Hi Baron
I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.
It is a good news because I really believe this AA rolling each round as any other units becomes competitive with Inf and Artillery. So this need a full play-test to break the old convention about AA gun.
Adding NB to Quebec and keeping Nova Scotia Halifax NB would not change the movement bonus.
It would keep history without changing much to game balance.
Your restricting built with IC worth a try and you gives us a tool for testing.
I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.
You are right. After a few tests on battlecalc, on the same IPCs basis, the Escort Carrier at 9 IPCs is still slightly weaker on defense in direct combat against Fleet Carrier. Even costlier 2 Fgs 2 CVE (38 IPCs) vs 2 Fgs 1 CV 2 hits (36 IPCs) is weaker for 2 IPCs higher.
So you have the right place for this ASW warship. Good call.
Probably the 10 IPCs CVE is balanced with 1942.2 Fleet Carrier A1 D2, 1 hit, C14.
Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.
Glad to see it increase action in PTO, with 2 IPCs bonus per invasion.
Instead of an arbitrary rnd4, what about allowing to the following Power turn, once Japan makes a DOW on USA as the starting point? That way, after Japan turn, all Allies would be the firsts to get this bonus and Japan last.
Or it activates when all money islands are taken by Japan, retrieving them will first benefits Allies.
Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB. No boost when paired with fighter or tank.
What is the cost of this Tactical Bomber?
Interesting ways to add Lend-lease via NO for USSR.
It rise up to 8 IPCs for USSR, helps deals with Germany in a better ways than the + 10 ☺ for reaching Berlin.
Hi Baron
Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.
Good idea on when the bonus should kick in. Maybe US’s turn after Japan DOW. Although you only get the bonus when you attack. So walking in won’t activate it. IDK we’ll have to think on it some more.
Yea I like the idea of the NO changing for the NAP. I’ll put out a updated version later today.
Hi Baron
Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.
If StB was OOB, it seems a correct price at 11 IPCs.
But with StB A3 D1 M6 C12, +1A paired 1:1 with 1 Fighter, I would really put TcB A4 D3 M4 at 12 IPCs.
I always feel that highest attack value is costlier.
IDK if a playtest can be decisive to help choosing between 11 or 12 PUs for TcB.
Updated the previous post. Added XMLs that remove the build restrictions on mechs and armor. Added a 12PU TB. Changed the NAP for Japan/Russia:
Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. Mongolians are same as OOB. When at war with Germany and Japan, Russia receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus for SZ 4.
@ regularkid Decided to only boost SZ 4. Thinking being Russia might be more tempted to attack if Japan can only cork the one zone. Germans can take care of the other and she might get to SZ 80 late game but…Russia already has a extra Lend Lease zone in 124 so… I see the logic in doing a boost for all zones, but decided to give this a try for now. The NOs make the Aleutians a pretty Fat target (potential 13 PU swing) so I expect more action in that theatre. Also thought I’d give them a little 3PU sting just to make them think about it a little more. Nothing to prohibitive. :)
US can open up the route if she has forces in place but Japan can make it harder by amphib landing from zone 5 to SFE. It forces her to go north, which she normally doesn’t want to do, but with the aforementioned Aleutian Boost it might be a more viable option for her. And if you can wack the Aleutians you might as well dust the soviet NO too.
Went with SZ 4 so Russia must use carrier air or mainland bomber to reach. Anyway should be worth a playtest.
@Baron I’d probably still go with the bomber instead of TB at 11 but I understand the thinking and can see situations where you’d want to go TB. Anyway the TB12 will give us the option to test.
Checked into the aagun and I think you might need to use v2 rules. I’m not sure. I’ll look into it some more. Any future changes I’ll make different versions so we don’t get too confused :)
Great work Barney! Once again cooking things up so we can test with tripleA. It incorporates many of my favorite ideas is one mod, so I say we build from here, since most of the heavy lifting has already been done. Thanks dude!
:-D
Updated earlier post. Fixes Mongolian placement to OOB.
@ Baron I agree having the money islands kick in after Japan conquers them is the way to go. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. I looked at the aagun some more and haven’t found a way to do it. It seems like I remember that being an option somewhere.
@ Elk Yea this should make for some good play testing. Do you think restricting the builds for capital ships and strats is too much ? I could add oob builds back but don’t want to overamp with too many xmls. Gonna do some more testing :)
Here’s the new update
https://www.sendspace.com/file/ftahv8
it’s the light blue dl button
@Baron:
It is a lot of good work, man. :-)
These two units worth the try:
CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.
Great thing this added AA to Cruiser.
You probably work harder to get this.
Thinking about the cost.
Within DD at 8 IPCs and Battleship at 20 IPCs, I believe that AA Cruiser should be balance at 12 IPCs though.
The increase AA ability can easily make for the higher cost at 12.
For playtest, I guess 10 IPCs can be try.
For playtest, I would also make it a A3 D3 M3 unit. No bonus from NB.
If this still possible.
Shore bombard @2 or @3 is minor aspects.
For historical purpose, it is fine @2.
@ Baron I agree having the money islands kick in after Japan conquers them is the way to go. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. I looked at the aagun some more and haven’t found a way to do it. It seems like I remember that being an option somewhere.
Glad we are on same page for the Pacific NO.
What you are looking about AA is probably always active AA gun.
This is not the same ability.
It was 1 single shot done by all AA guns from different TTs in which planes are passing by during Combat Move and Non-Combat Move.
This is very different from what I asked about an AAA able to act like all units which fire each round.
If it is too complex to modify, at least the AAA at 5 you created is able to defend @1 against ground units when no enemy’s plane are attacking. And move like any other units in CM. This is already an improvement.
Thanks for your dedication Barney.
@ Baron I saw something called classic rules that might do aa every rd. Not sure though. I’ll keep checkin on it. I’m gonna add a A3, D3, M3 bombard 2 no NB bonus C10 or do you think 12 ? I’ll also add the 12PU AACruiser bombard at 2 and a OOB cruiser bombard 3 at 10 next update. Sound good ?
I’ll combine some of the XMLs so we don’t have so many maps.
Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?
Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?
Correct.
Cruiser Cost 12 A3 D3 M3, no NB bonus, bombard @3, preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
With all these additional capacities, even if not directly optimized on AAcalc vs other warships, +1 move and AA would be a test to see if people want to buy it at 12 IPCs.
@ Baron I saw something called classic rules that might do aa every rd. Not sure though. I’ll keep checkin on it.
Classic rules probably imply 1 AA gun gets 1 preemptive roll @1 per plane against an infinite number of planes.
Actually, no AA rules ever gives a roll each round.
Such AAA would be similar to the one you develop on the AACruiser, but without the limitation to first round only.
If your able to create a Cruiser with Defense 0 but able on defense to fire each round (preemptive or not, that is not so important) against up to two planes, 1 roll max per plane. You could be able to transfer such code on AAA unit A0 D0 Cost 4.
If you succeed, then it will open a wide range of possibilities for transport able to gets defense against planes but not against warships.
Bailey, Question, since u seem to know a lot more about this javascript business than I do.
I’d like to try to incorporate a house rule whereby the conquest of France (all three territories) by Germany/Italy results in France’s remaining territories becoming Neutral_Axis (i.e., Vichy French).
I’ve managed to code a trigger that turns the French territories to Neutral_Axis once France is under Euro-Axis control, but I cannot for the life of me get the French UNITS in those territories to turn Neutral_Axis as well. Tried to model it after the Mongolia thing, but that doesn’t seem to be working. Also tried the “ChangeOwnership” option. . . no luck.
Any ideas on how this could work?
@ kid This was in POS2 it might work
placement values: places units at beginning of combat movement phase. first in list is territory to be placed it, then list of units, then count. “placement” will be affected by “each” in a condition statement.
(example: value=“Moscow:artillery:infantry” count=“2” [if count is missing, defaults to 1])
removeUnits values: removes up to that number of the desired unit, at the beginning of the combat move phase. “removeUnits” will be affected by “each” in a condition statement.
removeUnits list is done the same way as placement, but allows the option of “all” in place of the territory name, and also “all” in place of the unit type, such as value=“all:all”, or “Moscow:all”, or “all:infantry”. example: <option name=“removeUnits” value=“all:infantry” count=“1”>works with triggers. I wanna set up some neutral blocks and vichy dudes as well. I’ll look into it some more. I was able to get the mongolians to turn into pro allied neutral with limited success, but it should be possible I would think.</option>
@ kid This was in POS2 it might work
placement values: places units at beginning of combat movement phase. first in list is territory to be placed it, then list of units, then count. “placement” will be affected by “each” in a condition statement.
(example: value=“Moscow:artillery:infantry” count=“2” [if count is missing, defaults to 1])
removeUnits values: removes up to that number of the desired unit, at the beginning of the combat move phase. “removeUnits” will be affected by “each” in a condition statement.
I think this “each” thing might be the key to what I want to do–namely, make so that when a French territory turns Vichy, all of the French units in that territory turn Vichy as well. What I can’t figure out is where the “each” should go. No matter where I put it, the game gives me some kind of syntax error.
Below is the coding I’ve done so far (trying to get it to work for just Morocco). Haven’t decided yet the exact conditions for the Vichy trigger, or when it will be activated (i.e., might make it so that only 2/3 of France need be under Axis control, with the trigger occurring at the end of the Axis player’s turn). But, for now, it occurs as soon as Axis takes all of France.
<attatchment name=“conditionAttachment_French_Territory_May_Turn_Vichy_Switch” attatchto=“Germans” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.RulesAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“conditionAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France” attatchto=“Germans” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.RulesAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“conditionAttachment_Morocco_Can_Turn_Vichy” attatchto=“British” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.RulesAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
Note: This makes it so that if there are any British units present in the French territory at the time the trigger is activated, the French territory will remain ‘Free French’. Will eventually extend this to American/Anzac/Russian units as well.
<attatchment name=“conditionAttachment_Morocco_Can_Turn_Vichy_Infantry” attatchto=“French” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.RulesAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“triggerAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France_Morocco_Territory_Change” attatchto=“Germans” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“triggerAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France_Morocco_Infantry_Place” attatchto=“Neutral_Axis” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“triggerAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France_Morocco_Infantry_Remove” attatchto=“French” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
<attatchment name=“triggerAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France_Morocco” attatchto=“Germans” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment” type=“player”></attatchment>
Note: The coding above only results in one French infantry changing to Neutral Axis. But if I put two or more French infantry in the territory before running the test, only one of them turns Vichy, with the rest remaining French. Any thoughts on how to fix this?
not sure you might try changing 1 to all. You have
<option name=“activateTrigger” value=“triggerAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_Fran ce_Morocco_Infantry_Remove:1:true:true:false:false”>Try</option>
didn’t recognize “all” or “each” there. i give up. lol
@Baron:
Baron, how bout this for a simplified (closer to OOB) approach, that puts convoy raids on the attackers turn:
1. Warships and Subs may conduct convoy raids against any income producing territory bordering a convoy zone. This works similar to a shore bombardment, with each participating ship simply targeting a specific territory (No need for a rough division of damage between allied powers bordering the same sz. The attacker simply chooses each ships target).
**2. Surface ships can only make a raid in an empty convoy zone (if enemy ships are present, a naval battle results. No raid). Submarines can raid any convoy zone, unless enemy destroyer is present (if enemy destroyer is present, a naval battle results. No raid).3. Convoy raid damage is determined using the OOB method, with each raid inflicting up to the value of the targeted territory.** The total amount of damage is immediately removed from the targeted player’s treasury.
4. Each convoy zone can only be raided once per round, per side.
Sound good?
At first glance it seems effectively a working alternative to Convoy Disruption nearer OOB mechanic.
#1doesn’t seem necessary. Once the damage are rolled, you apply the damage accordingly and let the owners split as they wish. The same way casualty are determined by multiple defenders.
The damage cap would be the sum of all enemy’s adjacent TTs to Convoy SZ.It would be easier to implement into Triple A.
What do you do about Fighter rolling 2D6, keeping 1-3 as damage?
I’m OK with TcB.
Any idea about Strategic bombers?
In OOB Convoy system, every 1D6 roll gives an avg of 1 IPC, 2D6 gives 2 IPCs.
But getting no damage is possible, and there is no risk to the attacker.What about letting StB rolling 1D6 and keeping 1-3 as damage?
1 IPC avg is much lower than 2.583 IPCs (or 2.916) avg on SBR.
Even if I try to develop a Convoy system similar to SBR, I believe that to increase action in ATO, there should be minimal danger against raider during his Convoy raiding phase.
So the OOB method: 1-3 = 1-3 damage 4-6 = 0 damage
DD, CA, BB roll 1 D6, CV have no dice, TcBs and Fgs get 2D6 along with Subs,
is my prefered choice. It imply no risk but there is 50% on 1 dice to totally miss.
That’s fine for me. Combat units must fight Subs to get ride of them.
Changing this phase into attacker’s turn makes it more efficient.
The more units are able to survive somehow from combat or raid, the more intense would be this theatre of operation. There will be plenty of units in many SZs.
That is why I prefer OOB raid, TP being able to escape on 2nd round, DD blocking 1:1 Sub, and only for one round, Sub cannot hit or be hit by submarine, etc.
Also, I’m actually working on developing Convoy SZs for 1942.2, so only Sub can do convoy damage in a way that it increase the losses for Allies vs Axis but the counter will be the 6-8-9-12-15 cost structure, which I believe favors 2 Allied powers over 1 Axis power (Japan).
I will use Convoy rules to reduce UK and US economy, so buying cheaper warships would still be a burden due to IPCs shortage. I have hope this can balance things out.
Since the cost structure affect warships only, Russia have no Convoy SZ, so its economy cannot suffer from raid.
so the AAcruiser is pretty badass for 10 bucks. You may be right that they’re underpriced Baron. 1 CA could potentially kill 3 fighters. Being able to send one in with a defenseless trprt where only air can counter makes one think about it. If you can pack a DD along even better. Pair it with a anti-sub carrier and it can do a little island hopping in the right circumstances.
I was thinking lower it to D2 and keep it at 10 bucks. Seems like the defensive fleet usually has the advantage maybe this would help. I’m gonna test them the same way a few more times and see what happens. I havent tried a CA spam yet.
so the AAcruiser is pretty badass for 10 bucks. You may be right that they’re underpriced Baron. 1 CA could potentially kill 3 fighters. Being able to send one in with a defenseless trprt where only air can counter makes one think about it. If you can pack a DD along even better. Pair it with a anti-sub carrier and it can do a little island hopping in the right circumstances.
I was thinking lower it to D2 and keep it at 10 bucks. Seems like the defensive fleet usually has the advantage maybe this would help. I’m gonna test them the same way a few more times and see what happens. I havent tried a CA spam yet.
The 10 bucks Cruiser was optimized in the OOB roster without adding anything else.
The balance formula between DD, CA and BB is:
1 DD A2 D2 C8 + 1 CA A3 D3 C10 = 1 Battleship A4 D4, 2 hits C18
You can try it by yourself on AACalc.
Add x DD + x CA on offense against x BB, you will always get pretty close to 50% vs 50%.
So, if BB is still at 20 IPCs, Cruiser with double AA should be put at 12 bucks.
Otherwise, Battleship becomes far less interesting purchase compared to DD and Cruiser.
Simply because for 20 IPCs, you get two 10 bucks Cruisers A3 D3, 2 Shore bombardment @2 and AA against up to 4 planes.
Just try 2xCA A3 D3 vs xBB A4 D4. You will see how it is too superior.
That is why I believe 10 IPCs AA Cruiser is OP.
Don’t make Cruiser defense same as DD.
It is weird from an historical weapon reviews.
