The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.
For the aaagun, put simply, I think it should be able to move in the combat phase. There are so many gripes associated with having a unit that only moves in non com, with aaaguns contantly being forgotten or purposely left behind, that I can’t imagine much opposition to such a change.
Right now though, just focusing on the changes proposed earlier, most of this stuff is easily handled in tripleA.
Tactical Bomber: Attack 4, Defend 3, Move 4, Cost 12 ipcs, with no combined arms.
Airbase: +2 movement, cost 15 ipcs, with scramble for 3 aircraft.
All ships Move 3
Strategic Bomber (defenseless): 0/0/0 costs 5 ipcs.
The only issue is whether the defensless StratB can be handled under tripleA’s current factory aaa fire and escort/intercept system. Still hoping maybe Barney has some thoughts on that hehe.
But if we can handle the defenseless stratB, then an HR mod could be assembled in fairly short order, for use with Global 1940, Global 1942, or any variants that use the global unit roster.
@Baron:
I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as �casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.
Thanks for your input and experience, I do find it valuable, particularly since I am operating completely on theory right now.
I am beginning to like your revised air unit cost and attack/defense attributes. Combined with the price reduction, it looks like it could make for better gameplay.
The more modifications and intricacies, the slower and less fun the game becomes; I certainly understand that. My suggestion for Tac targeting was under the assumption that it is used with OOB rules for the most part, which has at least one fewer naval combat hit/roll rule than you have in your HR set. That said, I can see that by allowing Tacs to target by default and in every combat round is likely too powerful. Capital ship attrition will likely rise precipitously and it becomes almost a no brainer to purchase Tacs over Fighters. Sounds like there need to be some limits such as targeting first round only or targeting on rolls of 2 or less.
Decreasing overall warship cost is appealing, in that it may offset attrition and result in larger navies. However, will that have any effect on land and air purchases if they remain at similar to OOB values? Initial thought is no, it will not. Only because those units are needed to take and hold territory which actually wins the war. Ships/Sea Zones are meaningless in this respect because having a huge navy will not win you the war in and of itself. You still need occupying land forces.
The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.
Valid concerns for sure. I will think about it a bit more. It needs to work properly and efficiently if it is to be included.
Baron did say that his testing of Tac targeting against land units is not problematic. If that is true, I have a couple questions:
Is Tac targeting on land not so problematic because the land units are cheaper and there are more of them than naval units? (Presumably, every Tac target on land is going against a Tank, when possible.)
How exactly do you have this system working against land units? Is it targeting every round of battle? Do they hit @4 or do they have to roll lower (2 or 1) to allow targeting?
Right now the make or break point for me, is whether the bomber proposal could be realistically implemented in tripleA’s current build. This is not to say that feedback or testing in face to face games isn’t valuable too, but for proof of concept I’d want a mod that is easy to load up and start playing online. If it works easily in tripleA there’s a much better chance that people will actually try it. Moving balance and gameplay enjoyment discussions from the hypothetical into an arena where we can actually start looking at game saves for evidence.
Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.
1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?
In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?
I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.
If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.
The interesting thing with Triple A 1942.2 is that bomber already D6 damage and Fg A1 D1 if interception option is checked.
It needs only to give A0 to bomber in SBR, maybe Barney can see where is this code value in XML files.
I believe you already know how to change other combat values from A4D1C12 to A0D0C5. Am I right?
I see there’s been some activity since I was here last : ) I’m not positive if you can have a A0 D0 unit and no HP. Maybe. I’ll be able to find out tomorrow.
So using global as our “test” game what do we want ? Bomber A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB ? C5 SBR only ? Or M+2 W/AB ? Bump Tacs up to 12 bucks hit at 4 all the time ?
As mentioned earlier, the Rd1 German, JPN, UK and Italy Bmbr attacks will be affected. Once you get past that, just let it roll I’d say.
Anyone ever consider carpet bombing for attack?
strat bomber rolls 3 die for a 2 or less in the attack….a defend 1 in SBR and SBR 3 rolls at 2 or less…defend at 0 in a battle like an air transport
I’ve been checking out this discussion and am looking to see where this goes. I could test this in my 40 game.
I did some die rolling for the Stg Bomber being C5 A0 D0 M6 1D6.
I did test rolls on 3 bombers after getting through interceptors and AA guns. I rolled 3 dice for 3 bombers 20 times and came up with a 220 total number for 20 die rolls. So ave. roll for SBR was 11 damage. When I was doing test rolls , I was thinking maybe it was to strong. So I made it where bomber gets 1D6 -1 roll for SBR and that comes out to 10 damage for 3 bombers avg. attack.
With a D6 die being a 3 on ave roll would = 9 damage a attack and at -1 8 damage per attack on ave.
When I did the die rolls with 5 bombers it was to high for damage to the point of SBRing taking over the game. I also don’t want that in game. Just ave would be 5 bombers doing 15 damage per turn. 10 damage with the -1 factor. So would have to spend 1 icp to build a piece.
So trade off would be does a country want to spend 25 icp’s to do ave 15 damage on IC. It would cost IC 6 icp’s before it could build 1 piece but if country lost 2 bombers to interceptors or AA gun now they spent 25 icp’s for ave 9 damage on IC.
Cost attacker 10 icp’s to defender fix IC cost 1 to 9 icp’s. Doesn’t include icp costs for escorts. Most of the time the escorts can’t reach IC unless there close.
May have to have +1 to D6.
3 bombers ave 9 +3 = 12 damage. Cost defender 3 to 12 to fix.
I checked ave rolls with the Baron SBR rules I’m trying in my game.
3 bombers ave 9 +6 =15 damage and 9 ave roll for IC reduced damage would = 6 damage total. Won’t work.
So looks like have to do 1 game each to see how Stg Bomber gets a 1D6 for SBR or 1D6 +1. If bombers get a @1 on air battle then make it 1D6 for SBR.
Maybe Baron can crunch numbers, where would attacker gain anything on defender when it came to losing bombers to making attacker repair IC and keep them from building less pieces.
The Tac bomber may have to be C8-9 A3-4 D2-3 M4-5 and gets a First strike hit on ground and navy since now you lose the Bomber attack.
I see there’s been some activity since I was here last :) I’m not positive if you can have a A0 D0 unit and no HP. Maybe. I’ll be able to find out tomorrow.
So using global as our “test” game what do we want ? Bomber A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB ? C5 SBR only ? Or M+2 W/AB ? Bump Tacs up to 12 bucks hit at 4 all the time ?
As mentioned earlier, the Rd1 German, JPN, UK and Italy Bmbr attacks will be affected. Once you get past that, just let it roll I’d say.
Awesome!
My preference:
AB +2 standard (getting rid of the odd number movement headache)
Tactical Bomber: attack 4, cost 12, and just nix combined arms. It’s the new beast unit haha.
And of course the defenseless Strategic Bomber, at a cost 5. If it can work, I think we’re in business.
At some point I would love it if we could get a movement of 3 for all ships, for a more entertaining naval game, but I think we should hold off for the time being. There is a serious question there about whether the German Baltic transport would be too dangerous on G1? They also have a ton of subs that might be problematic. I’d be happy with the strat bomber, tac bomber, and AB change for now. Then consider whether move 3 is viable for ships after the bombers are up and running. Move 3 for ships might be a bit overboard for some tastes, so I’d leave it as an open question for future consideration. Seems like it would almost certainly require a set up change.
The AB and bomber tweaks should provide plenty to keep players busy. They will surely change the opener quite a bit, but might even produce a more balanced game by sides. One can hope.
:-D
: )
I’m gonna try Bmbr A0 D0 M6+2 w/AB No SBR C5 ? No Hit Points. Might be able to idk. Do a +1 to all naval movement version as well.
:)
Tacs A4 D3 M4+2w/AB C12
Killer! :-D
I will say, I think the move 3 naval option has some serious potential. Whatever threat is posed by the German transport and u-boats in terms of setting up an early Sea Lion squeeze, this is basically offset by the fact that the AB +2 would allow the Americans to transit fighters from E. US to England directly. And 3 movement standard for ships (+1 from the NB) also means that the US Atlantic situation is way more interesting.
The global map is kind of bizarre in that England and Normandy are both 4 moves away from sz 101. In my view this kind of discourages D-Day staging in the UK, and I’m not sure there’s a whole lot that can be done about that. But with a standard move of 3 for all ships (and a +1 from the NB) the US has lot more options for a crossing. There is also an interesting move out of sz 106 to 125 (from the Nova Scotia NB) which puts Norway on the table for the northern route. A similar move out of 101 to sz 92, puts Algeria in play, and offers a somewhat more realistic Torch option, by giving the Eastern Task Force a place to land (instead of just the Western Task Force in Morocco)
On the Pacific side the move 3 option presents a dilemma, because it means that Tokyo and San Francisco are in reach of one another (via sz 8.) Frankly I don’t mind this so much, because it means that the SF VC would actually be in contention for once, and this route makes control of the Aleutians/sz 8 pretty critical.
Of course for a J1DoW, the balance of forces tilts heavily in Japan’s favor, which is definitely an issue. One possible solution would be to just give the US a blocking destroyer in sz 8. This is the main “required” set up change I was referring to earlier, since I don’t really see a way around it. But I suppose all this could be worked out, if people like the change otherwise.
Some interesting consequences regarding the NBs and sea zone shucks…
sz 6 to 10 (Japan/ W. US)
sz 81 to 39 (Egypt/India)
sz 39 to 20 (India/Kwangtung)
sz 6 to 37 (Japan/Malaya)
sz 37 to 62 (Malaya/E. Australia)
sz 35 to 26 (Philippines/E. Australia)
sz 35 to 39 (Philippines/India)
sz 62 to 26 (E. Australia/ Hawaii)
sz 26 to 63 (Hawaii/New Zealand)
That’s mainly on the Pacific side, but there are some interesting options on the Atlantic side as well…
sz 101 to 109 (E. US/England)
sz 101 to 105 or 110 (E. US to Normany or Holland)
sz 110 to 127 (England/Novogorod)
sz 113 to 109, or sz 112 to 92 (W. Germany/Gibraltar)
sz 110 or 105 to sz 93 (Normandy/S. France)
sz 91 to sz 98, or sz 92 to sz 81 (Gibraltar/Egypt)
etc.
: )
I’m gonna try Bmbr A0 D0 M6+2 w/AB No SBR C5 ? No Hit Points. Might be able to idk. Do a +1 to all naval movement version as well.:)
Tacs A4 D3 M4+2w/AB C12
Don’t forget to reduced bomber damage to 1D6, if possible, please.
Otherwise, this C5 Bomber will be overpowered.
Are you going to make a version without +1 Naval and another with?
Thanks Barney.
Baron did say that his testing of Tac targeting against land units is not problematic. If that is true, I have a couple questions:
Is Tac targeting on land not so problematic because the land units are cheaper and there are more of them than naval units? (Presumably, every Tac target on land is going against a Tank, when possible.)
How exactly do you have this system working against land units? Is it targeting every round of battle? Do they hit @4 or do they have to roll lower (2 or 1) to allow targeting?
Usually it is a Tank but sometimes AAA is chosen, because any hit means TcB shot down.
TcB A3 D2, (3 planes Carrier) so accordingly any hit let’s attacker (3 or less) or defender (2 or less) pick opponent casualty ground unit.
My other houserule works with TcB A4 D3 (2 planes Carrier) and need a “2” or less roll to pick ground casualty, otherwise as usual owner’s choice.
Fg A2 D2 (3 planes CV), always hit aircraft first (still owner’s choice amongst planes), then AAA and after, it becomes owner’s choice as usual for ground units.
Fg A3 D4 (2 planes CV), need a “2” or less roll to hit any plane as casualty, if none this apply to AAA, then casualty as usual (special “1” or “2” roll have no effect.)
Anyone ever consider carpet bombing for attack?
strat bomber rolls 3 die for a 2 or less in the attack….a defend 1 in SBR and SBR 3 rolls at 2 or less…defend at 0 in a battle like an air transport
Considering how strong is StB OOB, 3 rolls @1 were once suggested for Carpet bombing. Also, you can hit up to 3 units!
On offence SBR, the farthest is up to 3 rolls @1, 1 roll per plane max.
Never use defense 0 or 1 in SBR.
@SS:
I’ve been checking out this discussion and am looking to see where this goes. I could test this in my 40 game.
I did some die rolling for the Stg Bomber being C5 A0 D0 M6 1D6.I did test rolls on 3 bombers after getting through interceptors and AA guns. I rolled 3 dice for 3 bombers 20 times and came up with a 220 total number for 20 die rolls. So ave. roll for SBR was 11 damage. When I was doing test rolls , I was thinking maybe it was to strong. So I made it where bomber gets 1D6 -1 roll for SBR and that comes out to 10 damage for 3 bombers avg. attack.
With a D6 die being a 3 on ave roll would = 9 damage a attack and at -1 8 damage per attack on ave.
When I did the die rolls with 5 bombers it was to high for damage to the point of SBRing taking over the game. I also don’t want that in game. Just ave would be 5 bombers doing 15 damage per turn. 10 damage with the -1 factor. So would have to spend 1 icp to build a piece.
So trade off would be does a country want to spend 25 icp’s to do ave 15 damage on IC. It would cost IC 6 icp’s before it could build 1 piece but if country lost 2 bombers to interceptors or AA gun now they spent 25 icp’s for ave 9 damage on IC.
Cost attacker 10 icp’s to defender fix IC cost 1 to 9 icp’s. Doesn’t include icp costs for escorts. Most of the time the escorts can’t reach IC unless there close.
May have to have +1 to D6.
3 bombers ave 9 +3 = 12 damage. Cost defender 3 to 12 to fix.I checked ave rolls with the Baron SBR rules I’m trying in my game.
3 bombers ave 9 +6 =15 damage and 9 ave roll for IC reduced damage would = 6 damage total. Won’t work.So looks like have to do 1 game each to see how Stg Bomber gets a 1D6 for SBR or 1D6 +1. If bombers get a @1 on air battle then make it 1D6 for SBR.
Maybe Baron can crunch numbers, where would attacker gain anything on defender when it came to losing bombers to making attacker repair IC and keep them from building less pieces.
The Tac bomber may have to be C8-9 A3-4 D2-3 M4-5 and gets a First strike hit on ground and navy since now you lose the Bomber attack.
You must consider all 6 possibilities and make an average result per D6: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 /6 = 3.5
So, 11 damage for 3 StBs gives 3.667 IPCs on average. It is just slightly above 3.5
D6-1= 2.5 on average (0+1+2+3+4+5= 15 / 6 = 2.5)
D6+1= 4.5 on average (2+3+4+5+6+7= 27 / 6 = 4.5)
D6+2= 5.5 on average (3+4+5+6+7+8= 33 / 6 = 5.5)
Killer! :-D
I will say, I think the move 3 naval option has some serious potential. Whatever threat is posed by the German transport and u-boats in terms of setting up an early Sea Lion squeeze, this is basically offset by the fact that the AB +2 would allow the Americans to transit fighters from E. US to England directly. And 3 movement standard for ships (+1 from the NB) also means that the US Atlantic situation is way more interesting.
The global map is kind of bizarre in that England and Normandy are both 4 moves away from sz 101. In my view this kind of discourages D-Day staging in the UK, and I’m not sure there’s a whole lot that can be done about that. But with a standard move of 3 for all ships (and a +1 from the NB) the US has lot more options for a crossing. There is also an interesting move out of sz 106 to 125 (from the Nova Scotia NB) which puts Norway on the table for the northern route. A similar move out of 101 to sz 92, puts Algeria in play, and offers a somewhat more realistic Torch option, by giving the Eastern Task Force a place to land (instead of just the Western Task Force in Morocco)
On the Pacific side the move 3 option presents a dilemma, because it means that Tokyo and San Francisco are in reach of one another (via sz 8.) Frankly I don’t mind this so much, because it means that the SF VC would actually be in contention for once, and this route makes control of the Aleutians/sz 8 pretty critical.
Of course for a J1DoW, the balance of forces tilts heavily in Japan’s favor, which is definitely an issue. One possible solution would be to just give the US a blocking destroyer in sz 8. This is the main “required” set up change I was referring to earlier, since I don’t really see a way around it. But I suppose all this could be worked out, if people like the change otherwise.Some interesting consequences regarding the NBs and sea zone shucks…
sz 6 to 10 (Japan/ W. US)
sz 81 to 39 (Egypt/India)
sz 39 to 20 (India/Kwangtung)
sz 6 to 37 (Japan/Malaya)
sz 37 to 62 (Malaya/E. Australia)
sz 35 to 26 (Philippines/E. Australia)
sz 35 to 39 (Philippines/India)
sz 62 to 26 (E. Australia/ Hawaii)
sz 26 to 63 (Hawaii/New Zealand)That’s mainly on the Pacific side, but there are some interesting options on the Atlantic side as well…
sz 101 to 109 (E. US/England)
sz 101 to 105 or 110 (E. US to Normany or Holland)
sz 110 to 127 (England/Novogorod)
sz 113 to 109, or sz 112 to 92 (W. Germany/Gibraltar)
sz 110 or 105 to sz 93 (Normandy/S. France)
sz 91 to sz 98, or sz 92 to sz 81 (Gibraltar/Egypt)
etc.
Sorry to quote myself hehe, but I’m just wondering if people like the idea of the move 3 standard for all naval units, considering the above?
It seems to me that it would open up the naval game quite a bit in 1940. Sure some territories along the typical transport paths will remain insignificant (but that’s already the case OOB in many instances). On the whole I think it would dramatically speed things up, and make fleet coverage and coastal defense more interesting, because there are so many more potential targets on option in a given turn. We know already that the game favors stacking, and players are reluctant to break their fleets apart, but at least here they could move an extra tile each turn. I think the global map is large enough to accomodate this rather well. It has the gameplay benefit of more strategic defense planning, in that players are less likely to just leave their heartland territories lightly defended, or totally undefended, in order to throw everything at some far flung front. Here there is a greater likelihood you might get backdoored by a fleet in your home waters, so you have to account for that possibility. For example between SF and Tokyo, players would have to maneuver more blockers, and do more screening, and plan for the contingency that the enemy might come gunning across the sea at any time. Something similar would hold for Fortress Europa vs the Anglo-American crossing on the other side of the board.
I like the idea that it might be possible to play this way with the standard unit set up, using only a few tweaks to the ruleset. Same thing with the bomber and AB proposals. A few rules changes, with considerable implications on the gameplay.
For a G40 fix, I think you can go one of two ways…
Either make the unit set up fit the rules (like what we see with bids, starting unit mods etc.)
Or make new rules to fit the default unit set up (stuff like we’ve been talking about these past few pages.)
Doing both at once, (major rules changes and major unit set up changes), and there’s just not much of the original game left. I think you can push it pretty hard in one direction or the other, and enthusiastic players may accept it, so long as they still have something familiar to hold on to.
Given where the discussion has been trending I’d say it would be nice to change only the rules at this point, and try to preserve the OOB unit set up wherever possible.
I think move 3 for all naval units could work on this map, but I think sz 8 would have to be dealt with. A single addition to the unit set up of 1 destroyer off the Aleutians could fix that problem. Another alternative would be to somehow restrict Japan vs the US for a single round. I don’t know which is preferable. Or I guess we could drop the move 3 concept for now, and just focusing on the bombers, to see if that produces enough entertainment value by itself. But something tells me move 3 for ships might be popular, because it would open up so many new options on the water.
I’ll admit a strong desire right now to code name this HR proposal “SAN FRANCISCO RULES” or SF rules for short? Because it puts the SF VC into contention, and that’s also the city where I grew up.
Any objections?
:-D
Maybe “WEST COAST RULES” is more inclusive, since most places have a West Coast somewhere, even in Japan or Germany hehe. But yeah, that’s what I’m leaning towards right now.
West Coast Rules might work for 1942.2 as well. Move 3 for ships on that map would be nutso, but potentially highly entertaining (Germany and UK could go wild in the opener!). That game doesn’t have bases or tacBs, but it could have the defenseless bomber and the naval move 3, as the defining characteristics of the ruleset.
1942.2 is a little peculiar in that the UK has some Pacific openers vs Japan don’t really have a clear historical analogue. (Pearl part 2 is another one of these historical departures) The way the units and turn order are set up, it’s a bit like the British win the battle of Java sea, and the Japanese win the battle of Midway, according to the round one OOB script.
With a ships moving at 3 as suggested by the HR, the situation probably still allows for some similar (regrettably ahistorical) situations in the round one script. But it still has a high entertainment value from a gameplay perspective. In 1942.2 with 3 move ships, the British could hit Truk, sink the Caroline islands carrier and potentially save the US fleet at pearl. Japan would then have to consider what to do. Sz 53 is spared the worst of it. Perhaps just imagine that the British maneuver was like a mini Midway, taking place too soon, in the wrong area with the wrong nations involved, but resulting in the desired unit spread for the Midway style game… Japan down a carrier, US up a carrier from OOB. This move by UK would of course have to be considered against the new India dynamic, which has Tokyo one turn from Calcutta, and the new West Coast dynamic, which has Tokyo one turn from San Francsisco, so its not exactly a given hehe. Under this HR strategic bombers are out of the combat equation, so conceivably Japan could go toe to toe with the USN in sz56, and it would be 1 Battleship + 1 DD vs 1 Battleship + 1 DD, squaring off against each other. (Probably unwise for J1 haha, but at least it’s possible to reach sz56). I seriously think this rule could finally put the San Francisco Victory City into contention.
Similarly on the Atlantic side in 1942.2, Germany might have a way to realistically keep a fleet, if they make a mad dash on Morocco or France and do some non com wizardry. Again because the strategic bomber is out of combat, the German cruiser and battleship would be harder to sink (esp if they converged). Perhaps this rule even puts the Washington DC Victory City into contention too at some point, if the Germans make a glorious play on the water? In any case the US comes out pretty clean overall, since they get some ideal shucks at move 3. Russia and UK both benefit by extension.
I think the naval change compliments the bomber change quite well, especially in 1942.2. What you lose in combat mobility for the strategic bomber, you gain in mobility for all ships. Sure we lose the attack 4 in the air for 1942.2, but you still have it on the water with the battleship, and I think players are less likely to lament the loss of a 6 movement air combat unit, if they get 3 movement for all naval units in exchange. The German player is somewhat less likely to grumble about the loss of their stratB air umbrella, because instead they get to have a more interesting naval game for a change. Or at least, a chance to actually compete on the water, if they wanted to. One imagines that this might help balance the game at the center, by giving Germany something else to think about beyond just rolling over Moscow time and again.
A simple core rules change that works for 1942.2, and for G40 as well (expanded to include the AB and Tactical Bomber tweaks) would be something.
Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.
1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?
In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?
I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.
If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.
Actually, for playtesting 1942.2 and G40, there is two things.
1942.2 SBR without escort and intercept is far more aggressive than OOB.
G40 SBR played under 1D6+2 damage will make OP compared to OOB.
OOB Triple A SBR 1942.2 gives bomber D6 damage. This provides 2.917 avg damage minus 2 avg StB casualty for a result of +0.917 IPCs per Bomber/raid.
The new Cost 5 Bomber provides a much lower average casualty: -0.833 , this make average raid +2.084 IPCs per Bomber.
It is more than 1 IPC increase, that should be noted.
(However, 0.5 less excessive than G40 OOB SBR, +2.583)
With intercept the change is far less drastic.
OOB 1 StB A1 C12 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1
So, with C5 bomber vs 1 Fg (+0.903), odds remains pretty similar to Triple A 1942.2 SBR (+0.917) no intercept.
But A0 C5 Bomber has no FIT, it is always beneficial to intercept.
So to keep odds as low as usual OOB.
That was not the case OOB Triple A.
This new bomber requires much more interception as an intrinsic part of its core rule, otherwise people may be bias and think it is OP if there is only AAA to fight C5 Bombers. Just a warning…
Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.
1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
AAA roll = odds casualties
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCsD6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
@Baron:
Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.
1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?
In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?
I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.
If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.
Actually, for playtesting 1942.2 and G40, there is two things.
1942.2 SBR without escort and intercept is far more aggressive than OOB.
G40 SBR played under 1D6+2 damage will make OP compared to OOB.
OOB Triple A SBR 1942.2 gives bomber D6 damage. This provides 2.917 avg damage minus 2 avg StB casualty for a result of +0.917 IPCs per Bomber/raid.
The new Cost 5 Bomber provides a much lower average casualty: -0.833 , this make average raid +2.084 IPCs per Bomber.
It is more than 1 IPC increase, that should be noted.
With intercept the change is far less drastic.
OOB 1 StB A1 C12 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1
- 2.431 - 3.667 = -1.236 IPC per StB per raid
1 StB A0 C5 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1- 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903 IPC per StB per raid
A difference of 2.139 IPCs per raid on 1:1So, with C5 bomber vs 1 Fg (+0.903), odds remains pretty similar to Triple A 1942.2 SBR (+0.917) no intercept.
However, A0 C5 has no FIT, it is always beneficial to intercept. So to keep odds as low as usual OOB.
That was not the case OOB Triple A.
This new bomber requires much more interception as an intrinsic part of its core rule, otherwise people may be bias and think it is OP if there is only AAA to fight C5 Bombers. Just a warning…Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.
1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
AAA roll = odds casualties
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCsD6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
This is what I was trying to talk about in my post. Also mean’t you crunchin numbers which you have here now. Thank You.
Right so just to keep it simple…
San Francisco Rules for 1942.2 requires a 2 line change to the ruleset:
1. All naval units now move 3 standard.
2. Bombers are defenseless A0/D0/M6/C5 SBR 1d6 (no hitpoints in normal combat). Intercept option recommended
San Francisco Rules Global 1940 (or variants thereof) requires a 4 line change to the ruleset:
1. All naval units now move 3 standard.
2. Bombers are defenseless A0/D0/M6/C5 SBR 1d6 “no damage bonus” (no hitpoints in normal combat).
3. Airbases now provide a +2 movement bonus to aircraft
4. Tactical Bomber A4/D3/M4/C12 “no combined arms,” can raid bases as normal.
Technically the 4th line could be optional, since players might use the OOB tactical bomber if desired. A tac change is not strictly necessary to make this ruleset work, though I think the beefed up attack with less combined arms confusion, would simplify its role in combat considerably.
Move 3 on the sea could be major draw for players who are interested in branching out from the OOB game, because its very simple to understand what you’re getting yourself into. You can imagine what the intended gameplay effects might be. Similarly, its pretty simple to understand the defenseless bomber concept, or the AB +2 concept. When a game has been out for 5 years, sometimes you have to go for something a little dramatic to keep it entertaining. But at least this one has the advantage of being fairly simple to explain.
I’d leave the door open here for very minor set up change (such as a destroyer in sz 8), or perhaps a 5th line to the Global rules change if necessary, to make the map playable under naval move 3 conditions, but on the whole I think you could use the default set up cards and it would still work pretty well.
What’s the plan for interceptors ? They D2 while escorts hit at 1 ? I know that’s how it used to be except for bmbrs hit at 1 as well. Which, obviously, is a big difference.
@Baron
yea no bonus 2 on sbr. I’ll get started on it. Also a Naval M3 version. I might be able to make that an option inside the game so you’d only need one version. That would take longer if possible. We’ll see how this goes for now
A couple of quick notes on the effect of a 3-move navy in 1942.2:
I don’t think San Francisco or Washington DC will ever truly be in play in a game that’s still undecided, because the US will always have the income to place a ton of infantry and/or blocking destroyers. E.g., if J1 builds 4 transports, then A1 blocks Midway island with 1 DD; there are no 3-zone paths from Tokyo to San Francisco that avoid Midway. If J2 kills the blocking destroyer and advances eastward with loaded transports (instead of dropping those troops in Asia, where they are needed), then America buys 8 infantry, 2 fighters for San Francisco, reinforcing with additional fighters from Hawaii, Eastern US, etc. as needed, and now even 4 loaded Japanese transports isn’t really enough to take San Francisco.
I do worry about India disappearing on J2. There’s a hard limit on how many troops the Allies can get into India before a J2 attack based on the starting positions of the Allied units and the 3-income production limit on the India factory. Unless you’re going to build fighters in the Caucasus on R1 and fly them to India, that limit is somewhere around 10 units. But if Japan builds something like 3 transports, 3 infantry on J1, then Japan can hit India with 14+ units on J2, taking the factory at a profit. That’s a huge problem for the Allies, especially since they can build another 3 transports on J2 to setup an instant 3x3 shuck from Tokyo to Calcutta. The Caucasus should fall by turn 5 at the latest, probably closer to turn 4 on average. That really doesn’t leave time for American Atlantic purchases to arrive at the front lines, even with a 3-zone move. Even though an American Atlantic fleet purchased on A1 can now physically reach France on A2, America just doesn’t have the cash to buy enough transports to hold France, plus enough warships to defend the new fleet in the Med or the English Channel, where it will be in range of the entire German air force. Maybe you could open the Dardanelles, so that America can reinforce the Caucasus directly on A3 (Washington -> Casablanca -> Stalingrad)? Kind of weird to have the Americans hopscotch an Italian-held Mediterranean and just sail straight into the Black Sea, but it could work.
I think a 3-move naval roster will work great in Global 40 – the map is so huge that you really need the third move.
