@barnee said in G40 House Rules Expansion TripleA Games Archive:
It’s so we can upvote when we can’t anymore. An upvote is often used simply as a easy way to acknowledge a post without having to type
See my PM, please.
Also @VictoryFirst , please.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
Hoping to balance slightly Cruiser and BB in the proces would be:
Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .17) ratio probably requires no change cost. Only AAA maybe needed.
CRUISER A3 D3 C12 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @3.Battleship A4 D4 C20 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @4.10 DD A1 D1 C6 vs 3 BB A4 D4 C20, 2 hits gives 50% vs 50% odds of survival. Balancing itself.
Since 7 IPCs Subs is costlier it makes a better odds for BBs, 20 Subs vs 7 BBs = 98% vs 2%.
Before 20 Subs vs 6 BBs = 99.8% vs 0.2%
6 Subs C7 vs 7 DDs A1 D1 C6 = 77% vs 22%
OOB 8 Subs C6 vs 6 DD A2 D2 C8 = 88% vs 11% -
@CWO:
Yeah, the first problem with House Rules is gaining widespread adoption. People are reluctant to accept unofficial revisions for a number of reasons, but the hardest obstacle is simply overcoming the initial opposition or lack of acceptance/use. If you can get past that coefficient of friction to the point where many, even if not most, people are using it and finding it universally good, the success becomes easier to sustain and push into official-but-unofficial territory. I think of bids as being that way. Bidding is a widely accepted method to fix a perceived game weakness using an method not found int the rulebook. A bid is more of a pre-game handicap than a true rule though, so the analogy is not fully accurate.
Second problem with House Rules is permanence. As you mentioned, House Rules - especially entire rule sets with multiple OOB changes - are often completed only to be later further revised or abandoned. This gives the impression that HRs are unstable and unreliable. The unstable perception is one thing we can control based on our consistency, attention to detail and supporting evidence through playtesting. It will also take a lot of self-control on our part not to meddle with rules after they are introduced. Approaching each component HR in a measured manner with specific intentions for fixes will help to keep things organized and logical.
I agree that there’s often a temptation to keep tinkering with house rules, and that this tinkering in turn gives people the impression that HRs are unstable, and that this impression is part of the resistance factor that works against the adoption of HRs. The counterbalancing argument could be made, however, that the OOB rules of OOB games have the opposite problem: they’re too static. OOB rules only undergo official evolution in a major way when a given game gets published in a new edition (like the 1940 second edition games that followed their first-edition counterparts). Other than that, they either never change officially or they only get officially tweaked to a small degree by such mechanisms as the publication of errata. The point, in other words, is that the dynamic nature of HRs isn’t entirely a bad thing, at least in contrast with the largely-cast-in-cement nature of OOB rules.
Your reference to bids is a good example of the concept you mentioned of an HR achieving “broad acceptance in practice” within the community. The details of specific bidding practices will still vary greatly from play group to play group, but the basic concept of bids in and of itself is one that is broadly understood and broady accepted. A rough parallel, based on an article I read recently about languages, would be to equate OOB rules with French and to equate HRs with English. The French language – by which I mean its vocabulary and grammar – is in principle regulated by an official body located in France, the Academie francaise, which is very fussy about what is and is not “proper” French. English, by contrast, has been described as an “open source” language which has no central regulating body; this doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as “proper” English, but it does mean that the parameters of proper English are set by common convention rather than by a central authority. In other words: if through the process of day-to-day usage a new (or changed) element of English achieves broad acceptance, it comes to be regarded as proper (or at least tolerable) English rather than a fleeting novelty or (worse yet) as an error. Your “push into official-but-unofficial territory” embodies very much the same idea in an A&A context.
I love the analogy. I guess in that sense, what we’re hoping for here, is that our new slang eventually make its way into Websters or the OED haha. Certainly much simpler and more expedient than a petition to some national academy. Use the “words” this way enough with your friends, and maybe it takes off.
:-DJust out of curiosity, since I often lean on you for insights in the history to gameplay arena, do you have any thoughts on the recent strategic bomber proposal? I tried to give a basic summary in the HR list thread.
Defenseless Strategic Bomber (SBR Only):
for G40 and 1942.2Rule: The Strategic Bomber is now defenseless with the following stats…
Attack 0, Defend 0, Move 6, Cost 5, SBR damage at 1d6, with no hitpoint in normal combat.These bombers are now used exclusively for strategic bombing raids, and no longer have a role in regular combat. Outside of SBR they are treated much like the defenseless transport, placed to the side of the battle board. Optional intercept rules recommended.
Purpose: as corrective to the air umbrella or “dark skies” approach, where players use Strategic Bombers primarily in combat vs navies, and to streamline the SBR process to encourage more raids.
Global implementation: in addition to the above, the Airbase unit’s movement bonus is increased to +2 total for all aircraft. This is intended to maintain a degree of mobility for combat aircraft, while simplifying the movement count for air units, and increasing the range of fighters and tactical bombers to support the strategic bombers on escort duty. The damage bonus for SBR is removed. Strategic Bombers now roll damage at 1d6 (not 1d6+2).
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1624810#msg1624810The last part in particular, regarding the Airbase unit, is something that developed out of discussions we had about zero ipc Pacific Islands. The thought being that airbases on such islands would be much more useful, and strategically interesting with the movement bonus at +2.
-
@Baron:
Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
Hoping to balance slightly Cruiser and BB in the proces would be:
Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .17) ratio probably requires no change cost. Only AAA maybe needed.
CRUISER A3 D3 C12 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @3.Battleship A4 D4 C20 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @4.10 DD A1 D1 C6 vs 3 BB A4 D4 C20, 2 hits gives 50% vs 50% odds of survival. Balancing itself.
Since 7 IPCs Subs is costlier it makes a better odds for BBs, 20 Subs vs 7 BBs = 98% vs 2%.
Before 20 Subs vs 6 BBs = 99.8% vs 0.2%
6 Subs C7 vs 7 DDs A1 D1 C6 = 77% vs 22%
OOB 8 Subs C6 vs 6 DD A2 D2 C8 = 88% vs 11%Such 6 IPCs unit will be a more acceptable cost for a blocker unit, too.
Why not adding an independence factor from fleet movement for Subs to compensate for 1 IPC increase?
Why not just gives M3 to both Subs and Cruiser to emphasized their increase autonomy and, for Subs, a credible way to acknowledged they can be able to be refueled in open Ocean?
Naval Base still giving +1 bonus Move to all warships, including Cruisers and Submarines.CRUISER
A3 D3 C12 M3-4, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @3.Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M3-4 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.That way, Sub may get more mobility, to pass by some blockers and be less vulnerable to attack.
And all this can stay within Triple A easy modifications. Right? -
Sorry Baron, I did mean to reply directly, but got somewhat sidetracked in the broader discussion.
The main thing I see as desirable is a submarine with a unique role in the game, and not primarily for fleet padding. The 1:1 rule goes some way towards accomplishing that aim. It means that a player is not so heavily penaltized for buying only subs, when the opponent boxes them in with the purchase of a single destroyer as they do OOB. For example, there is a definite disincentive for Germany to purchase subs for fear that they just get rocked by a bunch of Allied aircraft and a single destroyer OOB. The second they try to move out of the baltic past the safety of the straits. You imagine a situation where Germany buys 6 subs, tries to “strangle UK” with them, only to see all 6 subs immediately sunk, by a single destroyer accompanied by 6 allied fighters.
One potential issue (which doesn’t really matter for a full redesign with new set up cards, but still worth thinking about) is just how many first round battles involve subs.
The same issue was raised by barney with defensless bombers, but in that case I contented myself with the thought that the trade off there might actually be a better balance by sides, via no stratB influence in the opening combats, and more raiding throughout.
I guess my question is, do you think such a broad redesign of naval units has good chance of still working with the OOB unit set up cards?
I see moving away from the boxed set up cards, to create a new distribution of starting naval units across the map, as particularly challenging for G40. In other words, if a new custom unit roster introduces a large disparity due to messing with opening battles, my preferred strategy for dealing with that would be to use cash.
Rather than trying adjust the starting units, to accomodate the new system, I say better to leave the opener as is, and just deal with the fallout (whatever it ends up looking like), by using starting cash adjustments. Then let the player solve the problem through purchasing.
I don’t know what kind of battles the proposed unit alterations might suggest, or if they fit with the desire for those to emulate the situation in 1940. But honestly, I think anything on balance is easy to address with starting ipcs.
It’s way simpler for me to come up with an abstracted justification for more money at the outset for a nation, than to advance the argument that we need to change the units in sz A to such and such. I feel like doing that puts us kind of off in the deep end.
Do you guys have thoughts on this? Other mods and the bid, rely on this idea that the boxed set up needs adjustment to starting unit placement. But when I do that I feel like it violates an idea that would otherwise be simple to retain, that the unit set up is the concrete part, and only the rules need change, or have extras layered on top.
Then if someone wants to introduce new units (expanded roster) into the mix, you can let then be introduced through normal purchasing. I think this kind of solution is particularly well suited to a game set in 1940, since it’s meant to be more about build up anyway.
-
I’d also be interested to hear if CWO Marc has any thoughts on the M3 idea.
Do you think G40 can handle an additional movement point for all ships?
I feel like it works for the period, in terms of the distances ships might move in kind of time frames that a game round is meant to suggest.3 Movement for Ships (M3):
For all gamesRule: the base movement rate for all ships is increased to 3.
Purpose: to increase the range of all naval units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes to cross oceans and speeding up the play pace for naval powers. Opens up more shucks, and essentially resets the map from a naval perspective. This HR is largely untested at the moment, so it is difficult to say what the balance implications may be, but it has the advantage of a very simple implementation.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625814#msg1625814 -
@CWO:
I agree that there’s often a temptation to keep tinkering with house rules, and that this tinkering in turn gives people the impression that HRs are unstable, and that this impression is part of the resistance factor that works against the adoption of HRs.� The counterbalancing argument could be made, however, that the OOB rules of OOB games have the opposite problem: they’re too static.� OOB rules only undergo official evolution in a major way when a given game gets published in a new edition (like the 1940 second edition games that followed their first-edition counterparts).� Other than that, they either never change officially or they only get officially tweaked to a small degree by such mechanisms as the publication of errata.� The point, in other words, is that the dynamic nature of HRs isn’t entirely a bad thing, at least in contrast with the largely-cast-in-cement nature of OOB rules.
True; the game can get a little stale with years between significant rule additions. The ‘too static’ nature of OOB rules is why we are proposing House Rules. However, I would argue that stability and consistency in Axis&Allies is far more important than innovation. The hallmark of any great game is its appeal over time. This implies other qualities such as enjoyment, proven mechanics and brand recognition. All of those qualities are achieved through a consistent and distinctive character.
OOB rules are too static in that successive revisions tend to be extremely minimal in nature. This is to be expected because a real company is dealing with a profitable asset. It would be a great financial risk to significantly alter a proven good thing and alienate a loyal customer base. Consistent rules and game mechanics are essential to the survival of the brand.
If the San Francisco Rules are to gain widespread acceptance and use, one of our main goals must be to frame them Rules as statistically proven, permanent fixes to specific problems. Permanence is key; that alone should engender confidence in the changes. The mutability of so many other House Rules is the reason they lack any true influence beyond the very limited circles they are spawned in.
-
I’d also be interested to hear if CWO Marc has any thoughts on the M3 idea.
Do you think G40 can handle an additional movement point for all ships?
I feel like it works for the period, in terms of the distances ships might move in kind of time frames that a game round is meant to suggest.3 Movement for Ships (M3):
For all gamesRule: the base movement rate for all ships is increased to 3.
Purpose: to increase the range of all naval units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes to cross oceans and speeding up the play pace for naval powers. Opens up more shucks, and essentially resets the map from a naval perspective. This HR is largely untested at the moment, so it is difficult to say what the balance implications may be, but it has the advantage of a very simple implementation.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625814#msg1625814I believe it speed too much things and probably switch balance pendulum toward Allies, but just an opinion here.
Actually, the set-up is pretty much a starting point.
I didn’t see Redesign thread as a balanced thread such as 1942.2, we wrote in.
I’m more about increasing game experience, talking sky is the limit to get ideas but going deep within actual TripleA limit to see where some ideas can do to expand this wargame universe without too much radically changing the whole game.
At one point, when enough additions will be done and tested, then a line will be drawn probably and the whole balance question will be address with a few set-up changes, I still believe.On M3-4, I feel like adding only this to Cruiser (unpopular, under optimized OOB) and to a 7 IPCs Sub (a bit weaker in combat, much less interesting fodder than DD A1 D1 M2-3 C6, but more elusive with a capacity to work outside NB SZs) makes for a more chess-like Naval Combat. In addition, it will not be possible to directly invade a land 4 SZs away, but still some units may attack the SZs, keeping everyone on his toes.
It solve a lot of balance issues too.
DD is a bit less powerful than OOB DD but better vs Sub and still better fodder at 2 IPCs less (better balanced relatively to CV, CA and BB), easier pawn to sacrifice as blocker, but Subs would outmove it far from NB.
Still easier to produce in mass than OOB, increasing number of escorting units with TPs.
More units to block Subs but, in itself 1:1 not as dangerous.
(Spaming in SZ possibility? I say it is ok since fleet will be less in just 1 big pack of units in same SZ.)
And low @1 may also be a psychological incentive to buy more Cruiser @3.It is as far as I can go within Triple A to solve some issues.
And I see some more tactical options instead of all M3 ships.
Giving all units M3 in Triple A, it is still somewhat easy to be enforce by player in some play-tests in which only Cruiser and Subs would receive this additional move.
I would add that any other movement allowance to such and such can still be tested inside a single xml file giving M3 to all units.
Sometimes, a few one vs oneself test can be enough to see if an option has no interesting potential. -
It’s true, the theme proposed was a full redesign, just trying to look ahead to the implementation. Not just for G40, but really any mod that uses the same basic map with a fixed set up of whatever sort. Whether a balanced mod, or different start date like 1941 or 1942. I think a simple solution in any case is probably to use the starting cash as the go to balance corrective, rather than a preplacement bid. Since if introducing a bunch of other new stuff, players are more likely to accept whatever attendant changes to the starting cash might be necessary to make it work at that point.
I think M3 has some promise. Whether for all ships, or just a few select naval units. If just a few units, then whatever those are will instantly become more attractive, if not the most attractive, purchase options. Just because the movement advantage is potentially so significant.
I can see it working for the cruiser alone. For cruisers and subs together, I think you’d want to arrange it such that subs don’t just become the default fodder for cruiser + air actions at M3, but are used more independently. But I do like the concept of giving them a larger radius of opperations. I think a sub at M3 would make for more entertaining wolf packs. And a cruiser at M3 would be fun for breaking naval pickets. What you’d lose over just a full on m3 for everything (including transports), is the possibility of new shucks or new basic paterns for amphibious landings. But at least the combat ship actions would offer something new.
Here’s an idea, what if we went the other direction?
Defenseless transport as the lone naval unit at M3?
Part of me really likes the idea allowing a cat and mouse between production centers at M3 amphibious range. Any thoughts on including the transport as the M3 naval unit? This would allow for interesting shucks, or amphibious options, but would make naval defense of these transports somewhat more nuanced. This might solve the issue of cross-ocean amphibious invasions being too fast or overpowered. For example Japan would have transports in range of SF, but not the heavy warships. However, once the warships are in range of SF, it would be faster to bring up the transports from the home production regions (putting the VC in contention.) This would prevent for example a J1 attack on SF, because the warships would still be 1 move too far. While still allowing for the possibility of a West Coast invasion at some point, because you could launch troops and draw up ground reinforcements more quickly with the m3 transports, to sustain the campaign. Or vice versa from the American perspective.
Maybe you get a similar situation with Normandy and the Atlantic crossing? Technically safer to stage in UK first (for transport protection) but then once your defensive fleet is in position and you make landfall, it’s easier to bring reinforcements out of North America at M3.
M3 would certainly make the “defenseless” part of the transport less of a burden, because it can move farther than other ships. This kind of fits with the defenseless bomber idea too. Or the general idea that both strategic bombers and transports (the defenseless units) get something special, a movement bonus, and special action, (which other units don’t get) on account of their being defenseless.
Under this formulation the defenseless units would have no normal combat role (0/0, no hitpoints), only specialized actions (SBR/Amphibious), but in exchange the unit has the best movement rate in their class.
If the transport was the only ship at M3 you’d still have a similar staging of the main fleets, because transports would need the M2 warships for protection on defense. But it still introduces a lot more mobility to the naval game, in terms of how far transported ground units might reach on a given turn. This would encourage players to ‘get out ahead’ of their transports with the warships, secure the transport lane first, and then bring up the transported troops. Instead of what we have now, where you almost always have to lead with transports in the fleet, moving everything together at once.
ps. I know the M3 transport may seem on the face of it to favor Allies (since they are the side more reliant upon the unit) but I see some interesting options for Axis as well. From the German perspective this would allow transports in sz 113 to reach sz 127 Archangel (with the NB boost). A transport in sz 93 S. France, could reach sz 98 Egypt. A transport is sz 114 E. Germany could reach sz 110 England. And if the Axis could establish a secure fleet in sz 110 to defend them, transports from the Normandy-Bordeaux naval base, could threaten North America directly. On the Japanese side basically the entire Pacific would be opened up (including a possible option on N. America for a change.) All this just with transports as the lone naval unit at M3.
I think the “SBR only” Strategic Bomber and Airbase +2 would be pretty cool under M3 transport conditions. It achieves the main thing I wanted from the earlier “M3 for all” proposal, in terms of putting more VCs into contention and providing a greater incentive for coastal defense vs amphibious (pulls Axis away from the center somewhat). But with less distortion overall, on account of the M2 warships putting some upward limits on the M3 transport. I wonder if the same might work for 1942.2?
This does not address the issue with the cruiser, or subs, but given all the feelings people have about defenseless transports, and frustrations related to that one unit, maybe M3 is the proper response? It makes it much more strategically interesting as a purchase option. This is probably the single most significant change to gameplay pacing we could make, by altering a single unit’s stats in only one dimension.
The defenseless transport has gotten the most gripes of any unit introduced in years. Many feel it is underpowered for the cost and drags down the game pace. But on the other hand there is no denying how profound the defenseless concept has been for opening up naval combat. This rule satisfies both desires, to keep what we like, what the new defenseless unit does for naval combat (over the old fodder spam), while still giving it something more for the cost, (without requiring any special phases or extra abilities) just a bonus in added movement.
Transport: Attack 0, Defend 0, Move 3, cost 7 ipcs, no hitpoints (no role in normal naval combat). Special ability: can move ground units across the sea and amphibious assault. Activates bombardment from Cruisers and Battleships.
The core ruleset change so far would be a quick read, only 2 lines for 1942.2, or 3 lines for G40…
San Francisco House Rules:
1. Transports move 3
2. Strategic bombers are now defenseless. A0/D0/M6/SBR 1d6 (no hitpoint in normal combat). Escort/Intercept recommended.
3. Air Bases grant a +2 bonus to aircraft. (G40)
I think that would make for a fun jumping off point. Keep the standard unit set up, and see what sort of play pattern it produces. Then option on additional modifications if desired, using that as the base. Players could then implement the basic ruleset first, and approach everything else in stages (so its not too much at once). The core unit changes, might then perhaps recommend secondary changes at the next level. Like with cruisers, tactical bombers, subs etc. or alternative political rules or extra bonuses layered on top. This would provide a further justification for modifying those units or added those rules, to bring the rest of the game more in line with the core unit changes. That second layer of changes would be like the advanced ruleset/mod, but the basic HR tweak would come from the 3 adjustments listed above as its foundation.
Do you think such a transport would reduce the need for adjusted production profiles? A better transport might mean less need for a ground outpost, or mid-range 3 tiered factory system. A better air base might make valueless islands worthwhile. A different approach to the strategic bomber might put SBR back into the mix in a more serious way, while preventing the naval crushing aspect that it has OOB. The 3 unit changes don’t really effect the battleboard (the strategic bomber values there are ignored), while transports and airbases aren’t a factor there either. So pretty simple to implement, since you can keep the same essential materials for now. On the whole it seems like it might accomplish a fair amount, with pretty limited adjustments.
Any interest?
-
Yes.
It opens up a lot of sea-border TTys. I like it very much. And you still have time to see other naval units coming.
I modified lightly the value according to OOB TP. You must consider TP still have 1 hit value.
Same for StB, which must be taken last in regular combat.TRANSPORT:
Attack 0
Defend 0
Move 3-4 (4 with NB bonus)
Cost 7 IPCs,
Hit: 1 hit point (due to special Sub combat situations), but no role in normal naval combat. Must be taken as last casualty.
Special ability: can move ground units across the sea and amphibious assault.
Each ground unit activates 1 bombardment from Cruiser or Battleship.And because of this idea, now I may find Cruiser with only M3 worths something to buy.
Even if under-powered compared to all other warships and aircraft units. Simply because it may works as an escort warships into a Fast responding Task Force moving 3 or 4 SZs. No need to adjust cost. And it would be similar combat values of 1914 Cruiser.
At most, if needed a little AA cover maybe added (this need to be decided with play-tests IMO).CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3-4
Cost 12
Hit: 1 hit
Abilities: 1 Shorebombardment @3 if at least one ground is unloaded in amphibious assault.
Optional: First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser.I once suggested much earlier in this thread to make a combined arms with cruiser.
CWMarc told it was unheard of that Cruiser gives fuel to TP.
But considering 3-4 moves more as operational range, not speed. It is acceptable.
It allows a lot of independent moves with small landing fleet, and make more useful to have shore bombardment when no other combat units can arrive in time,(reach the SZ).
Just this, makes me think about Guadalcanal campaign opening. Only warships (Cruisers and Destroyers) and Marines first arrived. It is only later than Air Support from Carrier was possible.I really believe this combo need to be tried.
On Sub M3, it was unheard from CWO Marc that Subs works with Cruisers.
I rather keep TP and CA M3-4, and let go back Sub to M2-3.
I’d still hope for different way to provide Submarines some defensive cover against DD blocker.
Blocker stalling Sub in a SZ which can be attacked following round by DD+Aircrafts umbrella attacking and sinking many Subs with only a single DD!++++++++++++
On Redesign project, I believe it can partially reinvent some IPCs numbers for VCs or zero values Islands.
But I don’t think it should go further with new units, like Marines, etc.
For boardgame, I believe it is better to offer a different experience but with the same OOB box materials.Any extra pieces should be considered variants for hard core player which have all boxes, HBG sculpts and more.
It can be part of Triple A more easily but not as the basic.
Example, adding TcB into 1942.2 would be an optional, in addition to Redesign basic level of change. -
Interestingly many cruisers are already nicely paired up with transports in the set up cards for these games.
:-DOK so still a 2-3 line revision.
1. M3 transports and cruisers
2. Defenseless bomber
3. AB +2Let’s run down the list…
Defenseless transports now suck less for the cost. Cruisers suddenly become interesting at 12 ipcs. Bombers bomb like they’re meant to, and the air vs naval game is brought more into line as a result. We get a 5 ipc sweet spot unit again. Fighters can run escort/intercept more effectively. Islands with airbases or naval bases are much improved. There’s a chance that more VCs are up for contention, with less emphasis on the center crush for a change. America can get into the fight a bit faster.Seems pretty solid for not really having to do a whole lot rules-wise.
One thing that’s kind of cool about the AB+2, is that it means that Japan can use Hawaii as a strategic bombing base vs SF. Or the Truk AB at Carolines to run raids vs Australia. The Americans could use Marianas as a strategic bombing base vs Tokyo if they bought an AB there, and Guam already has one if its recovered. Both Iwo and Okinawa can serve as bases for US escorts in raids vs Tokyo with a purchased AB. So all these islands have much more significance to the gameplay as potential base locations (in a way that fits with the history.) Similarly these rules activate sz 8 around the Aleutians, and make Midway more interesting at the same time, because these too can serve as a potential raiding bases. The Japanese would have a real incentive to contest their control.
For a rationale specifically concerning the cruiser, I imagine all these units as occupying a niche role for the gameplay. The sculpts themselves represent collective forces, so a cruiser needn’t be just a cruiser, but represents a battle group at a certain scale… in this case a more agile fast moving unit, meant to serve as escorts for the troops. The plan is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, and only engage when absolutely necessary (they want to deliver that precious cargo where it’s supposed to go, with as few frills as possible.) Contrast these with the main battlegroups, the larger surface fleets composed of Carriers and Battleships and Destroyers at M2, who move with a somewhat different purpose. Their main job is to clear the sea lanes and engage the enemy directly, or secure a zone for defense. Again I’m talking more in gameplay terms, how these units are actually used (less concerned with the historical analogs of a given sculpt, since you can imagine fleet composition to scale however you like.) In this scheme subs are somewhere in the middle. It actually works quite well, because subs can pair off against the faster moving transports and cruisers when they try to break away from destroyer cover at m3, giving subs a chance to attack before the destroyers arrive (against ships that are more vulnerable to their surprise strike). So there is a bit of a trade off, the movement bonus leaves such Cruiser+transport groups more exposed to sub warfare, which gives the opponent more of a reason to screen with subs.
Curiously, I think this HR might produce a naval situation in both the Atlantic and Pacific that looks more like the actual war. More cruisers subs and destroyers in the Atlantic. More bases and carriers in the Pacific. I also like what it does for 1942.2 too, because transports and cruisers at M3 would be pretty exciting there, even without the bases of G40. (It provides a desired movement potential for the ruleset over OOB, to compensate for the defenseless bomber getting removed from a combat role). On that smaller scale map, this M3 version with Cruisers/Transports, works better for the balance around sz 53. A pearl attack on J1 is way less attractive without the bomber, and UK actually has a chance to disrupt this even further with their India/Aussie cruisers. A much better balance by sides in the Pacific for 1942.2.
I recognize that naval escorts moving faster than larger forward warships is a bit of an inversion, but I think it works much better for the gameplay, and can be explained away with that idea of a ‘range’ of operations. Here the transport/cruiser doesn’t reflect faster individual ships, but rather a bunch of slower ships that are operating across a longer distance with more regularity over a given period. The unit might be “fast” in gameplay terms, but it actually represents more missions by many slower ships, all doing the same sorts of things, over an extended period of time. The cruiser/transport sculpts could stand in for hundreds of individual vessels all on a similar type of mission across the broader region, just abstracted into a couple game pieces for gameplay convenience. The sculpts give a nod to the historical type, but this should not be a straight jacket in my view. What’s more significant is how these units combine to create the broader play pattern, which is hopefully more entertaining and ends up looking a bit more like the historical conflict in WW2.
I think it would be nice to have two gamefiles for basic testing with the following changes…
1942 sec ed v5 San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
Global 1940 sec ed San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
- AB+2
See how those hold up, and then consider balance solutions (if needed) or further expansions to the HR for those who want more than the core. If the core is enough, then genius, if not we consider adding just one more rule at a time. Trying to achieve the maximum positive effect for the minimum outlay. I agree that subs are still problematic. Is it possible to achieve something fairly sweeping with just a single additional rule? One that isn’t too complex but follows the model above, ideally for use in both games?
-
I have been relating your discussion on ship movement directly to historical speed ratings for each ship type rather than the ranged operations you spoke of; although that sounds like a reasonable concept. Below is a typical characterization of speed ratings for ship types during the war (for reference):
-
Troop Transports: typically between 11 kts and 23 kts (large variety of types used)
-
Submarines: 6-10 kts submerged 18-23 kts surfaced
-
Destroyer and Destroyer Escorts: 33-40 kts
-
Cruisers: 30-34 kts
-
Battleships: 23-30 kts
-
US Iowa class Battleships: 33-35 kts
-
Escort Carriers: 17-25 kts
-
Fleet Aircraft Carriers: 30-34 kts
On a scale, anything approaching 40 knots was very fast for a WWII-era combat ship. Conversely anything in the 23-26 kt range was often too slow to keep up with fast moving battle groups. Anything around or below 20 kts was very slow and was a significant disadvantage for tactical operations. Submarines should be considered a little differently here since they didn’t normally operate in concert with surface fleet task forces (thus their slow speed wasn’t as much of a problem). Subs were deployed to be on station, either individually or in groups, to hunt targets of opportunity or interdict slow enemy convoys. Range and Endurance was more critical for submarines than was top speed.
Speed and mobility became the most important qualities in WWII, both on land and sea. This is self-explanatory for the proliferation of air power; the ultimate mobility. Pre- and Early war capital ship (mainly battleship) designs became more and more disadvantaged as the war progressed. The Yamato-class battleships were famously the largest and most powerful in history, but were handicapped by a slow 27 kt top speed that kept them from maintaining pace with Japan’s fast carrier groups. The Iowa-class battleships were introduced in 1943 and designed specifically to be lighter and faster (33-35 kts), rather than have more armor and larger guns, to protect US carrier task forces.
Range/Endurance would be an important aspect to factor into movement considerations, but I am less versed off the top of my head on range across ship types. My inclination is that range varied much more widely based on individual fuel capacity of ship classes, as opposed to top speeds. For example, the Yamato’s had a stated range of 7,200 nautical miles… but the Iowa’s had more than double that at 14,890.
-
-
And Destroyers were always thirsty little ones. :-D
As I remembered what said CWO Marc.
The high speed was not meant for low fuel consumption.
There range is limited.
They were often refuelled in open ocean PTO by Tankers, BBs or Carriers, according to what unit was available to provide fuel.
Sometimes, even Cruiser could do it. -
Interestingly many cruisers are already nicely paired up with transports in the set up cards for these games.
:-DI recognize that naval escorts moving faster than larger forward warships is a bit of an inversion, but I think it works much better for the gameplay, and can be explained away with that idea of a ‘range’ of operations. Here the transport/cruiser doesn’t reflect faster individual ships, but rather a bunch of slower ships that are operating across a longer distance with more regularity over a given period. The unit might be “fast” in gameplay terms, but it actually represents more missions by many slower ships, all doing the same sorts of things, over an extended period of time. The cruiser/transport sculpts could stand in for hundreds of individual vessels all on a similar type of mission across the broader region, just abstracted into a couple game pieces for gameplay convenience. The sculpts give a nod to the historical type, but this should not be a straight jacket in my view. What’s more significant is how these units combine to create the broader play pattern, which is hopefully more entertaining and ends up looking a bit more like the historical conflict in WW2.
I **think it would be nice to have two gamefiles for basic testing with the following changes…
1942 sec ed v5 San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
Global 1940 sec ed San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
- AB+2**
See how those hold up, and then consider balance solutions (if needed) or further expansions to the HR for those who want more than the core. If the core is enough, then genius, if not we consider adding just one more rule at a time. Trying to achieve the maximum positive effect for the minimum outlay. I agree that subs are still problematic. Is it possible to achieve something fairly sweeping with just a single additional rule? One that isn’t too complex but follows the model above, ideally for use in both games?
Nice summary!
It allows an interesting and easy follow up.The one Submarines rule which change a lot of things and can be a step to simplify interactions (eventually) is :
Submarine cannot hit submarine.This simple rule affect Subs in a way that increase their elusiveness and targeting capacity (to point at more worthy ships: DDs, CAs, CVs, BBs, TPs ) reduce their own fleet padding capacity (and emphasized DDs defensive role at same time), against Sub, at least: Sub can no more be use as a cheap destroyer against first strike shot, OOB this unit is allowed to fire if there is no opponent DDs.
And I know from play-tests, it creates a more real feeling of what Sub do better (Subs seeking subs was almost rare occurence as Sub shooting planes) and increase the interest as an independent combat unit.
I just don’t know how it impacts larger scale fleet.
At small scale, it makes a lot of sense: against Sub, you cannot protect TP with Sub (PTO, it happens in 1941 and 1942.2).Can it be players enforce as much as possible in Triple A tests, for now?
There will be some exception, such as Sub escorting a TP (1 Sub vs 1 Sub+TPs), does Triple A allows defender Submerge, and auto-destroy for TP?
If attacking Subs get to hit a Sub, an edit may sometimes be possible.Probably, there is a line code, on forbidding Sub to hit plane, which can probably receive an additional info and integrate submarine. Maybe it is not too much hardwork.
But first it needs overview approval and critics.
What do you think?
Do you think this will increase naval dynamics? -
I would not be opposed, though it’s definitely preferable if this works in tripleA (without requiring frequent edits) since I see those as a barrier for ease of use.
It makes sense that subs would not be used to hunt other subs, or to serve as cheap defensive fodder to pad larger surface fleets. Such a rule has the advantage of not messing up all the complex OOB rules that players have already memorized regarding how subs interact with destroyers, or how destroyers+planes interact with subs. In that sense, it is probably less likely to cause confusion, than a rule which tries to change all those relationships with a new scheme. Here you just add one more thing on top, no sub vs sub hits.
So again, right now everything we’ve proposed for a core rules revision can be readily summarized in just a few simple rules phrases…
- M3 transports and cruisers.
- defenseless bombers
- subs can’t hit subs
- AB +2 (G40)
This would produce a game which is substantially different in its basic character, from other total conversion HRs or Mods that I’m familiar with. What I like is that it works essentially the same way for 1942.2 as it does in Global.
This HR set does not concern itself with any changes to the starting unit distribution or the set up cards of a given game. So unlike some other HR proposals, it is potentially compatible with other Mods or start dates using Global that players might enjoy. There is nothing that would prohibit someone from trying it with a Commonwealth concept or Vichy for example, or with alternative objective bonuses, new production profiles or whatever. In that sense it is a lot more open ended than ideas I’ve considered in the past. It gets you a new way to play A&A on the two most popular maps without requiring a ton of rules overhead or small mountains of reference text to get it working.
Let’s run down the list…
Defenseless transports now suck less for the cost. Cruisers suddenly become interesting at 12 ipcs. Bombers bomb like they’re meant to, and the air vs naval game is brought more into line as a result. We get a 5 ipc sweet spot unit again. Fighters can run escort/intercept more effectively. Islands with airbases or naval bases are much improved. There’s a chance that more VCs are up for contention, with less emphasis on the center crush for a change. America can get into the fight a bit faster.Seems pretty solid for not really having to do a whole lot rules-wise.
Add to that a more compelling submarine, that is used more independently, and which works equally well under both 1942.2 and global conditions.
Again this can all be considered as just a core ruleset revision, one that is consistent across both the 1942.2 and Global maps. There’s nothing to stop someone from adding more on top of this if they wished to, but it gives us a ready point of departure that is pretty simple to implement using the boxed materials. I honestly think it might balance quite well all by itself, but if not, it’s fairly straightforward to implement a familiar bid or suggest simple bid alternatives (such as a change to the starting cash, or a turn order revision like China first, or additional objective bonuses, or whatever makes sense for a given board or popular mod.) The San Francisco ruleset doesn’t force the player into a specific or narrowly focused set up change, instead it just creates new play patterns under whatever set up the players are using, via a few quick adjustments to a couple unit traits. A lot of bang for the buck, in my assesment.
Ps. To the point about the actual nautical speed of a given ship type vs the proposed “range of opperations” abstraction. I think there’s really no way of getting around the fact that naval movement in A&A is the way it is OOB, purely as a gameplay thing. I don’t think the game can model the reality here, so in my view it’s better to focus on what is needed for optimal play patterns, and then create the justification for how it’s abstracted. I think the justification proposed earlier is defensible, and builds on a concept already encouraged in the manual, that the sculpts represent something more than a single piece of equipment, but larger battlegroups or forces ranging across a given region or period of time, represented by a single unit sculpt for convenience. We are already highly abstract and reliant upon the imagination here, so this just carries on with that idea.
-
Just out of curiosity, since I often lean on you for insights in the history to gameplay arena, do you have any thoughts on the recent strategic bomber proposal? <<
I haven’t really been following this thread, so I’m only going by what you said about strategic bombers now only being used for SBRs. I can’t address whatever game play issues are involved, but historically this seems acceptable within the simplified context of A&A. Heavy bombers in WWII weren’t used exclusively to attack strategic targets like cities (they also supported the D-day invasion, for example), but they were mostly used in a strategic capacity. Part of the reason they weren’t greatly used for tactical-type attacks is that WWII heavy bombers were ill-suited for missions requiring high accuracy against relatively small targets, and/or for low-altitude work. The B-17s that took a crack at the Japanese fleets at Midway, for example, scored zero hits as I recall. The famous RAF “Dambusters” squadron was reasonably successful in the low-altitude, uniquely-profiled dam raid it conducted with Lancaster heavy bombers, but it took several attempts for it to sink the Tirpitz with earthquake bombs, even though the Tirpitz was sitting at anchor and even though the squadron specialized in high-precision attacks.
The last part in particular, regarding the Airbase unit, is something that developed out of discussions we had about zero ipc Pacific Islands. The thought being that airbases on such islands would be much more useful, and strategically interesting with the movement bonus at +2. <<
Well, in WWII in the Pacific – using the Marianas and Iwo Jima as an example – heavy bombers increased the usefulness of islands and islands increased the usefulness of heavy bombers, so the airbase thing sounds plausible. A heavy bomber without a base that’s in range of its intended bombing targets is basically just a very expensive paperweight. Discounting the one-shot and largely symbolic Doolittle Raid, the Americans only started their strategic bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands very late in the war, for the simple reason that until they captured the Marianas they didn’t have any airbases that were close enough to Japan to put even the long-legged B-29 into range.
I’d also be interested to hear if CWO Marc has any thoughts on the M3 idea. Do you think G40 can handle an additional movement point for all ships? I feel like it works for the period, in terms of the distances ships might move in kind of time frames that a game round is meant to suggest. <<
Again, without having followed this thread, I’m just going by my understanding of your reference to “the base movement rate for all ships is increased to 3.” I can’t address the gameplay issue of whether G40 can “handle” this, but I have two observations to make.
The first observation has to do with the concept of a blanket boost. I once read a discussion somewhere about the advantages and dangers of one side in a war introducing into combat a banned but readily available weapon (like poison gas) in order to secure an advantage. Moral considerations aside, the result of such actions can easily be that the side which does this will soon end up right back where it started because the enemy will retaliate by doing the same thing and the initial advantage will soon be lost. So in principle, if every ship goes from M2 to M3, has anything really been gained, at least in terms of where each ship type stands relative to every other ship type?
The second observation has to do with what ship movement represents in an abstract game like A&A. I think of it as representing a combination of two different but interrelated ship characteristics: speed and range. These tended to have an inverse relationship, at least when you compare some general ship types to others. Little dinky WWII corvettes had great range – they could cross the Atlantic on a single load of fuel – but their speed was low (though perfectly fine for their job of escorting merchant ships). WWII destroyers were very fast – PT-type boats aside, they were roughly the naval equivalent of a fighter plane – but their small size meant that their fuel tanks were comparatively small, and their powerful engines made them notorious fuel hogs, so they were often thirsty for a refill. And other ship types represented other range/speed permutations. Even within a single broad type, like battleships, there were slow battleships and fast battleships, for example.
So taking both the first and second observations into consideration, one idea to consider might be to give just cruisers a movement boost and leave the other types as they are. WWII cruisers (on the whole) combined speed and range quite nicely, so I’d have no historical problem with the concept of their being given a special movement bonus in A&A. This might be one way to fix the annoying “useless cruiser” problem by giving them a unique advantage that is more justifiable (in terms of naval architecture and WWII history) than, let’s say, a solution that revolves around AAA capabilities (because destroyers and battleships and even carriers had AAA capabilities too).
-
@Baron
Looked into subs not being able to hit subs and it doesn’t look as if triplea can do that. From what I can understand, air units and sea units are treated differently in triplea due to AA fire. You could maybe make a sub which is an air unit, give it aa ability and then not let it target itself. You’d need a bunch of invisible ACs for them to land on. You’d also have to have the right capacity so only subs could use them. I’m sure there would be other issues as well.So doesn’t seem to feasible. What has always seemed ideal is having DDs only able to block 1 sub at a time. Or even better x at a time. I know Simon33 has done some coding for the engine. Maybe he knows if you could do that without too much trouble. The combined arms work on a 1:1 basis so hopefully there’s a chance it wouldn’t be too hard.
Unfortunately I think the whole sub/DD relationship is kind of a special deal so idk.
What do you think about just boosting subs a buck ? Still doesn’t address everything but might help with the fodder issue and keep things simple for now.
-
Ps. To the point about the actual nautical speed of a given ship type vs the proposed “range of opperations” abstraction. I think there’s really no way of getting around the fact that naval movement in A&A is the way it is OOB, purely as a gameplay thing. I don’t think the game can model the reality here, so in my view it’s better to focus on what is needed for optimal play patterns, and then create the justification for how it’s abstracted. I think the justification proposed earlier is defensible, and builds on a concept already encouraged in the manual, that the sculpts represent something more than a single piece of equipment, but larger battlegroups or forces ranging across a given region or period of time, represented by a single unit sculpt for convenience. We are already highly abstract and reliant upon the imagination here, so this just carries on with that idea.
Agreed.
-
Howdy crew,
Another wide-ranging game-design conversation. Oh, if we could only agree and focus, all of our efforts would surely result in a wargame to rival all other wargames…
Well, no they wouldn’t. I sort of disagree that the OOB set up is simply “too static”, its usually broken, and that’s the source of our angst. All the major versions of the game have serious problems, many of which would only be revealed by intense group playtesting (as all games are expected to have, but only actually occurs once it is introduced ‘into the wild’). If setup changes were capable of addressing the problems or even shaking up the balance this should be done, and it has been (G41, G42)
It has been done before, as well. In 1999 Europe, the allies got a ‘12 bid’ as a box rule. The only problem is that to offset this, the Axis also got the 12 and then placed it AFTER seeing where the allies placed it, so it did very little to make the game dynamic because its offsetting. It would have made more sense to just give the weaker allies the $, without an offset.
In 2000 Pacific, the Japanese had a pretty easy road of winning, though they had like a 2+ hour first turn. LH tweaked that version with an non-edition patch (moving just a few units) that was circulated through the tin can internet, I remember because I printed it off and left it in the box
However, it don’t matter; some of these games are in 3rd editions and core problems are not being addressed. Rules are styled as optional when in reality, they are experimental (such as changing the interception rules in every iteration to see which one is the most broken)
The only HR that seems to be a universal option is a full, new setup (official or not). G41 isn’t balanced either, but at least its fun and different. New NOs and income changes can accomplish other desirable objectives such as incentivizing play “away” from the critical path towards Moscow, but those concepts should be implemented into the game; they are (such as the Japanese remote islands NO) but totally ineffectively (the NO should be something that you actually want to accomplish, not a pyrrhic trap that has some echos in reality).
The only effort that has even tried this is balanced mod—the NO driving/SBR modding concepts that went into BM should be THE FOCUS OF THE GAME. You should have to fight for your income all over the board (this is why almost all territory should be worth at least 1, and why NO income should be convoyable such as making Norway’s NOs$ attackable as the allies).
A new turn order. (not a bad idea, but it is a sweeping change)
A new starting unit set up, distribution. (at least a Cow style setup tweak is desperately needed)
New Objectives. (this is key, IMO)
New Victory Conditions/treatment of VCs (this has to be totally reworked)
Stronger China. (not too hard to address but China is very limited by the rules and making it strong isn’t realistic)
A more interesting opener for the minor powers France, Italy, Anzac. (I’d rather they simply survive and contribute, which is why I put forth giving Canada to ANZAC, giving India to ANZAC, or making the Free French more like a power with an income but no capital as china)
A single UK player nation. (dividing it into 3 parts decreases their power so much, this is pretty much instant power-up since they start with 5 factories, it addresses the longstanding commander in chief controversy)
New handling of the Non Aggression Pact between Japan and Russia. (I like the balanced mod adding +$ at war)
New production profiles. (I wouldn’t tweak unit stats or prices it simply creates too many moving parts)I recommend a G40.2 focus on 1) new, revised start 2) same unit rules and turn order 3) NOs and island money that make you chase the money island hop or put your income at risk to make money taking more dynamic 4) addressing SB’s power with better AAA, better interception, or something jesus its broken
good luck Black Elk
-
@Baron
Looked into subs not being able to hit subs and it doesn’t look as if triplea can do that. From what I can understand, air units and sea units are treated differently in triplea due to AA fire. You could maybe make a sub which is an air unit, give it aa ability and then not let it target itself. You’d need a bunch of invisible ACs for them to land on. You’d also have to have the right capacity so only subs could use them. I’m sure there would be other issues as well.Thanks for looking at it and make a understandable report for a newbie.
I’m sad, it is such a problem…
Based on this, I will not push in that direction.
No real play-tests, no credibility.
It will remain within my own houserules.From what you learned, I understand that any directed hit priority from Fighter toward other planes (hit air first) would be a huge task, true?
It would be easier to give AA fire to Fighter and allow a special phase of AAA in a Naval Combat, right?So doesn’t seem to feasible. What has always seemed ideal is having DDs only able to block 1 sub at a time. Or even better x at a time. I know Simon33 has done some coding for the engine. Maybe he knows if you could do that without too much trouble. The combined arms work on a 1:1 basis so hopefully there’s a chance it wouldn’t be too hard.
Unfortunately I think the whole sub/DD relationship is kind of a special deal so idk.
It seems a possibility to explore, at least.
1:1 or 1:2 blocker can open some possibilities to balance Subs (defensive capacity) vs DDs.
Most issues I see, is about many planes with a lonely DD which blocks an infinite numbers of defending Subs.
Just making a 1:1 or a 1 DD:2Subs can improve Subs survivability.Did you read how code works for planes need 1 Destroyer to change Subs from no target to illegible target?
Do you think it is possible to make it a way that unsubmerged Subs still illegible target without DDs presence?
Here, I think a way to circumvent this limitation by keeping the same code but:
adding any type of ships (Subs, DDs, CAs, CVs, BBs, TPs) to make Sub a potential target from aircraft.
Do you believe this can work?
I’m still wondering on a way to simplify planes vs Subs…What do you think about just boosting subs a buck ? Still doesn’t address everything but might help with the fodder issue and keep things simple for now.
If the DDs becomes the main naval fodder and fleet padding unit, then the unhistorical planes need 1 DD to hit unsubmerged subs becomes an obsolete rule.
Hence, my lasts 2 questions above.I’m thinking about many possibility to make DDs better fodder than Subs.
I’m not sure 1 IPC increase/differential is enough to secure this: 8 IPCs DDs A2 D2 vs 7 IPCs Subs A2 D1.
I still believe both should be at same cost or DDs needs to be cheaper: 6 IPCs DDs A1 D1 vs 7 IPCs Subs A2 D1
An old way, was to make Sub A3 D1 C8 IPCs with OOB DDs.
However, it feels like Subs is too costly and have a too high combat value in itself compared to its historical counter-part.
And increasing Sub cost will not make it an interesting purchase and this will not increase naval combat and interactions.Here I’m thinking mostly about Germany which cannot afford a lot of: either a Tank or either a Sub? dilemma.
This would be much more interesting if Germany can make a U-boots war, finally.
Not just turtle up in Europe and Invade Russia (My 1942.2 experience).Below, there is my last try to make DDs cheaper than Submarine units:
@Baron:@Baron:
Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
Hoping to balance slightly Cruiser and BB in the proces would be:
Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .17) ratio probably requires no change cost. Only AAA maybe needed.
CRUISER A3 D3 C12 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @3.Battleship A4 D4 C20 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @4.10 DD A1 D1 C6 vs 3 BB A4 D4 C20, 2 hits gives 50% vs 50% odds of survival. Balancing itself.
Since 7 IPCs Subs is costlier it makes a better odds for BBs, 20 Subs vs 7 BBs = 98% vs 2%.
Before 20 Subs vs 6 BBs = 99.8% vs 0.2%
6 Subs C7 vs 7 DDs A1 D1 C6 = 77% vs 22%
OOB 8 Subs C6 vs 6 DD A2 D2 C8 = 88% vs 11%Such 6 IPCs unit will be a more acceptable cost for a blocker unit, too.
Why not adding an independence factor from fleet movement for Subs to compensate for 1 IPC increase?
Why not just gives M3 to both Subs and Cruiser to emphasized their increase autonomy and, for Subs, a credible way to acknowledged they can be able to be refueled in open Ocean?
Naval Base still giving +1 bonus Move to all warships, including Cruisers and Submarines.CRUISER
A3 D3 C12 M3-4, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment @3.Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M3-4 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.That way, Sub may get more mobility, to pass by some blockers and be less vulnerable to attack.
And all this can stay within Triple A easy modifications. Right? -
Howdy crew,
Another wide-ranging game-design conversation. Oh, if we could only agree and focus, all of our efforts would surely result in a wargame to rival all other wargames…
Well, no they wouldn’t.  I sort of disagree that the OOB set up is simply “too static”, its usually broken, and that’s the source of our angst.  All the major versions of the game have serious problems, many of which would only be revealed by intense group playtesting (as all games are expected to have, but only actually occurs once it is introduced ‘into the wild’). If setup changes were capable of addressing the problems or even shaking up the balance this should be done, and it has been (G41, G42)
It has been done before, as well. In 1999 Europe, the allies got a ‘12 bid’ as a box rule.  The only problem is that to offset this, the Axis also got the 12 and then placed it AFTER seeing where the allies placed it, so it did very little to make the game dynamic because its offsetting.  It would have made more sense to just give the weaker allies the $, without an offset.
In 2000 Pacific, the Japanese had a pretty easy road of winning, though they had like a 2+ hour first turn.  LH tweaked that version with an non-edition patch (moving just a few units) that was circulated through the tin can internet, I remember because I printed it off and left it in the box
However, it don’t matter; some of these games are in 3rd editions and core problems are not being addressed.  Rules are styled as optional when in reality, they are experimental (such as changing the interception rules in every iteration to see which one is the most broken)
The only HR that seems to be a universal option is a full, new setup (official or not). G41 isn’t balanced either, but at least its fun and different.  New NOs and income changes can accomplish other desirable objectives such as incentivizing play “away” from the critical path towards Moscow, but those concepts should be implemented into the game; they are (such as the Japanese remote islands NO) but totally ineffectively (the NO should be something that you actually want to accomplish, not a pyrrhic trap that has some echos in reality). Â
The only effort that has even tried this is balanced mod—the NO driving/SBR modding concepts that went into BM should be THE FOCUS OF THE GAME.  You should have to fight for your income all over the board (this is why almost all territory should be worth at least 1, and why NO income should be convoyable such as making Norway’s NOs$ attackable as the allies).
A new turn order. (not a bad idea, but it is a sweeping change)
A new starting unit set up, distribution. (at least a Cow style setup tweak is desperately needed)
New Objectives. (this is key, IMO)
New Victory Conditions/treatment of VCs (this has to be totally reworked)
Stronger China. (not too hard to address but China is very limited by the rules and making it strong isn’t realistic)
A more interesting opener for the minor powers France, Italy, Anzac. (I’d rather they simply survive and contribute, which is why I put forth giving Canada to ANZAC, giving India to ANZAC, or making the Free French more like a power with an income but no capital as china)
A single UK player nation. (dividing it into 3 parts decreases their power so much, this is pretty much instant power-up since they start with 5 factories, it addresses the longstanding commander in chief controversy)
New handling of the Non Aggression Pact between Japan and Russia. (I like the balanced mod adding +$ at war)
New production profiles. (I wouldn’t tweak unit stats or prices it simply creates too many moving parts)I recommend a G40.2 focus on 1) new, revised start 2) same unit rules and turn order 3) NOs and island money that make you chase the money island hop or put your income at risk to make money taking more dynamic 4) addressing SB’s power with better AAA, better interception, or something jesus its broken
good luck Black Elk
Great post.
Suggested Topics
