@Young:
Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible
AARe
AARhe
Would be two examples.
Also, with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
I like the idea of tacs at 10 IPC, but I’d leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
…with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
This.
…leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
They are a bit OP as of now, (spammed in alot of G40 games)
I don’t see why it would have to be such a drastic change (15 would be way too much)
Increasing to 13 is a small change, but it increases the cost disparity between fighters and tacs to 3. And requires more thinking when it comes to air purchases. But it wont completely wreck the bomber, nor does it require any other changes.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
Increasing subs and DD and cruisers by +2 cost, fixes nothing (and likely creates more problems)
Within the 3, cruisers would still be by far the weaker, and submarines the strongest.
One immediate problem is now Carriers and air are even stronger, why ever buy a cruiser at 14 when you can buy a fighter at 10 that rolls better dice and has more range, and can fight over land and water. Or a bomber for that matter.
destroyers would only be bought as blockers
submarines would become scarce
(for 2 IPC more you can buy a fighter that attacks +1 defends +2)
These changes would hurt USA the most, and would help out the Germans alot. (Noone would want this)
Would require a complete overhaul of everything else (I doubt very many would want to go here)
Reducing cruisers by 1 and BB by 2 is so much simpler, yes? And not to mention far less drastic.
It requires very little else changed OOB, (maybe carriers -1)
@Cmdr:
@Young:
Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible
AARe
AARhe
Would be two examples.Also, with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
I like the idea of tacs at 10 IPC, but I’d leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
Not sure how you do things during online games, but an endorsement of house rules by an A&A.org mediator is hardly enough to convince my table top groups to play them. You guys must wield a power wand around here.
@Uncrustable:
Reducing cruisers by 1 and BB by 2 is so much simpler, yes? And not to mention far less drastic.
It requires very little else changed OOB, (maybe carriers -1)
@Uncrustable:
Thanks YG.
On air units, i think it best to go back. And make smaller changes.
Fighters - No change from OOB
Tacs - Decrease price to 10 IPC (No other change from OOB)
Bomber - Increase price to 13 IPC (No other change from OOB)This comes after discussion/thought over at Gamermans G40 league HR thread.
The new scramble rule does not change however (Scrambled fighters at D2 all attacking planes at D1)
This would also include changing aircraft carriers to 15 IPC (-1 from OOB), up from 14.
Since almost all units cost is discuss, here is my questions:
XXXXXXX A3D3M4C10, Bombard every round, sometimes @3 sometimes @4, can fight on land and on sea, what is it?
XXXXXXX A3D3M2C11, Bombard one single time @3 or @4, fight only on sea, what is it?
I just feel there is a taboo on discussing the price of the later inside the naval department.
I forgot this one, what is it?
XXXXXX A3D4M4C10, can fight on land and on sea, give a bonus +1A to another unit.
Just to be sure, I wish everyone read this OP which present my opinion, (in hope someone help me understand what is the fail in it):
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619
Some stats:
OOB BB (20 IPCs) vs OOB Cruiser (12 IPCs)
3BBs vs 5CAs = 66% vs 28%
BB (18 IPCs) vs Cruiser (11 IPCs)
11BBs vs 18 CAs = 88% vs 11% for the BBs .
Here we see that the too great number of units improve odds toward BBs.
So I divided by 2 the excessive numbers of 11 BBs to get a better statistical approximation:
5BBs (18 IPCs) + 1BB Dmgd vs 9 CAs (11 IPCs) = 82% vs 15% for the BBs.
BB (18 IPCs) vs Cruiser (10 IPCs)
5 BBs vs 9 CAs = 56% vs 41%
What I conclude is that on an IPCs basis the revised cost of (-2 IPCs) BB and (-1 IPC) CA:
increase the strength of BB vs CA, even compared with OOBs.
BBs odds of survival goes: Cruiser odds of survival are:
(18 vs 12 IPCs) = 66% 28%
(18 vs 11 IPCs) = 82% 15%
(18 vs 10 IPCs) = 56% 41%
BB vs CA
By lowering -2 BB/-1 CA, their relative strength is also detrimental toward the OOB even match of Cruiser + Destroyer vs 1 BB.
(OOB 12+8 vs 20 IPCs)
42% vs 39%
CA 11+DD 8= 19 vs 18.
On IPCs basis, the odds become:
CA+DD vs BB
27% vs 72% for BB
Married, only allowed to wield one wand from now on, sorry Grasshopper. :roll:
I think increasing submarines to 8 IPC and destroyers to 10 IPC will fix the naval balance a bit. 2 destroyers for the same cost of a battleship should change the statistics considerably, no?
5 Destroyers vs 2 Battleships (40 IPC per side) is currently:
A. survives: 60.4% D. survives: 34.8% No one survives: 4.8%
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red. If shown, the 1st and 2nd standard deviations about the mean are represented in blue and light blue.
Attacker results:
1.63% 5: 5 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
8.39% 4: 4 Des. 1 Des. : 8 IPCs
18.44% 3: 3 Des. 2 Des. : 16 IPCs
18.91% 2: 2 Des. 3 Des. : 24 IPCs
13.03% 1: 1 Des. 4 Des. : 32 IPCs
39.6% 0: no units. 5 Des. : 40 IPCs–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defender results:
19.4% 2: 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
15.38% 1: 1 Bat. 1 Bat. : 20 IPCs
65.22% 0: no units. 2 Bat. : 40 IPCsChanging that to 4 destroyers vs 2 battleships (40 IPC per side) makes it:
A. survives: 28.5% D. survives: 65.7% No one survives: 5.8%
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red. If shown, the 1st and 2nd standard deviations about the mean are represented in blue and light blue.
Attacker results:
0.72% 4: 4 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
4.89% 3: 3 Des. 1 Des. : 8 IPCs
10.57% 2: 2 Des. 2 Des. : 16 IPCs
12.33% 1: 1 Des. 3 Des. : 24 IPCs
71.49% 0: no units. 4 Des. : 32 IPCs
Defender results:
44.6% 2: 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
21.08% 1: 1 Bat. 1 Bat. : 20 IPCs
34.32% 0: no units. 2 Bat. : 40 IPCs
That’s a pretty significant shift. Even if we leave cruisers alone, that’s a pretty nice change in the fleet builds we’d see.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
I’d still increase the strategic bomber range to 7 (8 with air base) and that partially due to it costing 15 IPC now. (Still has your 3 ipc differential.) And yes, I do think a wing of strategic superfortresses should cost more than a trio of cruisers. My opinion, feel free to argue against it, just stating my personal opinions here and I have no preconceptions that I have the only right ideas.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
Hi Cmdr Jenn,
I think you have find a new can opener!!!
Since the beginning of A&A, there was many cost reduction on units from classic to Global.
For many reasons.
I can say that, as a player, I want to buy many different pieces and have a variety of type of units on the board. And for the sake of winning the game, it was heart breaking to choose cheaper units and let aside other costlier I would like to used in my strategies. Hard sacrifice when you don’t play more than three or four times a year, never got the chance to buy a StB for Russia and stuck to Inf and Inf and Inf :x!!!
And I was also glad to see an increase of IPCs national production charts for countries.
So I dislike any cost increase on units as someone was ripping off this pleasure of purchasing things and planning strategies according to them.
In fact, the problem with balancing stats and cost of units vs others may rely on the too little range we are in: between 3 to 20 IPCs.
Maybe Classic distribution:
8 IPCs Subs,
12 IPCs Fg vs
15 IPCs StB vs
18 IPCs Carrier vs
24 IPCs BB (2 hits) was the best, and have much room to integrate a
13 IPCs Cruiser,
10 IPCs DDs,
etc.
And need simply an increase in the incomes for each Power to have the same “purchase power” even with higher cost.
I can also add that a deca-decimal system (x10 IPCs) could easily give more room to fine tuning for relative balance between units.
Example: Inf cost 30 IPCs, Mech Inf costs (4 IPCs x10)= 40 IPCs, Armor instead of 60 IPCs could be put at 55 IPCs. Have an Artillery unit at 45 IPCs instead of 40 (4x10).
Even “0” Island could receive a small 5 IPCs in this system.
Unfortunately, it creates such a mess to fix everything…
After this done, the initial set-up probably need revision and play-testing.
@Cmdr:
Married, only allowed to wield one wand from now on, sorry Grasshopper. :roll:
I think increasing submarines to 8 IPC and destroyers to 10 IPC will fix the naval balance a bit. 2 destroyers for the same cost of a battleship should change the statistics considerably, no?
That’s a pretty significant shift. Even if we leave cruisers alone, that’s a pretty nice change in the fleet builds we’d see.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
I’d still increase the strategic bomber range to 7 (8 with air base) and that partially due to it costing 15 IPC now. (Still has your 3 ipc differential.) And yes, I do think a wing of strategic superfortresses should cost more than a trio of cruisers. My opinion, feel free to argue against it, just stating my personal opinions here and I have no preconceptions that I have the only right ideas.
One of the consequence of a cost increase will have much more impact on Allies.
Allies need to purchase costlier units instead of Axis which can keep a steady flow of cheaper units to protect their numerous higher valued units.
What is your battlecalculator?
Have a link?
Thanks.
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
Regardless you want to increase costs of air and naval units across the board, while leaving land units alone.
This will create many new problems.
Would require a complete rebalancing of the game.
I’m not buying it.
You must adjust land units to match.
And it is so much simpler to jut fine tune them where they are (BB to 18 cruiser to 11)
Most would argue that if anything, air and naval should be reduced.
I feel the balance between the 3 is near perfect now, and fine tuning is what we need, not a complete overhaul .
And yes baron, many of your ideas/posts are quite messy lol
Sometimes I wonder how much you actually play the game.
“One of the consequence of a cost increase will have much more impact on Allies.
Allies need to purchase costlier units instead of Axis which can keep a steady flow of cheaper units to protect their numerous higher valued units.”
Great point Baron, this is true
@Uncrustable:
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
For whatever this information might be worth:
During WWII, one B-29 Superfortress cost roughly the same as one US Navy destroyer.
Airplanes – even bombers as big and complex as the B-29 – can be mass-produced. Major warships – fleet carriers, battleships and cruisers – can’t be mass-produced in the conventional sense because of their sheer size and enormous complexity. The B-29 had an empty weight of 33.8 tonnes, while an Essex-class carrier (for example) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons, which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than a B-29. It took 15 months to build the Essex, plus another five months to complete and commission her. By contrast, the US managed to produce an overall average of about 80 Superforts per month from 1943 to 1946, despite the difficulties of the building process for this highly advanced aircraft.
@CWO:
@Uncrustable:
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
For whatever this information might be worth:
During WWII, one B-29 Superfortress cost roughly the same as one US Navy destroyer.
Airplanes – even bombers as big and complex as the B-29 – can be mass-produced. Major warships – fleet carriers, battleships and cruisers – can’t be mass-produced in the conventional sense because of their sheer size and enormous complexity. The B-29 had an empty weight of 33.8 tonnes, while an Essex-class carrier (for example) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons, which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than a B-29. It took 15 months to build the Essex, plus another five months to complete and commission her. By contrast, the US managed to produce an overall average of about 80 Superforts per month from 1943 to 1946, despite the difficulties of the building process for this highly advanced aircraft.
Informative post,
At the end of the day however, it doesn’t matter what we think the game prices represent.
One bomber is one bomber and one cruiser is one cruiser.
And the game must be balanced as is.
Baron and I have come to the following regarding naval costs:
SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
BB 18
TRN 6
CV (14 or 15) undecided
Start shooting holes ;)
I am happy with that.
I leave the Carrier price up to others to decide, although I would probably leave at 16. Sorry!
@Uncrustable:
At the end of the day however, it doesn’t matter what we think the game prices represent.
One bomber is one bomber and one cruiser is one cruiser.
And the game must be balanced as is.Baron and I have come to the following regarding naval costs:
SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
BB 18
TRN 6
CV (14 or 15) undecidedStart shooting holes ;)
Looks good to me - I do think CV’s are extremely awesome and as a capital ship that can be repaired for free, really don’t think it should be cheaper than 15 in this price scheme.
And I do not think 16 would be overpriced, as wittman said -
So I think 15 or 16 either one is probably good
CV cost will probably depend on which direction we take for air.
Right now we are at 2 options:
Option 1
Fighters-no change
Tac bombers-cost reduce to 10, no other change
Strat bombers-no change
(This is obviously almost no change to OOB
Option 2
(This is in large part Barons idea, and a good one)
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other change
@Uncrustable:
CV cost will probably depend on which direction we take for air.
Option 2
(This is in large part Barons idea, and a good one)
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and at least 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other change
I wouldn’t have that idea without our previous discussion here and on the one thread in spring 2013.
It was you who wanted a more historically accurate TcB and Fg units.
It is a very interesting way of using AB.
Maybe it is still unbalancing to give all Fgs D3, maybe limit it to up to 3 fighters for all the attack.
Or D3 all fighters just for the first round.
Other version: I’m still thinking about a preemptive strike (immediate casualty) (D2, D3?) for up to 3 Fighters on defense to act like scramble before attacker reach the AB territory… (Fg on alert, some on patrol, fwd observer, radar)
@Uncrustable:
Option 2
**Fighters-**cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice)
No other change
I really like this.
Fighters- cheap, aircraft killers, good defense with AB
Tacbombers- best fighting air unit, needs fighters
Stratbombers- long range, good offense, SBR, poor defense
One needs fighters to both screen for their own bombers and attack enemy planes
Fighters have a clear advantage on defense with an AB (see: Battle of Britain)
Tacs are potentially deadly vs ground units (when their is no enemy air)
Strategic bombers for long range and SBR
This rule set combines historical realism and simplicity.
Aircraft are balanced amongst themselves, as well as with the other units
Why wouldn’t you go:
Fighter 8 2/2/4
Defends at 3 when at a friendly operational air base or has an available landing spot on a carrier.
Tactical Bomber 9 3/3/4
Attacks at 4 when paired with a friendly fighter, defends at 4 when no enemy air units are present.
Strategic Bomber 10 2/1/6
Attacks at +2 when launched from a friendly operational air base
+2 to strategic attack die when launched from a friendly operational air base
Night bombing and day bombing raids
When launching a strategic attack the attacker may choose to launch the air raid during the day, or during the night.
All changes will be in Red
1.a) Expanded ANZAC (The Commonwealth Dominions). Includes ANZAC, South Africa and all of Canada. Capital remains Sydney. The IC on Sydney is changed to a Major IC.
1.b) A ‘united’ United Kingdom, UK income is no longer split between India and London. The IC on India is changed from major to minor. Capital is London.Not clear what or how this makes the game better. It certainly makes or gives UK many new options and favors old school ideas like ignoring one front completely which is glitching the game and is not Historical. Mostly dislike.
2. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains at 5. See # 5 for more.
Making the AA gun like 1942 2nd edition is a good idea, and using these pieces.
3. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
c)Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-All air units have an air combat value of 1, except fighters on defense (2)
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBRDislike any changes in costs as a general rule. The prices already got reduced from Milton Bradley edition. Most folks dont want these types of changes.
However, when planes and land units fight, a plane hit should go against another plane and no land units should be able to hit planes…only aa guns. Keep the aerial combat values.Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:
Quote
Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense, escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, strongest on offense when supported (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, poor defense4. Enhanced air combat (land combat only). New scramble option, a defender may scramble fighters only into a 1 round air defense battle vs incoming air units, the scrambling air units must be in the territory being attacked. (cannot scramble from adjacent territory). The territory must have an operational friendly airbase. Bombers may not scramble. All air units roll simultaneously. All air units roll 1 dice hitting on a 1, except fighters on defense hit on a 2 or less. AAA units also fire during this round. AAA roll AA dice on defense only as per current OOB rules. (AA dice DOES NOT change from current OOB rules) Remove casualties before continuing to normal combat.
Oh boy, don’t get why this idea is proposed at all. Why restrict scrambling? Leave it alone.5. Enhance naval units a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4.
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
e) 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 gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.6. Enhanced Armor. 3 tanks, when purchased together (from the same IC), cost 15 IPCs total (5 each).
Dislike these rules even more. It will kill balance ( AP moving 3 spaces?…they are the slowest naval units at 12 knots. If anything give subs a 3 space Non combat move to give them the benefit of their stealth.
7. Scorched Earth. At the beginning of a powers turn, that power may damage any facility he or she sees fit up to the maximum damage that facility may take per OOB rules. Any damaged facilities in this new phase are treated as if they were damaged before said players turn, and all rules regarding damaged facilities apply OOB. So you cannot ‘have your cake and eat it too’. That it you cannot damage your naval base and then repair a battleship.
I think this might work, but stated in a different way. Basically you can damage your own factories/facilities, which also means BB/CV can’t repair. The damage is done in the turn sequence before these naval units are repaired to avoid confusion.
8. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1 or 2, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 3 or 4. On a roll 5 or 6 the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.
This is an old idea, and is really more complicated than it needs to be. I would simplify the idea and have it where USA can loan 1-2D6 to Russia/UK if X is controlled by Soviets. ( thinking Persia, Archangel, and the land area where Vladivostok is.
9. Enhanced Air/Naval bases. Cost reduced to 12 for both.
10. Nuetral blocks. If the axis attack a neutral territory, all the neutrals in its block immediately become allied friendly. Same if reversed.
Mongolian block (all mongolian territories) Replace OOB mongolia rules with: Japan or Russia recieves 12 IPCs if the other declares war on it.
South American + European block Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Rio de oro, Portuguese guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
Middle-eastern block Turkey, Saudi Arabia, AfghanistanI think this could work except with different ideas here. Just make a list of strict neutrals that don’t fall either way if the OOB rules are enforced. I would make it a 2-3 space away rule where you would roll and or pay IPC to convert to your side.
11. Dice bonuses. On a dice roll of 1 (attack and defense) observe the following for the listed units:
-Fighters may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Tactical bombers may choose a ground unit as a casualty (land or sea)
-Cruisers may choose an air unit as a casualty
-Battleships may choose a surface vessel as a casualty (includes transports)
-Tanks may choose a ground target as a casualty
-Strategic bombers, (offense only) defender must choose 2 casualtiesSee no need for these rules. They change the game too much.
1. What you need is a replacement of the Technology Tree to something more realistic and dynamic. For example, tanks could start at 2-2-2, then 3-2-2, then 3-3-2. Perhaps just one change or two during the game not more. Planes could be the same thing. So all the ideas proposed could just go under Tech, which is optional anyway.
2. Adding elite armor ( either specialized trained units Waffen SS, Shock Armies, etc)
3. Adding Generals/Admirals ( one per front, not 50 of them) you would draw one per turn or something
4. Possibly a combined arms bonus ( for having air, mech, and infantry in the same battle)
5. Making submarines more stealth by giving them a special movement that makes their effect more unpredictable.
6. Dynamic neutral armies ( something more than X infantry)…Spain for example had air and naval units, but OOB just puts them as Infantry.
6. Dynamic neutral armies ( something more than X infantry)…Spain for example had air and naval units, but OOB just puts them as Infantry.
This is definitely needed.
Updated OP:
-edited enhanced air units and naval units
-removed enhanced air combat
-removed enhanced armor
-removed dice bonuses
3. Enhanced air units.
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers- -SBR at one D6 (no more adding to dice) No other change
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR
5. Enhance naval units
Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 15 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 gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not
unload units until its next turn.
I agree, a technology progression would rock, failing that, technologies that are worth getting would be better than what we have, even if we go from 12 back to 6.
Level 0)
Normal Mechanized Units
Level 1)
Improved Mechanized Units:
Level 2)
Improved Armored Units:
Level 3)
Blitzkrieg
Each level would inherit the levels before it. So if you had level 3, your tanks would cost 5, attack at 3, defend at 3 and your mechanized infantry would cost 4, attack 2, defend 2 and blitz like tanks.
Just an example, I’m not married to the example, but just something I was thinking of when IL said progression.
