1940 Cheaper Boats

@knp7765:

I thought the AA gun was counted among ground units. I know it’s used for defense against aircraft, but in the book it’s listed under the ground units section.

I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Also, if aircrafts prices are lower, then it is needed to get a lower price for AAA unit.

@Black_Elk:

Yeah I think it is, for the fodder aspect and the fact that it moves on the ground haha ;) though baron mentioned it in his list of units.

Right now I’m not sure I see a pressing need to change anything with aircraft. That stuff isn’t mentioned in the OOB game manual either. In my experience people by plenty of air already. Their movement ability gives them the edge and accounts for their cost in my view. But if you did want to do something to them 1 ipc less just seems easiest.

Thanks for the answer.
1 IPC redux makes sense because warship units at 12 or above were reduced by 3 IPCs while 8 IPCs and under were reduced by 1 IPC.
Since aircraft is a very useful unit on both Naval and land battle, a reduction, if needed, shouldn’t be higher than 1 IPC.

On the other side, OOB planes cost is 10, 11 and 12 IPCs. Is just between the high Capitals ships cost from 20 to 12, reduced by 3 IPCs and the smaller ships starting at 8 IPCs, reduced by 1 IPC.

So, the average between minus 3 IPCs and minus 1 IPC is a 2 IPCs cost redux.
This make Fighter at 10-2= 8 IPCs / Tactical Bomber at 11-2= 9 IPCs / Strategic Bomber at 12-2= 10 IPCs.

This could also be the “Advanced Airfield HR cost”, similar and in the same proportion than Advanced Shipyard.

Do you think their cost was based upon ground units or more based to balance Carrier operations?
Or was it based on a Battlecalc treshold?
or A lot of intuitive thinking and play-tests only?

Ground basis: combat value points (7 for Fg) + number of move minus 1 (4 move -1) = 10 IPCs
Same as Inf: 3+ 1 minus 1 = 3 IPCs

Or Carrier A 0 D2 Cost 16, 2 hits + 2 Fgs A6 D8 Cost 20 = A6 D10 4 hits Cost 36.
16 A/D points x 2 IPCs/ hit + 4 IPC for an additional hit = 36 IPCs

So a full carrier (36) is around - 10 % (-3 IPCs) with Improved Shipyard,
this means a 10 IPCs Fg should be reduced by 1 IPC.
This would put a Carrier at 13+18 = 31 IPCs

The Combo Cruiser (9 IPCs) + Destroyer (7 IPCs) = 16 IPCs is cheaper and as dangerous as 1 Battleship (17 IPC)
Clearly the winner in Advanced Shipyard.

@Baron:

I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

@CWO:

@Baron:

I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!

@knp7765:

@CWO:

@Baron:

I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!

The Table Tactics Hover Tank or the FA Hover tank would do nicely :-D

Scene from the Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator:

Benzino Napaloni: “Haven’t you heard of our new amphibious tanks that can roll on land, swim in the water and fly throught the air?”

Minister of Propaganda Garbitsch: “Oh, those.  They’ve been made obsolete by our new flying battleships.”

@CWO:

@Baron:

I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

I was aware that physically, an AAA is a ground unit and his categorized as such but as a game unit, his specialized role is the most related to aircrafts.
That’s why I said:
“their is the issue on all this 4 types of air-related units:
AAA, Fighter, Tactical Bomber and Strategic Bomber.”

In a game perspective, all units, except Subs, can attack planes but, only AAA can only attack aircrafts and nothing else.
So, the balanced price of the AAA units seems to depends on the cost values of his specific targets.

I rather say that it is this last assumption which needs to be scrutinize, is it true or false from a game perspective?

Since AAA have no other kind of target, if planes have a double average cost, such as 20 IPCs then AAA cost should follow at 10 IPCs.
If planes’ cost is halved at 6 IPCs, AAA cost should be halved at 3 IPCs.

Agree or disagree?

If you lowered the cost of aircraft, I would understand the logic of reducing the cost of aaaguns.

But I think I’m struggling to understand why the reduction in cost for ships requires a reduction in cost for aircraft?

If the only issue is cruiser to fighter parity, then I don’t follow. The fighters cost at 10 is justified by its movement and the fact that it can attack/defend on land. No one seems to have a problem purchasing tons of aircraft in this game, it’s the ships that need the cost reduction in my view. The air is already very potent

@Black_Elk:

If you lowered the cost of aircraft, I would understand the logic of reducing the cost of aaaguns.

But I think I’m struggling to understand why the reduction in cost for ships requires a reduction in cost for aircraft?

If the only issue is cruiser to fighter parity, then I don’t follow. The fighters cost at 10 is justified by its movement and the fact that it can attack/defend on land.No one seems to have a problem purchasing tons of aircraft in this game, it’s the ships that need the cost reduction in my view. The air is already very potent

All Naval units are lowered by either 3 IPCs or 1 IPC.
Their prices were originally from 6 IPCs to 20 IPCs.
All planes are also between this price range (10-11-12) but it is not the case for ground units since the upper units is Tank at 6 IPCs.
Planes works in both Naval and Land battle.

Your answer is based upon the number of purchase to determine if a fix is needed or not.
You say: since planes are popular they don’t need any change in cost.
Maybe it is the only factor we can find to know by intuition if aircrafts are at their due place in cost structure.

I was just asking if anyone have other criteria to say if it is OK or not.

Of course, BB and Cruiser weren’t not popular but we can find the underlying cause with BattleCalc and comparison.
It seems that planes escape that way of evaluation because a Calc can never judge the flying capacity advantage and simply consider that against grounds, aircraft combat value is similar to a ground unit, and against Naval it is similar to Naval units, with an exception: Subs.

Is there some way to see why an StB could be at a too low cost for 12 IPCs in OOB and should be put at 15 IPCs (as many claims), but can be at it is right place in Advanced Shipyard cost?

Or as you say on Cruiser A3 D3 for 6 Points being overpriced at 12 IPCs, but it was keeping the Naval cost ratio 1 combat point for 2 IPCs, or .5 point/IPC.
Is Advanced Shipyard based upon a 6 pts : 9 IPCs, or around 2 pts for 3 IPCs (.67) basis for 1 hit unit, instead? So Subs at 3:5 (.6), DD at 4:7 (.57).
Fg is at 7 pts : 10 IPCs (.7)

Compared to the most similar combat value: TcB A3-4 D3 at 11 IPCs, we can say TcB was probably near his right place.
But say that Fg were not and should have returned, at least, to their original Classic figure at 12 IPCs for A3 D4 M4.
Because his combat values were better and it was a much more versatile and can sometimes have a greater range (4 spaces, 2 back and forth).

Maybe we can also suppose that the trade off between cheapest planes (ex. Germans Fgs) against all Naval units (UK’s DDs protecting TPs) is determined by the minus 2 IPCs against planes. So loosing 1 unit on both side, is always in favor of the Naval.
Willing to keep this balance, so reducing DDs to 7 IPCs could imply that Fighter should not be 3 IPCs higher and must stay at 2 IPCs difference.

Just trying to figure it out a way to know where a balance cost for plane should be put.
Or how knowingly agree that somehow planes are now at a better cost structure inside Advanced Shipyard.

@EnoughSaid:

Baron Munchhausen,

I don’t think your calculator is counting carriers as a capital ship.
Let me put the BB vs carrier group battle this way:

Attacker: 2 x 4 pips, 2 hits before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 8. Total hits: 4
Defender: 2 x 4 pips + 1 x 2 pips, 1 hit before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 10. Total hits: 4
Even if they both hit twice first found, then it’s an even fight with two 4’s against each other.
The defending carrier group will be the winner the majority of the time in this battle.

On the submarines,
Offensive punch comparison between destroyer and submarine at original values was 3 IPC/pip (submarine) and 4 IPC/pip (destroyer), a gap of 33%.
If you reduce subs to 5 and destroyers to 7, it becomes 2.5 IPC/pip and 3.5 IPC/pip, a gap of 40%. It makes the submarines even stronger in comparison. This still might be deemed appropriate, but it’s not the direction I was aiming to go.

I’d love to test these and report back quickly, but I have no idea when my next game will be. I get to play a game once every two or three months, so you’ll have to get back to me with how your playtesting works!

To slightly expand the topic: Do you think reducing Tactical Bombers to a cost of 10 IPCs would be an appropriate accompaniment to this change? At the moment I really can’t decide, so I’m probably against it. It’s just an idea bouncing around in the head. But maybe it would be proper?

Sorry, I blindly input numbers in the Forum’s AABattlecalc, which consider Carrier as 1 hit (Spring 1942 value).

For the other question, I’m struggling with it, Black_Elk helping me.
Still no compelling reason one way or another.

Keeping Fg at 10, TcB put at 10 and STB stay at 12 IPCs?
Probably doesn’t impact the game, just make TcB buy more often to create some matching pair with Fg.
If thinking that a more historical game imply a mix of all planes, then I say put TcB at 10 IPCs.

How much would a one hit carrier change the pacific?

The reason I ask is because it’s so hard to get an edge offensively.  Two attack points against four defense points is stalemate city.

I know this isn’t a revelation just curious what people think.

_If you lowered the cost of aircraft, I would understand the logic of reducing the cost of aaaguns.

But I think I’m struggling to understand why the reduction in cost for ships requires a reduction in cost for aircraft?

If the only issue is cruiser to fighter parity, then I don’t follow. The fighters cost at 10 is justified by its movement and the fact that it can attack/defend on land. No one seems to have a problem purchasing tons of aircraft in this game, it’s the ships that need the cost reduction in my view. The air is already very potent_

Totally agree…but reduced the price of warship at half of the price it’s too much…

I really like the idea of ships being cheaper. This really makes the game play out better in the pacific since the allies biggest problem is all of Japans planes. The only real hick up I see from this is that it allows Germany to easily do sea lion. That and Japan would be a good deal stronger as well since he can build 4 transports turn 1. Couple a Germany sea lion with a Japan T3 DOW could be deadly. This is because Japan can now take all 5 Islands and Malaysia, and Germany can take UK much easier.

I think this is potentially the most interesting kind of purchase strategy we could look at under a new naval unit structure, the magnified transport drop. Axis is fairly straight forward, its potentially one more transport for Japan and Germany in the first round, or many more in the second. America would have the most significant cost savings in transports over the long term, since they float so many. But yeah, it does seem to offer the Axis the stronger opening initiative. That’s not necessarily a bad thing though, since much of the A&Agame builds around that idea (axis with the early strategic edge, allies with the long term economic edge.) A new balance might settle around these openers and conditions, though I haven’t played out enough games to see what it might look like in general. Could be a cool change of pace from OOB though.

One thing I like, is that the balance of ships feels much better vs aircraft, and especially as ROC noted Japan’s air. But it kind of works this way for everyone. Now aircraft are slightly more expensive on the trade vs ships, than they are OOB where air forces are so dominant over fleets. It is interesting though, the double carrier build and transport drop potential is exciting. Also magnified sub builds, or cruiser builds. It would be interesting to see how USA/Russia might react to a full Sea Lion under these conditions, and J1 4 transport spread. I think you’ve isolated some potent Axis buys under this cost structure  :-D

No dd for G might be a little risky. What if UK bids 2 subs in 111 and 110, dives immediately to attack the Cruiser on UK1 and then maybe pick off a carrier, if the cruiser duds, since air can’t hit back? Would you hold the Bismark in reserve as G for extra cover, or might some other Allied bid push your purchase in another direction? As UK would you even bother to scramble? Could a sub stack buy for UK hold the Germans at bay, if they bought no destroyer? I haven’t seen it play out enough times to judge yet. Just in solitaire openings in tripleA. But I have an FtF game planned on monday to try out the shipyard tech based costs for ships.

I don’t imagine that just changing the cost of ships alone will be able to correct balance, so you’d probably still be contending with the Allied bid options. Perhaps a higher bid? Hard to say. My preference would be for an adjustment in cost from the outset, but if you really wanted to restrict the first round, you could have Shipyards auto activate in the second round of gameplay. This eliminates some of the interest in first round purchases, but controls for Sea Lion somewhat. Not sure if I like it as much as shipyards cost from the start, but it might be an option there. Under such conditions, players would have an incentive to wait until the second round before making any major naval investment (to get the cost advantage) so they might first focus on air or ground, or save and push things out 1 round more on the naval game.

You could call this auto-tech for shipyards in round 2 the “Battle of the Atlantic rules” or “Graf Zeppelin rules” or “Deep Blue rules” or “Naval Race rules” whatever. Might work. Everyone auto-techs shipyards in the second round?

By working with the shipyards idea, you can keep the costs consistent with what’s written in the Game Manual, and just control for when it gets activated, ie when transports and ships become cheaper for everyone. Any drop in transport cost is going to involve this same problem (even if you went with the numbers posted originally in this thread), but the Shipyard technology allows an easy mechanism for when that drop off in cost might occur. I’m not a huge fan of rules that have a specific timeline (“happens in round such and such”), since I think that can add unnecessary complexity, but the OOB game balance being what it is, this might be the best option.

What seems best to you guys? Shipyards auto activated in round 1, round 2, or round 3?

Each round you push it out, the more the rule would favor Allies over Axis. It would probably coincide with a DoW in most cases, so you could associate the naval race with an escalation in hostilities between all powers on the map. Germany and Japan could still benefit from more late game naval potential, but with less risk of scripted Sea Lions, or scripted J 6VC wins.

Ps. Here is yet another way you could do it. Before every round a single die is rolled to determine whether shipyards is activated for all players.

Round 1 hits at 1 tech shipyards for all nations.
Round 2 hits at 2
Round 3 hits at 3
Round 4 hits at 4
Round 5 hits at 5
Round 6 automatic Shipyards.

This controls somewhat for Sea Lion by introducing the randomized element. Basically there is a 1 in 6 chance shipyards might be activated in the first round. Optimal Axis.  If they hit the 1, you might get to play out the cool Sea Lion type builds. If it fails, then as each round progresses, the odds of the autotech increase. The later the activation the better things get for Allies, on average, since their naval builds tend to kick into high gear as the war goes on and DoWs are more likely.

Whenever round it happens, both sides get the tech. So it’s roughly balanced by side, but with the random roll, you also give more variety to the gameplay. Any takers?

I like the idea of everyone getting shipyards round 2. This would take out some of the cheesier openings, and unlike your proposed option of rolling for it you’d auto get it for every country turn 2. Otherwise it is just a luck fest to see who gets shipyards first.

Well the proposal was for a single roll for the tech for all nations, not an individual roll for each nation separately. The turn order in this game is fixed, so even though the tech is activated for everyone at the same time, Germany would always get the initial benefit, since they go first in the turn order.

Basically it’s rolled for everyone on G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. On G 6 autotech shipyards for all is guaranteed.

Auto tech in round 2 would seem the easiest method, but for people who wand to add variety, the shipyards roll per round could provide it. It’s not a luckfest, the results are very predictable, since they mirror exactly a progressive 1d6 throw.

This would be a single die rolled for All nations (at once, together) to activate shipyards for all at the beginning of the round (together). The number which this die hits at is based on the game round.

Round 1 at 1 = 16.666%
Round 2 at 2 = 33.333%
Round 3 at 3 = 50%
Round 4 at 4 = 66.666%
Round 5 at 5 = 83.333%
Round 6 = 100% guaranteed Shipyard tech advance.

So you can see, the odds are no different for individual nations. Everyone is subject to the results of the same roll, it autotechs for everyone at the same time (the beginning of the game round.) This way there is no seeing “who gets it first” only seeing when everyone gets it, or seeing when the naval race begins in earnest for all players. This wouldn’t totally throw out the first round option, it would just drop the odds on it to about 16.67%.

I’m clearly cool with a round 2 auto activate for simplicity, but just wanted to offer another system that involves a roll for those who like to play it that way.  Under rolling conditions the more advantageous shipyards is to Axis per round, the more challenging the roll is. From the 3rd round on its 50/50 or better. In the 6th round, if it wasn’t already activated by then, there is no longer a need to roll, it autotechs for everyone at 100% 1d6 at a 6. Make sense?
So there is variability in the first 5 rounds, but always certainty during the end game. Eventually, after the 5th round, ships will be cheap for everyone, no matter what.