G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

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

Am thinking about adding an option for Air/Naval bases. Airfield would only be able to scramble 3 if no damage. 1 damage can scramble 2 and 2 damage only 1.

Naval base can repair unlimited ships if no damage. Only 2 ships if 1 damage and 1 ship if 2 damage.

Might encourage bombing them more. Idk

Sounds an interesting way to emphasized the importance of keeping facilities undamaged and fully operational.

You are the wizard of the code. You are probably one amongst the few which can do such into Triple A.

I’m expecting more free time soon.

Hope to have a real time to toy with your development.

@baron-Münchhausen

heh heh that’s kind of you to say baron. But my approach is more like throwing spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks : )

Actually I’m not sure if triplea can do that or not but I’m gonna look into it

@barnee
LOL.
You got me. 😊

Update to 2.651

Adds Map Option
19)BB and CA 2 Shot Recommended for use with “Option Redesign” and “Convoy and Blockade”. Battleships now have 2 shots at 4 when attacking or defending and Cruisers have 2 shots at 3. BB Bombard at 2 shots at 2 and CAs 2 shots at 1.

If necessary, can be used to prevent DDC5 spammage

Update to 2.652

Adds when a BB is damaged it may only roll once. Also you must turn off “LHTR Heavy Bombers” in “map options” before game start or it will still roll twice but only use the best one.

One idea I had ages ago was to make a check whenever you enter a sea are containing enemy naval units to see if you can even detect them (these sea areas are huge). You would need a 2 to detect submarines and a 3 to detect surface vessels.

I am also revamping ground combat to account for more protracted conflicts and change the way armoured and mechanized corps interact with the map. This is kind of based on the 1914 rules with a few ideas of my own to do with how defensible each different unit is or how organized it was.

Every couple of years I feel like playing A&A Global but problem is that the game’s design is kind of dated and there are some new offerings which just add to the metagame and make it so much more interesting though they don’t do scale quite as well as A&A does.

@mAIOR
Hi mAIOR,

we actually use somekind of this idea in Triple A G40 Redesigned House rules, which Barnee constantly update, about detecting Sub, then attacking them.

I played an old A&A rules which was named WWII The expansion. The first booklet developed a combat phase named: Air search communication and combat. Each aircraft (fighters and bombers) were rolling and a “2” and less resulted in spotting Subs in the given SZ. Then, each aircraft proceed to attack. Either @3 for Fighter and @4 for Bomber. However, all other naval units were always visible.

In the Redesigned HR suggested in TripleA, Subs can be spotted and sunk on a “1” only by an Antisubwarfare roll by either Destroyer A1 D1 M2 Cost 5 or a Tactical bomber A3-4 D3 M4. This roll is prior to the Submarine’s Surprise Strike. It is a one shot opportunity before Subs can submerge to not being engaged in a Naval Battle.

This 1/6 roll come out from 2/6 (to search and spot) x 3/6 (to hit with an aircraft). So, 6 out 36 or 1/6 explains this very small odds of sinking a Sub by air, with only Tactical Bomber, or by Destroyer.

We tried to allow Fighter this capacity, but the attrition rate among Subs was too much. And since, Subs cannot retaliate against aircraft, it was not funny at all to see them sunk with no chance of defending themselves.

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

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

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.
**Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.**

As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies. Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.
If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?

Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.

Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle.  :-D

About AA guns, here is the link to a thread which explains my most recent idea and showed many quotes from other people in various thread. Food for thought. :)
Two simpler and balanced ways to handle AAA unit (Antiaircraft artillery)?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36277.msg1433338#msg1433338

I just found that Larry suggested a similar AAA unit on Alpha+.1 brainstorm.
I believe anything similar should be tried to solve AAA issue.

Let me be the first one to post on this “Theorycrafting” site.

Flak guns… Just a fancy name for AA-Guns. Flak guns are a new unit. Each would be based on the historical weapon used by the different powers (TBD for sure). Hey, in other words its a new unit that has its own Attack/Defense numbers. Its own cost. It’s own capabilities and use. For example the numbers may look something like this:

Cost 5

Attacks: No attack power

Defense: Only aircraft that are attacking land units in which the Flak gun is located can be shot at. Flak guns can only roll 1 die but can roll for each round of combat, just like other units. Each Flak gun in a territory can roll up to 2 dice per round if under attack by at least 2 aircraft or more. They can be chosen as a casualty. They scores hits by rolling 1s.

Movement 1

Special notes: A player may have as many Flak guns per territory as he wishes.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062

My own idea on AAA wasn’t that far.

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY A0 D1 M1 Cost 4, 1 hit,
Each round, up to 1 preemptive defense @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser, works similar to OOB AAA but can defend each combat round.
Stop any blitz, and defend itself @1 against enemy’s ground units, if no attacking air unit is present.
Can move during combat move phase, can be taken as casualty (owner’s choice).

Talking AAA for changing.
With the help of Barnee (thanks man), I run a few test on 1942.2 V5 Triple A.
The AAA was
Attack 0
Defense 1
Hit 1
Move 1, both combat and non-combat
Capacity: preemptive 1 @1 against up to 2 aircraft
Cost 3

I found that in major battle, with a massive opening round attrition, there is only a few if not at all Infantry surviving. In such cases, I understood why Larry decided to not give any regular defensive capacity at all. Instead, he increase the antiaircraft capacity to up to 3 rolls. In essence, it means that on average AAA survived a round and a half. In that case, giving these rolls in the preemptive phase of the whole battle is to be certain that all AAA have the opportunity of opening fire at aircraft. If it was a regular roll at aircraft, we cannot be so sure that these unit reaches the second or third combat round, meaning a single roll would have been shot.

So, make it only preemptive shots was elegant and simplify the regular combat round: each casualties are similar and left to owner’s choice.

However, at 5 IPCs it was a high cost for a unit which can be dodge pretty easily by not sending aircraft. Making it a pure buffer unit, in essence. Only good for absorbing hits to save other units, like a Battleship, but with no retaliation guns. This seemed broken to me. Or make AAA only good for the main theater battles over VC territory or important IC.

By reducing to 3 PU or IPCs as low cost as an Infantry, it provides a better feel of bunker and defensive fortifications which can be afford to lose on front line, as Infantry are used to be traded.

By giving a small Defense 1, in regular battle, it cuts the capacity to dodge it. It may defend by itself. No need to add more units in the territory. So it remains usable as a cheap fodder. And “1” are still clearly associated with this unit.

So, for balance, at best AAA would have the potential to roll 3 times @1. 2 in the preemptive phase and 1 the regular. 3 pips potential. This is mostly even with Infantry A1-2 D2 but you always get 3 pips in all situations and sometimes 4 when combined. I feel it is ok, since the fear of loosing an aircraft in the opening phase which embodied the AAA unit worth something after all.

Now, here is the interesting narrative part I discovered by toying a few game tests over it. Because of the potential of firing at aircraft, you may want to preserve this unit: if hope is high of winning the fight. But, there is a cost. You sacrifice at least 1 pip of defense (compared to Infantry or Artillery). This little 16,7% odds can sometimes make a true difference in the early combat rounds. By loosing Infantry over an AAA, I can read this tactical situation as the commander is not willing to lose or abandon a defensive entrenched line but at a cost. More soldiers have to pay dearly to keep this fortified position assuming that holding the fort will provide the upper hand the next season or month, if enemy is trying again an assault on that position.

I see this hard choice as an interesting dilemma which happens more often because Powers can purchase more of them.

And don’t be afraid about spamming, by giving no attack values, it is a warranty that Infantry mobility and attack capacity remains much needed.

If you don’t want these kind of dilemma during casualty selection. I believed this type of AAA will fit the deal where is more PUs ressources, like G40:

AAA
Attack 0
Defense 2
Hit 1
Move 1, both combat and non-combat
Capacity: preemptive 1 @1 against up to 2 aircraft
Cost 4

@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 :)