@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.
@Black_Elk:
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?
