G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@LHoffman:

I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.
Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

@Baron:

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

In my opinion, yes. Having a Tac improve a tank’s hit to @4 seems a bit too much. And if there are no hits assigned to armor directly, it means tanks will be hitting @4s for potentially the whole battle, as long as your Tacs can survive.

It is also like a 2 for 1 bonus because a tank also increases a Tacs attack to 4… I just see loads of carnage from these two very cheap @4 hit platforms.

@Baron:

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

You are getting closer. It all comes down to how well the rules work in gameplay. Unfortunately the only way to assess that is at least a couple playtests. If your method works better then I am all for it.

What I was getting at by assigning any Tac rolls of 1 to hit tanks first was to build on your tagline of the Tac as a “tank buster”. Even in the rules you just revised, Tac rolls of 1 will still go against fighters and AA before tanks. My concern is twofold: (1) air forces are going to be obliterated with 3 unit types essentially targeting them and (2) tactical bombers were just that, bombers, not fighters. Their mission is not air superiority but land/sea attack. To be accurate their assigned hits should go to specific ground units, i.e. tanks.

Also, air superiority was not a necessity for ground/sea attack by tactical bomber aircraft. The Soviets did not have total air superiority at Kursk, yet their Sturmovik attack aircraft destroyed huge numbers of German tanks. US planes in the Pacific rarely had complete air superiority when attacking Japanese held islands or ships, yet dive and torpedo bombers were able to successfully attack their ground targets; sometimes even without fighter support.

Your system is logical, but I fear it is becoming a little too complicated. It is understandable, but there are multiple steps and if-thens to check up on during the battle. I think if it were simplified down to:
_- Fighter rolls of 1 and 2 assigned to aircraft first, then AA

• Tac rolls of 1 assigned to (pick a land unit) first, then anything else_

you would have a more straightforward and easily navigable system. Just my 2 cents though.

@LHoffman:

You are getting closer. It all comes down to how well the rules work in gameplay. Unfortunately the only way to assess that is at least a couple playtests. If your method works better then I am all for it.

What I was getting at by assigning any Tac rolls of 1 to hit tanks first was to build on your tagline of the Tac as a “tank buster”. Even in the rules you just revised, Tac rolls of 1 will still go against fighters and AA before tanks. My concern is twofold: (1) air forces are going to be obliterated with 3 unit types essentially targeting them and (2) tactical bombers were just that, bombers, not fighters. Their mission is not air superiority but land/sea attack. To be accurate their assigned hits should go to specific ground units, i.e. tanks.

Also, air superiority was not a necessity for ground/sea attack by tactical bomber aircraft. The Soviets did not have total air superiority at Kursk, yet their Sturmovik attack aircraft destroyed huge numbers of German tanks. US planes in the Pacific rarely had complete air superiority when attacking Japanese held islands or ships, yet dive and torpedo bombers were able to successfully attack their ground targets; sometimes even without fighter support.

Your system is logical, but I fear it is becoming a little too complicated. It is understandable, but there are multiple steps and if-thens to check up on during the battle. I think if it were simplified down to: _- Fighter rolls of 1 and 2 assigned to aircraft first, then AA

• Tac rolls of 1 assigned to (pick a land unit) first, then anything else_

you would have a more straightforward and easily navigable system. Just my 2 cents though.

I concede. You prove your point.
Interesting historical evidences provided.

So, I would rather go with something like this:

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 12 in the near OOB scale cost (must be the same price as StBs)
Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, if any available, then you can pick any kind of ground units.
_All “2” rolls can be allocated to any kind of ground units available.*

SBR/TcBR Attack @1 First Strike,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Bombers (StBs or TcBs) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.

Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

---

*** That way, on “2” roll, it will be up to the TacBs owner to select either a costly Tank or a cheaper AAA (because, it can directly fire at TcBs) if he prefers so. More tactical decisions in players’ hands, I like that.

For the “1” roll still hiting planes directly, here is my explanation:
I can not let TcBs undefended against Fighters direct defense or attack.
Simply figure that you have 3 TcBs on offense against 3 Fgs on defense.
If the battle is going on for a few combat rounds because there is many ground units involved on both sides, the attacker will loose all his TcBs after 3 rounds (3 Fgs hitting on a 1 or 2 each combat round= avg 1 hit/round).

The ability to hit enemy’s aircraft on “1”, is first to outweight the Fighter advantage against bombers.
Otherwise, any 1 Fg will be a deterrent to attack with bombers, even in large numbers, if there is no escorting Fgs to be picked up as fodder.

For TcBs, a “1” roll can be rationalize as there is some air-to-air dogfight and some air-to-ground attack against airfields and AAA defense.
For StBs, a “1” roll on attack can be rationalize as air-to-air of Strategic bombers flight defense with machine guns, the same way as in SBR.

Is it better now?_**

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

@Baron:

For the “1” roll still hiting planes directly, here is my explanation:
I can not let TcBs undefended against Fighters direct defense or attack.
Simply figure that you have 3 TcBs on offense against 3 Fgs on defense.
If the battle is going on for a few combat rounds because there is many ground units involved on both sides, the attacker will loose all his TcBs after 3 rounds (3 Fgs hitting on a 1 or 2 each combat round= avg 1 hit/round).

The ability to hit enemy’s aircraft on “1”, is first to outweight the Fighter advantage against bombers.
Otherwise, any 1 Fg will be a deterrent to attack with bombers, even in large numbers, if there is no escorting Fgs to be picked up as fodder.

For TcBs, a “1” roll can be rationalize as there is some air-to-air dogfight and some air-to-ground attack against airfields and AAA defense.
For StBs, a “1” roll on attack can be rationalize as air-to-air of Strategic bombers flight defense with machine guns, the same way as in SBR.

Is it better now?

Yes. Good justification. I think that sounds pretty equitable.

@regularkid:

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

This specific one, probably not. The genesis of the discussion was to lessen the Dark Skies bomber spam but evolved into something a little more complex about units and costs. Which is something I am keen on improving, along with more recognized flaws.

To be honest, I have been treating this thread as a goldmine of creative and reasonable ideas with which to formulate my own variation of the game. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see a community backed and agreed upon re-design, because I would.

I think we should have someone sit down and type out a post that states goals, major flaws, ways of addressing them, agreed upon changes and other scope items of the proposed re-design. I would say Black_Elk because this is his thread and he could conveniently edit the first post to showcase current status updates.

@regularkid:

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

One comment coming from beginning players is this question: why planes cannot shoot at planes?
If a simple addition can provides a better depiction of interactions between WWII units, I’m in.

Thanks for your comments  LHoffman, you already help me improve my own HR, even if this planes special rolls doesn’t fit BlackElk agenda.

@Black_Elk:

I’ll admit to being somewhat torn. On the one hand I think Baron’s unit interactions are excellent and very well thought out, and I also recall the development process over time in countless threads, so I’ve seen how its grown into a pretty complete overhaul. But I also know that people may be reluctant to adopt a series of sweeping changes to the roster. For those who want the familiar OOB combat system just with a different “campaign” dynamic (different NOs, incomes or starting unit distributions) a complete redux of the combat phase might put them off, since it requires you to learn a lot of new things.

I would say that threshold here for me is whether or not the unit interactions can be easily handled in tripleA, without requiring a bunch of new code, or the introduction of new phases and the like.

I’m not a huge fan of combined arms. I know in the OOB game this is a huge part of what makes TacBs useful, but I rather prefer it when each unit has a unique stand alone role, without being reliant on other units to be effective. Artillery set the precedent though, so I suppose its here to stay now, I’d just be careful not to run away with the concept. I think the combat phase becomes a lot less intuitive when the unit attack/defense values change based upon which other units are in the fight. The TacB is rather different than artillery, because it is itself boosted by other units, rather than providing the boost. Artillery has a baseline attack value of 2 that doesn’t change based on which other units are in the fight, which I think is a bit simpler to grasp. I suppose by now everyone is used to the combined arms that currently exist, but adding a bunch of new specialized unit relationships might be off putting to some. Again though, I’m willing to explore at this point. A ground up roster revision is very ambitious.

IDK which direction you will take but I dislike combined arms (except for Art and Inf or MI) too.
Changing the combat value of units during combat is annoying and slowing the pace on A&A boardgame. I know you are looking for simplicity. Hence few revised units, such as Subs, TPs, DDs.
I knew it was bit overstretched.

For Submarines and Destroyers, I cut down the Surprise Strike and blocker because most of the time there is enough DDs to neutralized this special ability. Making both at the same cost would have put a balanced Sub at A3 D1 vs DD at A2 D2. Keeping it at a lower but constant A2 first strike keeps the symbolic surprise attack (figurating the sneaky torpedoes) while putting Subs as a better offensive warship than Destroyer. On the other hand, I simplified the Sub defense value to a regular and constant D1. Anyway, most of the time, it was the usual Sub defense OOB since DD is always present to block Subs escape.

So, when Sub is part of a fight it keeps the same value from the start till the end. Simpler.
Since this Sub is weaker than OOB Sub vs Destroyers, I add Sub cannot hit Sub (for offense while making it a less interesting fodder) and gives it a better survivability with DD blocking Submerge and Stealth only on 1:1 ratio which make sense at the same cost.
At least, when a Submarine will be on offense, the A2 first strike promise to be more satisfying than OOB.

On TcB and StB, making them the same cost with same attack value A4 is going to put players on a difficult dilemma: better range and mobility or better overall unit in defense. Buying TcBs A4 D3 M4 instead of StBs A4 D1 M6 will reduced the effectiveness of Dark Sky which rely a lot on higher mobility.

unfortunately I don’t think you can have DDs negate the submerge of subs on a 1:1 basis in triplea. It may be possible with some sort of negative triggers but IDK.

@Black_Elk:

Agreed

I’m in favor of it actually. I think what this roster needs is a battle board schematic to clarify the relationships visually.

Somehow the sub/destroyer dynamic OOB just never felt fully articulated to make subs an attractive purchase for a player like Germany, they’re too easy to neutralize, so I much prefer a scheme like the one you propose.

Price is indeed a tricky issue, in general I think naval units will be more entertaining and accessible with a cost reduction. I can see the merits of the 6 ipc slot on the water, extending to include the destroyer, so that their fodder role is preserved at the new baseline of 6 rather than 8.

I think the first scale would make the naval arms race more engaging, and I prefer how the units pair off in infantry increments (3’s) for the combat vessels.

6 ipcs Sub/DD = 2 infantry
9 ipcs Cruiser = 3 infantry
12 ipc Carrier deck = 4 infantry
15 ipcs Battleship = 5 infantry

What I would like to see overall is an incentive to purchase more naval units (since the OOB game heavily favors air builds over sea builds) I would worry that lowering the scale air on top of this would just exacerbate the same problem.

For price I miss the 5 spot. If the 5 spot remains only the AAgun, then I definitely would like to see that unit promoted to a more combat worthy role, whatever form that takes. My other thought would be to give the sub the 5 spot, though with a more potent attack this would perhaps be too deadly. So the 6/6 sub/dd feels pretty good to me right now. I’m not sure how many others would like to play, but if it was all drafted into tripleA that would clearly help to test the concept.

I like the “3 IPcs” increment very much too. I didn’t realized that my first revised cost was based on it.
On a boardgame, it is easier to make the calculation. 2 Infantries= 1 Sub or 1 DD. One less Infantry= 1 upgrade on the warship scale.

About the 5 IPCs spot for Sub, my only concern is about the disparity with a 6 IPCs DDs.
I don’t like the Aircrafts needs Destroyer to hit unsubmerged Submarine.
This gamey (and unhistorical) rule was built-in because without it, 6 IPCs Submarines becomes the best naval-fodder vs 8 IPCs DDs.
Maybe a ratio of 5/6 isn’t that much to still let Destroyer be the best fodder.
But AACALC gives to A2 first strike Sub a high odds (88% vs 12%) against D2 Destroyer.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=6&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=5&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=
It is the same high odds than OOB 8 Subs A2 vs 6 DDs D2 (48 IPCs).
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=8&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=6&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

I would still keep my anti-Sub fodder rule: “Submarines cannot hit submarines.”
And maybe, that way you can come back to the 1 Destroyer negates an infinite number of Subs’ Submerge and Stealth Move (and keep it easier to implement on Triple A).
I would like that DD’s blocking Sub’s Submerge is only for the first round, though.

On the other hands, this could be Destroyer which can receive the 5 IPCs slot.
AACALC gives Sub 47% vs DD 53%.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=5&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=6&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=
If DD A2 D2= 5 IPCs, in that case I would rise Sub Defense to 1 first strike,
so Sub A2 first strike and D1 first strike 6 IPCs.
But it would be clear that Destroyer is the best fodder.
An Atlantic battle can be a more complex matter to handle for Germany if both Subs and planes are costlier than Destroyers and Transports.
At least, an important number of U-boats would be required on the opening set-up.
Still, a 5 IPCs Destroyers vs a 6 IPCs Subs is kind of thinking outside the OOB box.
(In my next post, I will suggest a different way to handle Transport which can have an impact on this issue on DD and Sub costs.)

However, the 3 IPCs increment for naval, starting at 6 IPCs is pretty appealing for calculation and a consistent scale with no exception, easier to memorized.

@Black_Elk:

By returning the transport to the traditional 8 spot, I think this serves as the core “remainder” ipc naval unit to buy at purchase. Which is probably a good thing, since transports are the reason the naval game exists in the first place haha. I like the casualty taken last rule with a combat role of some kind, as we’ve discussed in other threads.

I am reluctant to lower the cost of Air though. The fighter has cost 10 ipcs across several editions now, and its special combat role (maneuverability and the ability “not having to occupy” the territory or sz being attacked) is very potent. Even if there was a dogfighting type combat introduced, I think it would be helpful to keep the core cost from OOB at least for the fighter and the strat B. Raising the TacB to 12 seems viable if it was more potent on attack as you proposed. I like the mobility vs defense trade off, rather than attack/economic raid trade off in OOB, so I think that might work. Though again, having a battle board for all this is what is needed. We should create a graphic, for whatever the final determination is there.

What I would like to see overall is an incentive to purchase more naval units (since the OOB game heavily favors air builds over sea builds) I would worry that lowering the scale air on top of this would just exacerbate the same problem.

For price I miss the 5 spot.

On Transport, I prefer in-built incentive rather than a straight forward rule like Taken Last.
If I keep up with such a scale:
5 IPCs Destroyer A2 D2
6 IPCs Submarine A2fs D1fs
8 IPCs Transport A0 D?* **, 1 hit

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?
1, the higher cost 8 vs 5 or 6. Even a 9 IPCs Cruiser is not that far from 8 IPCs.
*A defensive hindrance. Hence, a Last Strike (opposite of a First Strike).
Last Strike is made that you cannot retaliate (have a defense roll) with this unit if it is taken as casualty.
**A defensive benefit ?
Here is an old idea, in a new context (5 IPCs DD and 6 IPCs Sub).
Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

On the other part, this would emphasis the role of Submarines warfare (especially for Germany) against transports.
And the owning player would have to chose between loosing a cheap 5 IPCs DD defending @2, or a costlier TP at 8 with no defense. Either ways, the Sub commander gets something in return.
And, in the case of a combined attack with planes, loosing a TP means lesser odds to use the Transport AA defense.

To summarize:

TRANSPORT A0 D0* M2 C8, 1 hit
*Last Strike AA defense:
If the transport is not taken as casualty, each Transport gets 1 AA shot @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, each combat round.
No defense against warships.

Such a special defense and a still lower sea-fodder at 5 IPCs, can probably make the case for 10 IPCs Bombers and 8 IPCs Fighter.

OOB cost ratio for Fighter/Destroyer is 10/8= 1.25
10 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD= 1.667
10 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD = 2

9 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD = 1.5
9 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD= 1.8

8 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD = 1.333
8 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD= 1.6

OOB 12 IPCs Bomber/ 8 IPCs DD= 1.5
12 IPCs Bomber / 6 IPCs DD= 2
12 IPCs Bomber / 5 IPCs DD= 2.4

10 IPCs Bomber / 6 IPCs DD = 1.667
10 IPCs Bomber / 5 IPCs DD= 2

Otherwise, I’M OK with keeping 6 IPCs DDs and Subs because it makes the very versatile planes a bit less powerful at OOB cost.

EDIT: Another issue about 5 IPCs DD is that it makes 9 IPCs Cruiser and 15 IPCs BB weaker than in OOB.
At 5 IPCs, it would create a Destroyer spam dynamic. I don’t think it is a good idea.

@Baron:

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?

I personally don’t like the mandate that Transports must be the last casualties. Nor do I like that your opponent can have 6 Transports in his fleet and essentially absorb that many hits before their combat ships take the heat. Maybe we can craft a middle ground.

Pricing a Transport at 8 is not cheap and I don’t know that they could be considered quite so disposable any more. That can work in our favor. Let players choose if they want to take hits on 8 IPC transports or not.

To further incentivize keeping Transports, I would propose that they somehow be given the option to escape from an attack. Maybe one of these scenarios:

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, any remaining Transports may roll (1) die each. On a roll of (1) - or (1 or 2)? - that Transport may retreat to one adjacent sea zone. All Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

OR

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, the attacker may roll (1) die per remaining attacking unit. Any hits are assigned to the defender’s remaining Transports. Any surviving Transports escape to any adjacent sea zone. All surviving Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

This is not a very complicated rule and would give Transports a level of survivability without an offensive punch. It would at least let the defender decide which how to assign hits but give them reason to not just off them as first casualties. Low Luck players should like the fact that a transport can’t take out a superior unit. Under either rule, if the attacker gets enough hits in a single round to knock out the defender’s remaining combat units AND remaining transports, then all defending units are destroyed. Transports can’t escape in that case.

@Baron:

Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

1 AA shot per transport, per combat round is powerful. I am thinking that under Baron’s system aircraft will need to be super-cheap because there are so many units targeting them directly: AA guns, Cruisers, Transports, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers. That virtually ensures mutual aircraft annihilation.

@Baron:

EDIT: Another issue about 5 IPCs DD is that it makes 9 IPCs Cruiser and 15 IPCs BB weaker than in OOB.
At 5 IPCs, it would create a Destroyer spam dynamic. I don’t think it is a good idea.

Yes, I agree. 5 IPCs is a sweet-spot for cost. I would be wary of what kind of units are placed at 5 IPCs or less.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

1 AA shot per transport, per combat round is powerful. I am thinking that under Baron’s system aircraft will need to be super-cheap because there are so many units targeting them directly: AA guns, Cruisers, Transports, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers.

Don’t forget that Transport has only AAA Last Strike, so a destroyed TP is never dangerous. Also, two planes against 10 TPs for example, only allows 2 rolls AA @1, not more.
Also, they stay unable to defend against warships. So, no risk with a naval only attack against only TPs group.

This last situation makes me liking your idea about escaping TPs  instead of total destruction.
How about 1 Transport can choose to escape in an adjacent SZ after each combat round?
Defender must decide after each combat round.
This would be a very easy mechanic to manage.

I really believe this cost structure can work actually.

Unit type  Cost revised from 1st scale
Submarine    5  IPCs A2fs* D1 Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.

Destroyer      6  IPCs A2 D2 Block Sub’s Submerge and Stealth move on a 1:1 basis.

Transport      8  IPCs 1 hit, Last Strike @1…?, no Taken Last casualty rule…? Escape?

Cruiser          9   IPCs  A3 D3, Shore Bombard 3, one time First Strike AA @1 capacity
Carrier           12  IPCs A0 D2, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, damaged still carry one?
Battleship     15  IPCs A4 D4, 2 hits, Shore Bombard 4, one time First Strike AA @1 capacity

Fighter          10 IPCS A3 D4 M4
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

Tactical Bomber    12 IPCS A4 D3 M4
TBR: A1fs Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.

Strategic Bomber  12 IPCs  A4 D1M6
SBR:  AA A1fs up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage :  D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

If an optional feature can be added in this enhanced A&A game, such as any planes vs planes on a 1 or 2 roll, planes should be 2 IPCs lower.

Good Action

Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?

Development of my suggestion for national gold reserves:

Each nation (including neutrals) has a national gold reserve worth 1/3rd (rounded up) of its starting IPC income. Some suitable tokens for gold would need to be utilised; GRs are stored in capitals.

UK dominion nations (Canada, Australia, NZ & South Africa) have their own GRs.

Any nation at war adds the GR value to it’s income when collecting money. This represents the increased borrowing during wartime, and selling of war bonds.

When a capital is captured (or a neutral activated) all GR held there is immediately transferred to the capital of the capturing power and becomes part of its reserve.

All other capture-the-capital rules are deleted; so a nation losing its capital can still collect income and build units in the tt it still holds.

Possible addition: selling gold

A nation may during its own collect income phase sell gold to the bank at x3 face value.

Possible addition 2: Fort Knox

Before America goes to war, other Allies may sell gold to the USA at x3 face value. The advantage is that this GR will eventually be used to boost the Allies again, but only when America is at war. Further, units built from it will have to be built in America and transported to the battle fronts.

@Baron:

Don’t forget that Transport has only AAA Last Strike, so a destroyed TP is never dangerous. Also, two planes against 10 TPs for example, only allows 2 rolls AA @1, not more.
Also, they stay unable to defend against warships. So, no risk with a naval only attack against only TPs group.

Oh, my mistake. I read it to be that Transports get 1 AA shot per combat round (1:1 up to the number of attacking planes). Seems I was incorrect.

@Baron:

This last situation makes me liking your idea about escaping TPs  instead of total destruction.
How about 1 Transport can choose to escape in an adjacent SZ after each combat round?
Defender must decide after each combat round.
This would be a very easy mechanic to manage.

This would be good too. Less hassle than rolling more dice.

@barney:

Good Action

Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33650.msg1286876#msg1286876

Last and better version:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919

@Baron:

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines A1 D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 units in a regular Transport.
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.

If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).