticals 36-48 A/D 36
10 Strategic 40      A/D 10

Now we have little incentive to purchase tactical bombers, as bombers are equal on offense with more range + SBR

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of the 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

some quick math with bombers at 13 IPC (bombers actually 1 IPC cheaper, but 13 is a prime number so this will do)
5 Fighters (40IPC) �Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
3 Strat �(39IPC) � �Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

Im not sure you read this all the way through?
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. There is no need to change aircraft carriers yet.

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

Well I guess I’m just misunderstanding figures then. You seemed to be giving the defense value of a TacB equal to fighter because of the fact that it is battling in multiple facets of combat thereby making it make sense considering all units present within the battle between land and air . I agreed with your math when compared at total value of cost+attack+defense. Thereby giving it a better value in defense with all factors considered.

My perspective was when looking at the actual units, tac bomber vs a fighter in single combat. The fighter’s primary role is to shoot down other aircraft and would easily destroy a tactical bomber. Whereas the tac bomber is meant to destroy ground units, carries a heavier armament, and is far superior to a fighter when attacking ground units.

Tobloerone77, i think you are confused lol, and at the least overthinking everything.

You may be right, I read you loud and clear, your cost structure justifies air and general combat stats. I would have done it a bit different but with the same or similar results as you came up with. It’s your project sir, carry on.

@Uncrustable:

Math with bombers at 12 IPC
15 Fighters. 30 � � �A/D 45
12 Tacticals 36-48 A/D 36
10 Strategic 40 � � �A/D 10

Now we have little incentive to purchase tactical bombers, as bombers are equal on offense with more range + SBR

You’ve got it wrong here mate.

I’d prefer 12 tacs with 36 power over 10 strats with 40 power ANYTIME!

If you roll it out, the 123 win over 104 in about 60% of the time.
And that’s only unsupported! AND they def at 36 instead of 10.

Uncrustable, you really seem to underestimated the effect of HP.

Even fighters are preferred over strats (when they cost 12)

6 Fighters:          4 Strats:
6 HP            vs  4 HP
12 Offense          16 Offense

Fighters are ahead in about 55% of the time. So that means fighters are basically equally strong in offense, while being tremendeously better in defense AND in air-combat. Range alone does not justify these high strat costs.

@MrRoboto:

Uncrustable, you really seem to underestimated the effect of HP.

Even fighters are preferred over strats (when they cost 12)

6 Fighters:� � � � � 4 Strats:
6 HP� � � � � � vs� �4 HP
12 Offense� � � � � 16 Offense

Fighters are ahead in about 55% of the time. So that means fighters are basically equally strong in offense, while being tremendeously better in defense AND in air-combat. Range alone does not justify these high strat costs.

Why don’t use this scale of progression:
8-10-12
Fg-TcB-StB?

Just to be sure you see this comment:
@Baron:

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense. Q1: Range 6?.

Fg : air combat value 1/2 vs
TcB: air combat value 1/1

Question 2: is it possible to give a slightly better Air Combat attack factor to Fighter over TcB?
Question 3: is it needed and historical?

Give Fgs A2D2 vs Air and keep A2D3 vs ground.

Or just a more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1?