G40 naval ideas

It looks interesting and internally balanced – I’m curious whether there’s anything in particular you’re trying to accomplish by having more expensive, more aggressive cruisers and battleships.

For better or worse, each of your ships has a very specific purpose. For example, the battleship would only be useful if you are planning on repeatedly absorbing casualties and repeatedly launching amphibious invasions – if you’re just fighting one big sea battle, you probably want 2 destroyers and 1 submarine for your 23 IPCs, because they’ll give you 3 hit points and 6 pips on offense instead of 2 hit points and 5 pips on offense. Similarly, if you’re just maximizing your bombardments, much better to have 3 cruisers for 45 IPCs (12 points of bombardment) vs. 2 battleships for 46 IPCs (10 points of bombardment).

My biggest grief with the modern A&A pricing scheme is that ships cost too much relative to fighters and bombers, meaning that you should avoid trying to project power by sea unless you have no other realistic options. For example, if I have a land-based air force of 3 fighters and 3 tac bombers, it’s impossible for you to construct any combination of units (for the same price) involving any sea units that will out-perform my air force. It doesn’t matter if you stack fighters on a carrier, or spam destroyers, or mix destroyers and battleships, or what – I will still get better results on a per-IPC basis with my planes than you will. This is true even if you are building 100% warships – when you start trying to mix transports into your fleet, the odds go even more strongly in favor of air power.

I don’t see that your pricing scheme does anything to address that particular pet peeve of mine.

Historically speaking air power should give you more bang to the buck than naval power.

One of the basic problems with A&A in terms of naval power is that the game system pays little attention to the concept of logistics, and therefore largely ignores one of the fundamental functions of sea power: moving vast quantities of goods economically over large distances (and from wartime producers like the US to wartime consumers like Britain that are separated by an ocean).  The main point of cargo ships in WWII was to move those goods, and one of the main purposes of combat ships was to get command of the sea in order to protect the cargo ships on their side and to prevent the movement of cargo ships on the enemy side.

Combat ships in A&A look distorted because their function (in relation to the economic aspects of the war) is downplayed and simplified compared to what it was in WWII, given that the larger concept of logistics is itself downplayed and simplified.  There are only traces of those WWII elements in the game: the fact that convoy disruption affects IPC income; the fact that ships can attack each other (including the possibility of submarines attacking transport ships); and the fact that transport ships can transport certain units.  But generally speaking, the logistical / economic aspects of WWII are (in fairness, like many other aspects of WWII in the game) very simplified and abstracted.

Just to give an example: if these elements were modeled more realistically, two naval campaigns of WWII would become crucially important in the game.  On the Europe side, the outcome of the war would be greatly affected by the Allied need to send supplies to Britain across the Atlantic, and by the German need to cut that economic lifeline with their submarine fleet.  On the Pacific side, the outcome of the war would be greatly affected by the Japanese need to send raw materials (chiefly oil) to Japan from the Dutch East Indies, and by the American need to cut that economic lifeline with their submarine fleet.  Those needs, in turn, would would pressure the convoying side to devote more resources to anti-submarine warfare and convoy escorting.  That would mainly involve destroyers and (if the game had them) escort carriers, since full-blown fleet carriers are an expensive solution to providing air cover at sea.  In WWII, destroyers were effective at protecting convoys against submarines, but were out-gunned against heavier warships.  Arguably,therefore,  if A&A paid more attention to the economic importance of shipping, the cruiser might become an attractive unit for convoy warfare, both as an attacker and a defender: a surface-warfare unit that’s more powerful than a destroyer and cheaper than a battleship.

@Young:

1 American battleship in SZ 110

How about another UK battleship in SZ110 instead? I don’t think there were any American surface war ships there in 1940.

My humble opinion is that I think it best to leave the Navy purchases alone as we’re really used to them by now. I think the bid system is well known and utilized as a the “unofficial” way to balance an OOB G40 game.

Pro: Increased ship costs would be more accurate compared to aircraft. It might be another way to balance the game as this means mostly the US will be able to afford a navy. Italy will almost never be able to afford a navy beyond some destroyers/subs. Japan will have a hard time purchasing capital ships; especially battleships. I think the @5 roll almost makes a battleship as good as a loaded carrier cause it’s almost guaranteed to get hits. At that expensive price, as a US player, I’d buy them due to the @5 hit factor. With the more expensive ship costs, Japan might have to decide on fighting for the ocean with lower level land purchases (infantry, not mechs/tanks ect.).

Con: On the flip side, this might Un-Balance the game even more. Some well place German subs to soak hits and a stack of German bombers could take out a very expensive US fleet in a much more economically lopsided battle. Since a Navy would be so much more expensive and therefore more precious, it might take a lot longer for the US to safely go anywhere on the Europe side.

im surprised we aren’t looking the other direction and pricing

ss tt dd ca cv ba

5  6 7 10  16 18

transports are too expensive and don’t carry enough pieces, though a tweak on this account might requires some rebalancing on the start to avoid unfairness.

destroyers you need so many of these…

cruisers are not a good deal for 12 or 11, but maybe at 10 people would buy them?

carriers are the most useful and flexible thing to buy defense/offense they seem correctly priced and statted

or going the other direction battleships and destroyers is more efficient on your planes I’ve been defeated in 42.2 many times by 3 BBs and 6 DDs…

ships are stuck on the water and there are no victory cities, capital cities or income on the water….

@taamvan:

ships are stuck on the water and there are no victory cities, capital cities or income on the water….

That’s the point that I’ve been trying to get across in my tutorials. As much fun as it is to buy lots of boats and have big naval battles it’s mostly just a waste of money. The only reason you need warships is to protect your transports so that you can ferry ground troops who have the ability to actually conquer land (money), capitals, and victory cities. The only other thing they’re good for is killing your opponents transports and convoying. The game is all about land and money.

Great discussion topic.

Some thoughts below from my recent implementation of a Global War variant.

As usual, both Argothair and CWO Mark are on-target. In light of similar concerns, I’ve developed and tested a number of new mechanics to make naval warfare more interesting and useful.

First, convoy zones are boxes out at sea rather than in coastal zones that can be easily defended by aircraft. A player that wants to prevent convoy raiding must devote naval units to defending these boxes, which represent merchant sea lanes.

Second, aircraft stats are revised so that each unit has separate attack and defense factors for ground/sea and air targets. Players declare which targets their air units are attacking or defending against before each round of combat. Fighters are medicore ground attackers, whereas tactical bombers excel in that role but have a measley 1 defense against aircraft on a 1d10.

Third, I added significantly more sea zones and adjusted movement capabilities so that the greater relative speed of cruisers and destroyers gives them added versatility over heavier battle wagons.

Fourth, I added both Naval Combat Search and Evasion mechanics. Would-be attackers must first search for enemy vessels in a hostile sea zone before combat occurs. On a failed search, both players occupy the same space but nothing happens that turn. A search can be improved by bringing along air units, especially sea planes. Evasion works in reverse: a player seeking to move through a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat must perform an Evasion, with bonuses granted to submarines.

Naval Combat Searches add a terrific element to gameplay because they impose greater risks on those who choose to attempt combat without imposing too steep a cost (since an attacking fleet would presumably have the advantage over a putative defender in the first place).

Fifth, I added an AA mechanic to cruisers and battleships, which now fire against enemy air units on a paired basis, hitting on a 3 or less. If a cruiser is in company with a capital ship, it can Support, raising both unit’s air defense values to 4.

Sixth, I gave carriers an anti-air defense of 3 but zeroed out their defense against other sea units.

Seventh, I added battlecruisers, which are superior to cruisers but weaker than battleships in terms of defense values (6/5 versus 6/7). Battlecruisers may move 2 spaces, while battlecruisers move 3, cruisers move 3, and destroyers move 4. Fleet carriers move 2, whereas escort carriers move 1.

Here is my problem with two of your units, carriers have no offensive abilities so why give them an attack as one? Are there any case of a carrier committing offensive ability on its own? Second, transports defense of 0. Again, this is pointless, they should have some ability to defend. Even if you go to the most unlikely event, say 1 fighter vs 100 transports. No way one fighter would slaughter 100 transports but in this game, they do.

Caesar Seriona, the transports were revised to have 0 defense because otherwise it is possible to build so many transports that other ships become worthless. Build enough transports, and the odds will ensure that you hit hard every round of combat. Argothair taught me that.

One solution I came up with, borrowed (I think) from HBG’s 1936 Global, was for transports to have a single shot against attacking aircraft but no naval defense. This discourages lone fighters from trying to pick off large fleets.

Yeah exactly. Another huge problem I have with this game is as said in the other forms, that units should have different attacks and defense against certain units. Transport craft in WWII have basic defense abilities against aircraft and fast attack craft so I still argue that it should have a defense of 1 for the sake of logic in this game.