G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

You forgot to mention a Substantial 5 IPCs unit in the roster.
There are units in these spots:
3-4-5-6-7-8-10-12-14 or 16- 20

A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned…I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.

@Baron:

Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.

I like this.

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Land base unit… as in a AB/NB type movement booster for land units? I haven’t studied HBGs Global War system in depth, but do they not have a Rail Road feature for land unit movement bonus? Maybe something similar.

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

@Argothair:

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

:lol:

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

On this topic, here is an AAA at 5 IPCs which explained why it needs to move only in NCM.
@Baron:

This is a very different way of seeing AAA unit which can increase its usefulness and add a few interesting defensive tactics.

@Baron:

@piscolar:

Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.

One old idea to make AAA unit more interesting was this little tweak, which can represents fortified hardpoints, is to make it a 2 hits unit:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 0, 1 @1 preemptive, up to three planes, 1 per plane max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
In addition, if no combat unit is with it, then it is auto-destroy, per OOB rule.

For 15 IPCs, you get 3 regular hits, 3 buffer hits, and up to 9 preemptive strike @1 on aircraft.
With Infantry, it is 5 hits and 10 defense points, but you loose 3 units on first casualties.

An additional ability to figure Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line can be that when attacked, you may roll 1 defense @1 of preemptive fire on ground unit attacking per AAA unit.

Another possibility can be this:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery as Fortifications
Attack 0
Defense 1, up to three preemptive roll @1, against up to three units, ground or plane, 1 per attacking unit max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
The one time preemptive roll can simulate the fact that once fortifications are overwhelmed, they can no more use their defensive weapons.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.
I like this.

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.

@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:

1. 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.)

2. 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?

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’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

@barney:

: )
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.

@LHoffman:

Baron did say that his testing of Tac targeting against land units is not problematic. If that is true, I have a couple questions:

1. 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.)

2. 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?

1. Usually it is a Tank but sometimes AAA is chosen, because any hit means TcB shot down.

2. 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.)

@Leatherneckinlv:

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)