G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

So, the correct setting was only 1/6 per unit, either DD or TcB, for a single opportunity before Subs submerge.

This is interesting but I think that due to the size of sea zones, it should be for all fleets. In my current naval redesign, I made subs cheaper (4) and they attack and defend on a 1 (they were terrible at any kind of engagement where they were spotted) but they need to be spotted first. Surprise attack is still a 2.

I also halved the attack value of aircraft against vessels except for tactical bombers (which can be thought of as naval bombers as well) so fighters on a 2 and tac on a 3. Strategic bombers don’t have any use outside strategic attacks but strategic attacks matter more.

This means that air power needs volume to act as a deterrent.

Then I created a tech deck and you can develop radar and ASDIC to counter subs (centimetric radar was vital in the war of the atlantic as planes now could detect submarines far away and limit their on surface time which effectively hindered their ability to operate) and you can also develop Submarine tech to counter to some extent such advances (metox, decoys, snorkels, sonar ablative counters) and then the Type XXI and XXIII subs which can provide a new advantage if you are still in the battle of the Atlantic.

I also think that the rules for aerial combat from 1914 are the best ones yet and I kind of co-opted them. Planes can intervene only in the first round of combat and you can use TAC and fighters to attack enemy troops and there is a mandatory air superiority round (like the 1914 one) to decide intervention though both sides can scramble fighters and tac bombers to intervene in the ground combat.

I am in the process of revamping ground combat to a more interesting approach but I need to test a lot of things. Bottom line is that I always disliked the “one hit and you are out” system of A&A and I am trying things where units have multiple hit points and they represent army corps instead of divisions.

Here’s a couple of changes I am testing out so far (if anyone interested, we could arrange a tabletop simulator or another online platform game to try it out… It is quite a tedious process though as we aren’t playing a game really. Lots of testing, restarting, testing again):

When you buy an infantry corps, it has 3 disks under it (2 for Italy to represent their 2 brigade infantry divisions which in practice meant that their infantry formations were inherently weaker than French, British or German) and attack with 2 dice on a 1. Every hit, you remove one disc from under it. First disc is “free” and nothing much happens it just means that your infantry corps is getting disorganized. Second disc, you lose one attack die so now you only roll one die for attack. You need to pay 1IC per disc to recover org and strength. You lose another one and that unit is not combat effective anymore and wont roll any dice and another hit will remove it from the game (you will need to basically pay 3 IC to get it up to strength the advantage being that this inf corps will be at the frontline already).
This also means that Italian infantry after sustaining a single hit loses a lot of their grunt and in North Africa it seems to work quite well as the British with less apparent units can sustain themselves against Italy quite well especially on the defense since after the first round of combat, the Italians will lose a lot of their firepower and quickly becoming very ineffective.

The advantage of this is that for Operation Barbarossa in 1941, you can give a malus to the soviet infantry where they use only one die to represent the lack of organization due to the red army purges and whatnot meaning that the early german advance will be easier even with a numerical disadvantage (more on that on another post ^^).

I am also toying with the idea that combat is limited to 2 rounds (armored and mechanized units can fight an extra round) and then you need to pay with discs to push the attack representing lack of organization and attrition. It also changes the concept of Blitzkrieg for armoured units as it means that the concept of contested provinces gets introduced here (again, a great concept from 1914) and I want armoured units to be able to push through a contested province and attack the next one which can lead to encirclements.

This also seems to make (more testing needed to calibrate costs and stuff) your IC having to be split between building new units and maintaining the ones you have.

Artillery also work a bit differently and instead of increasing infantry attack, they have a pre-attack barrage which can hit on a 1 before combat starts. And I am toying with the idea of artillery in neighbouring provinces being allowed to take part in this bombardment. And they attack normally on a 2 afterwards.

Anyway, there are still many, many more changes I am working on (to do with the planning level of the game) and if there is any interest, I can discuss them.

On your vessel attacks by planes u said fig at 2 and Tac at 3. Is this the same for attacking subs ? Also Tac I believe should be AD@3 first round against a vessel then @1 rest of rounds. This is based on dropping there payload.
There is a lot of stuff here so it will make the game take longer to play.
Do u plan on having planes needing to find fleets or even a single surface ship ?

@SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

On your vessel attacks by planes u said fig at 2 and Tac at 3. Is this the same for attacking subs ? Also Tac I believe should be AD@3 first round against a vessel then @1 rest of rounds. This is based on dropping there payload.
There is a lot of stuff here so it will make the game take longer to play.
Do u plan on having planes needing to find fleets or even a single surface ship ?

well, that is an interesting idea and I need to test things out. I was thinking of giving planes only one attack and then they would have to withdraw.

The game being longer to play is not necessarily bad. As it is it is too long for what it offers imho. Adding extra mechanics can make the game longer but more interesting.

Yes. They would provide a bonus (instead of a 3 roll on a 4 or something) but they would need to find it. Also, Limiting planes to a single sea zone away from shore is another thing I am thinking off. Replicating the Atlantic Gap and the air gaps in the pacific (maybe Japanese fighters early war have long range by default allowing for 2 sea zones worth of movement).

@SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

{snip}
Also Tac I believe should be AD@3 first round against a vessel then @1 rest of rounds. This is based on dropping there payload.
{snip}

I don’t mean this to be a personal attack against you, SS-GEN, so please don’t take what I have to say that way.

That said, I have an issue with this idea that bombers, both tactical and strategic, lose their effectiveness after the first round of battle. Turns are supposed to represent months of time, not just one battle over the course of a day. Committing your Air Wing or Numbered Air Force to a battle over a piece of ground or sea that last for months doesn’t consist of making one bombing run, it consists of repeated bombardments over the course of time.

In the run-up to the invasion of Normandy, from late April to June 6th and beyond, UK and US strategic bombers conducted attacks on 72 different rail yards and flew “… 2,198 sorties were flown to sow mines in enemy waters either side of the invasion corridor, and at the mouths of harbours sheltering German motor-torpedo boats (E-boats) and submarines.” (Source: UK Imperial War Museum, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/d-day-and-the-aerial-battle-for-normandy)

When you commit strategic bombers to your attack on the Normandy territory, you are unleashing those attacks against rail yards, slowing the movement of tank units to the front lines. You are sowing those mines, to prevent German torpedo boats from attacking the transports holding your troops.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, WW2 wasn’t fought in a day, so assuming that your strategic bombers drop one load and quit fighting for that turn afterwards is absurd from a historical perspective. If you desire that strategic bombers be better at bombing industrial complexes than ground troops or ships at sea, I hope your desire springs from a game-balance perspective. It is my studied opinion that there is no historical basis for such a thing.

-Midnight_Reaper

Non takin. Well I do disagree with you but IMO.
Didn’t mention but the Tac gets to pick his target first turn.

Planes shouldn’t win all the battles. A stg bomber A@4 every round is just crazy.
Bombers weren’t that accurate.
I can see maybe a stg b getting 2 rounds but then aa guns should get a second round of defense roll against planes too based on your time frame of battles.
I’ve been playing the 1 round stg bomber with 3 dice rolled and Tac dive rolling first round pick target then AD at a lower rate based on there guns only. In games for a long time now.

I do have I believe what your getting at for planes and ships in all combat rounds. Dog fighting and ship aa.

So anyway we probably will never agree on some issues but it comes down to what you want for your game play. I try to go historic as much as possible if it works in the game.

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

On your vessel attacks by planes u said fig at 2 and Tac at 3. Is this the same for attacking subs ? Also Tac I believe should be AD@3 first round against a vessel then @1 rest of rounds. This is based on dropping there payload.
There is a lot of stuff here so it will make the game take longer to play.
Do u plan on having planes needing to find fleets or even a single surface ship ?

well, that is an interesting idea and I need to test things out. I was thinking of giving planes only one attack and then they would have to withdraw.

The game being longer to play is not necessarily bad. As it is it is too long for what it offers imho. Adding extra mechanics can make the game longer but more interesting.

Yes. They would provide a bonus (instead of a 3 roll on a 4 or something) but they would need to find it. Also, Limiting planes to a single sea zone away from shore is another thing I am thinking off. Replicating the Atlantic Gap and the air gaps in the pacific (maybe Japanese fighters early war have long range by default allowing for 2 sea zones worth of movement).

Well we had in a game sea planes. Big and small. M4 and M6. If plane could reach sz then needed to roll a 3 or less to find ship etc…
The SM M4 plane could only land on a carrier. BG M6 plane could land on land only.
Then based on time of war your fig could find fleet I think starting on turn 4 then after a certain turn later in war game no need to find ships.

I remember there was some times u couldn’t find the fleet for 2 or 3 turns. Just throwing stuff I’ve played with towards ya.

Update to 2.654

Adds a few Naval Units to Germany, UK and Japan to keep from breaking RD 1 battles when using the 2 Shot BB and CAs and the C5 DDs.

Also made Newfoundland British for the Canada Mod.

@barnee said

Also made Newfoundland British for the Canada Mod.

That a Baron move ? Lol

@SS-GEN

heh heh actually I think it might been AA gamer. I can’t remember. Pretty sure he’s mentioned it at some point tho. Or i asked him to clarify : )

@SS-GEN that is another kettle of fish altogether. I am trying not to go into new sculpts (or ways to identify new units) as that is another headache altogether and for now using Fighters as fighter/CAS, TAC as TAC/NAV and STR as STR.

I think an attack on ships should be preceeded by an AA defense equal to half the ship’s defense.

And I like the idea of TAC/NAV being allowed to chose target.

Another thing I thought of was to fix a scale for the units in game so we can have some more interesting OOB.

I think that each ship should represent 2 or 3 real ships and I like the idea that capital ships should take multiple turns to build…

I am going to organize and playtest some of my ideas sometime this week focusing on the naval side first. Will come back with the outcome of them.

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@SS-GEN that is another kettle of fish altogether. I am trying not to go into new sculpts (or ways to identify new units) as that is another headache altogether and for now using Fighters as fighter/CAS, TAC as TAC/NAV and STR as STR.

I think an attack on ships should be preceeded by an AA defense equal to half the ship’s defense.

And I like the idea of TAC/NAV being allowed to chose target.

Another thing I thought of was to fix a scale for the units in game so we can have some more interesting OOB.

I think that each ship should represent 2 or 3 real ships and I like the idea that capital ships should take multiple turns to build…

I am going to organize and playtest some of my ideas sometime this week focusing on the naval side first. Will come back with the outcome of them.

Ya kinda figured but was more or less another idea and without tech radar or whatever u could still find subs and ships if u didn’t want tech.
Be nice to see tacdiv get to pick target
Tac AD@3 first round pick target. Then AD@2 rest of rounds with AD chooses casualty.

OK we wait on your test results.

We like people who playtest :)

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

I think an attack on ships should be preceeded by an AA defense equal to half the ship’s defense.

And I like the idea of TAC/NAV being allowed to chose target.

Another thing I thought of was to fix a scale for the units in game so we can have some more interesting OOB.

Any level of AA which is higher than up to @1 on aircraft, is going to create a lot of aircraft attrition. I saw this happened many times in various playtests. So, it implies to compensate for the accelerate losses of aircraft. Keeping 10-11-12 IPCs values is too high and was balanced for a game which was meant to shield aircraft casualties in many many ways.

As I wanted something like 1914 dogfight for Fighter while TcB being able to target enemy’s ground units (at least, but I’ve tried just 2 times with targeting warships too: need more playtests on that point ). I developed my own working house rule but on 1942.2. It works relatively well. But cannot say for G40 kind of scale.

Fighter are A2 D2 M4 Cost 7, always hit aircraft first if any present, as long as there is on the opposite side.
TcB are A3 D2 M4 Cost 8, pick any ground target as casualty upon a successful hit.

I hope you will see how this going in the direction you intend to implement.
The 1914 dogfight mechanic can somehow be working each combat round, as long as you have Fighter remaining on any side.

Just note that Tank A3 D3 C6 have better odds, so it happens very often when trying to take a needed TT, Fighters were sacrificed along the battle so to keep better odds and the opportunity to conquer the TT.

HTH, wish you luck to find the adequate numbers for your game.

@baron-Münchhausen Yeah… 1 Might be enough. It depends. It depends on the size of each individual unit. It might be better to give more AA dice to Battleships and carriers since these ships usually had quite a decent AAA complement.

Aircraft on the other hand (besides strat bombers) are too expensive imho. So it might be interesting to lower their prices.

Hmmmm…
Maybe fighter/Cas have a 2:2 value with no malus on air superioriry, TAC a 3:3 but 1 in air to air operations and Strat have no attack value but a defense of 2 in air operations (a box of B-17s was a tough nut to crack).

Yeah, I think I will playtest these changes as well. Writting a small piece of software so I can make this easy as possible.

Is there a kind of calculator like this already made? it would save me the trouble.

Just to let you know based on Fig being the same Defense value as a Inf in playing the Fig was to weak. But this is based on more Inf in a game or battles.
Now Baron has mentioned it works OK in 42 game. G40 maybe not.
As far as ship AA it should be no more than 1 but for not every ship based on barnee’s play testing.
For every Carrier ya give them AA @1 plane.

Not trying to deter any buddy’s play testing here . I’m just telling you based on my game what works and happens.
Yes my Battleships and Cruisers do get 2 shots each per round. I use d12. More room compared to d6.
Battleship C14 AD@8 + a roll of 1 gives them a AA hit on a plane too.
Cruiser C10 M3 AD@6 + a roll of 2 or less gives them a AA hit on a plane too.
So basically the big guns hitting ships while AA picks off a plane every now and then. This is for every round of combat. Now I believe barnee based on each getting a d6 AA @1 was to strong and he gave each ship a d12 dye roll for AA in triple A.
With d6 you would need to adjust this.

From playing there’s not as many planes killed by ships than you would think. But with Carriers getting a AD@4 against a plane only helps the fleets on defense more if you don’t bring carriers to attack also.

Of course all my planes cost 8. As Baron mentioned in his play tests and what happened in war a lot of planes where killed, crashed or lost.

Plus figs and tacs/dives can hit each other in each combat round with after first round of combat you can retreat as many planes as an Attacker or Defender.

Fig C8 AD@5 + if roll is a 2 or less get a plane kill too.
Tac C8 AD@6 pick target First round then AD@4 + if roll is a 1 get a plane kill too. Attacker or defenders choice.
Stg B. C8 A3 @3 one round only. D @2. DF@1

With Tacs and Dive Bombers getting a pick target is a awesome thing in games. Times you need to save a fig or the Tac Dive are scarificed.
Iv’e seen huge fleet battles with planes and only a few planes killed on each side with AA and DF per battle.
With Planes hitting planes on ground battles too this helps Russia some too but based on your setup of planes.
But still nice in any battle where a plane gets killed and you force the A or D to pick a plane. Idea here’s is to implement all scenarios of the battles. Some may disagree but its the middle ground across the board.
As mentioned not trying to deter anybody else’s play testing or suggestions. I only post ideas and outcomes based on game play and what and how Iv’e seen it work.
Other wise I had my say and I’ll butt out if you need me too.

This is just some ideas that you may want to try.
We been playing this way now for 2 years.

Yes with Baron and Barnee in the mix they can give you better imput based on there play of 42 or 40 game.

Oh by the way what is the 1914 plane plane and or ship rules you guys are talking about ?

@SS-GEN
1914 rulebook p. 19:

Step 2. Determine Air Supremacy
If fighters are present on both sides, there must be an air battle to determine who has air supremacy. Each side rolls one die for each of his or her fighters. For each die roll of 2 or less, one enemy fighter is removed (after both players have rolled). Unlike the land battle itself, the air supremacy battle continues until one side has established air supremacy by eliminating all the enemy’s fighters. Additional rounds of fire are conducted until one or both sides have no fighters remaining.

If one side gains air supremacy either by being the only one with any fighters left, or was the only one to have any fighters at all, he or she gains air supremacy. The player with air supremacy immediately promotes all of his or her artillery to the box that reads “Artillery with Air Supremacy Support”. Air supremacy provides your side with a high altitude reconnaissance advantage… a bird’s eye view of the battlefield if you will.

In addition to gaining promoted artillery, the side with air supremacy also gets to roll for their remaining fighter(s) against the enemy’s land units in one of the next two steps.

1914 Fighter is A2 D2 M2 Cost 6, and plays the whole Dogfight phase, then goes to land combat.
In my 1942.2 houserule Fighter A2 D2 M4 Cost 7 targeting aircraft first, both phase are played simultaneously. And when one side gets air supremacy, the Fighter’s rolls are simply applied normally against enemy’s surviving land units.

@SS-GEN Thanks a lot for the info. I don’t want to use different dice than the D6 as one of my points with my mods is that it can be done by anyone (hence wanting to stay away from new sculpts).

I don’t mind fighters/CAS to be seen as worse than infantry. Frankly, they should be. They should be a force multiplier that can be called upon from further away and temporarily increase the fighting potential of the infantry. If you build more infantry and give the opponent air supremacy then you get punished.

But I am getting ahead of myself here ^^

For now I am going to focus on the Naval aspect. Finding fleets, new movement and convoy raiding, revised stats and costs and time to build.

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@baron-Münchhausen Yeah… 1 Might be enough. It depends. It depends on the size of each individual unit. It might be better to give more AA dice to Battleships and carriers since these ships usually had quite a decent AAA complement.

Yeah, I think I will playtest these changes as well. Writting a small piece of software so I can make this easy as possible.

Is there a kind of calculator like this already made? it would save me the trouble.

What kind of calculator are you looking for? For which purpose?
In Triple A, once the unit combat values are set right, there is a working Battlecalculator.

Otherwise, to set a roster of combat units strength value based on attack/defense power compared to cost, there is a different Excel file.

You are right about how it depends on how we set the narrative about units interactions and “number of individuals” represented by a unique sculpt.

There is many different ways. Which can either be influenced by the tactical scale of combat (a single sortie of StB wings, for instance) or rather the strategic level of theatre of operations (a two to three months long of constant carpet bombing).

For instance, in Subwarfare developed around Destroyer A1 D1 M2 Cost 5 into Triple A Redesigned HR, Submarines always fire a Surprise strike each combat round even if a Destroyer is present.

One way to read this into a logical narrative is to figure it is up to a 3 months campaign and Subs are the best at taking a Surprise shot at any warships crossing their crossfire’s scope.

However, the Triple A mechanic was done so each TcB and DD gets 1 roll @1 prior to Subs surprise strike to act like active AntiSubmarine patrol both air and sea. If missed, means Subs has passed through the net. And only time DD get their opportunity to fire at them is after Subs revealed themselves through a Surprise attack of torpedos. However, if DD or TcB get a hit during this AS Patrol, it is like a AA gun. Subs are not able to roll at all. It is like they were caught off gard at surface and DD or TcB depth charge and sink them.

If you see where I’m going.

Update to 2.656

Fix damaged battleships not repairing.

@baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

However, the Triple A mechanic was done so each TcB and DD gets 1 roll @1 prior to Subs surprise strike to act like active AntiSubmarine patrol both air and sea. If missed, means Subs has passed through the net. And only time DD get their opportunity to fire at them is after Subs revealed themselves through a Surprise attack of torpedos. However, if DD or TcB get a hit during this AS Patrol, it is like a AA gun. Subs are not able to roll at all. It is like they were caught off gard at surface and DD or TcB depth charge and sink them.

Yeah… My idea for my rework revolved around DD making an ASW check if subs decide to do a surprise attack. If successful, the submarines will be sunk.

This will tie in with a change to the convoy system as well. I like the convoy system in global but I think it doesn’t represent strategically what the opposing forces were doing.

I like the idea of having a “convoy” unit representing merchant fleets and have different nations having to contribute to build up that force or risk shortages. The UK had about 30 million tons of cargo capacity at war start and needed about 1/3rd of that capacity at sea to keep fighting at full capacity iirc (They needed around 30 million tons a year of imports so with 1/3rd of the fleet at sea we get about that yearly).

So I want to have the ability to spend money on convoys and escorts and the uboats reducing that amount with successful attacks. Kind of bringing a bit more of the strategic humpf to this boardgame.

I like DDs with a 2:2 value as I think it is fitting. Submarines are downgraded to 1:1 but they will also cost a lot less like 4 or even 3.
Their impact will also be more over time than immediate.

Sooo many things to try out…