G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

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.

@Black_Elk:

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

@barney:

@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?

@barney:

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…

@barney:

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?

@taamvan:

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.

@Baron:

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?

Well you can already have air to air battle before regular combat, so might be able to do something there. You can also give other ships anti-sub ability so a plane could hit a sub with ships other than DDs.

@barney:

@Baron:

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?

Well you can already have air to air battle before regular combat, so might be able to do something there.

You can also give other ships anti-sub ability so a plane could hit a sub with ships other than DDs.

Does it imply that such other ship than Destroyer also receive a blocking ability, or this two separate lines of code?
Because, it is needed to let Sub submerge against Cruiser, CVs, Subs, BBs, TPs but still being hit by any of them, if player choose not to submerge?
So, it allows aircrafts to hit subs in combat but able to submerge.

so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.

Here’s a quote from Veqryn on air battles:

here is how it works

you can now have air battles before normal battles

strat bombing air battles the defender gets asked if you want to commit and how many air to commit

normal battle air battles the defender can commit any air units in the territory that are not already committed to the strat bombing air battle.  any air units not committed to the normal battle, will die if the territory is conquered.

you can now scramble to any potential air battle, including scrambling to defend against strat bombing or a normal attack

you can now specify number of rounds that an air battle will last (default = 1)

you can now specify number of rounds that a normal battle will last (default = -1 = infinity)

allowed both attacker and defender to withdraw from an air battle.  it will completely remove them from combat and also remove them from any subsequent combats in the territory.  if the defender loses the territory, the withdrawn air will die.

after the air battle is over, any surviving air will participate in the normal battle that follows

so with this you could have a 1 round of air combat before each battle, thereby giving the side with air superiority a chance to inflict some damage before the main battle starts.

@barney:

so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.

Actually it turns out you can have planes hit subs in v3. Air Attack Sub Restricted needs to be turned off. A plane will behave the same way as a crusier or w/e towards a sub. Sub still can’t hit plane, unless you gave it an AA capability.

@barney:

@barney:

so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.

Actually it turns out you can have planes hit subs in v3. Air Attack Sub Restricted needs to be turned off. A plane will behave the same way as a cruiser or w/e towards a sub. Sub still can’t hit plane, unless you gave it an AA capability.

So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?

P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battle

@Black_Elk:

Interestingly many cruisers are already nicely paired up with transports in the set up cards for these games.
:-D

OK so still a 2-3 line revision.

1. M3 transports and cruisers
2. Defenseless bomber
3. AB +2

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.

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

The rationalization for all units seems appropriate and gives something to explained why things work that way.
I pretty like Japan and USA fighting over some Islands and TTys within range for M6+2 StBombers with AB, G40 or StB M6 1942.2 without AB.

Maybe, if more range are needed for escorting Fighters in 1942.2, VC can works as AB+2M, only for SBR mission.
That way, Fighter will not make 1 shot abusive move from UK to Russia/Caucasus or Persia.

@Baron:

So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?
P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battle

Yea should work on 42.2. I’ll add it in if you want. It can be turned on/off in map options.
I didn’t realize the air battles could be that extensive. Let me know if you come up with an idea for it and I’ll test it on the mod I’m workin on. : )

@Black Elk
yea unless I misunderstood ya we can’t do the 1DD can only block 1 sub thing. Anyway got all the other stuff ready to go.

@taamvan:

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

Very insightful post Taamvan. Thanks.

Couple questions:

3. NO and Island money:  I assume this is directed at the Pacific. Do you have any specific suggestions? I don’t always understand why certain territories have a given $ value, but some of it has to deal with the supposed abundance of war resources there. Most of the small Pacific islands have little-to-no resource related value, so I don’t see how you could arbitrarily make them worth more $ (EDIT: more than $1). The other option would be more NOs to accomplish this. But as you said they are artificial and you would rather see the strategic motivation for taking territories constructed within the game itself. More NOs sounds like more “pyrrhic trap(s)…”.

4. What did the Balance Mod do for the StratB to lessen its power? Leaving the StratB at OOB A4 D1 M6 C12 and trying to curtail its power with other units and mechanisms (AA, interception, etc…) seems like a much more intensive and complicated effort than simply changing the StratB attributes.

@Black_Elk:

To the specific San Francisco HR discussion… Ok if submarines not hitting submarines is off the table in tripleA, then we need to go another route. I think the 1:1 for dd/ss is still a contender in that case. It doesn’t alter the complex interactions that players have already memorized, just scales them in a way makes subs more attractive. I’m not sure it goes far enough to make subs truly independent of surface fleets, but at least it makes them harder to blast out of the water with a single dd and a gang of aircraft. I’m still all ears, if we can think of a better rule for subs, that still follows the kiss formula.

The replies from CWO and L.Hoffman have me feeling pretty comfortable about the defensless bomber, the AB+2 and the M3 cruiser. The M3 transport requires a bit of imagination to justify, but it’s effects on the gameplay are interesting enough that I would be willing to propose whatever abstractions and contortions might be required to defend the idea. If it’s poison gas, at least it’s got the charm of Nitrous Oxide, and Japan and America can both laugh their way into a Pacific naval meltdown hehe.

No A&A HR I’m aware has ever attempted to introduce a separate rate
of movement for transports on the water. Since Classic it’s always been M2 for everything. Even the NB+1 introduced in 1940, still treated all ships the same way for the bonus. Here you have something rather different. I think it has the potential to be at least as significant as the tank blitz on land, something that will drive the play patterns on the water, in directions we haven’t quite seen before.

Ps. I like that last suggestion Baron about the VC escort too. We’ll keep it in the back pocket. I can also imagine other possible ideas for a simple aircraft movement in 42.2, like habing the movement from an island into a sz not count (something we once discussed for zero ipc Pacific Islands) but perhaps only if the plane is conducting SBR or flying escort? Something like that might work if it’s needed.

Fine for back pocket Movement bonus for 1942.2

On helping Submarine survivability, there is three things which can provides more odds of survival in case of massive air and single DD attack:
a) 1 single round of blocking submerge capacity, so second round all surviving subs can escape in same SZ, DD presence is no more relevant on second round.
Triple A should allow all Subs an option to submerge on second combat round.
Specific window would open to offer sub commander this option, same way it happens when there is no DD on the opposite side.
b) Limiting the number of submarines blocked, with an appropriate ratio (1:1, or 1:2),
c) Applying both rules a and b.

I play-tested only C, combining both a and b.
IDK if both are possible in Triple A.
About a) the one time opportunity feel pretty like in Classic time when planes got a single shot before Sub submerge.
I prefer this because being trapped round after round until killed is mostly like auto-destroy with a meager defense @1 for Sub.
It brings no satisfaction, only survival to fight another day is the key. Giving attacking opponent a single shot is enough.

If I have to chose, a) is better than b IMO.
It is consistent with Destroyer blocking all Sub’s Submerge, Stealth Move and Surprise Strike.
It only specify that blocking Submerge is for the first combat round only.
Not so different than OOB, but gives hope from defending Subs POV.

b) Blocking a specific number of Subs (1:1 / 1:2) needs to be referred to same ratio for Stealth Move and Surprise Strike and Submerge.
First, I would not rise to 1:3, rather keep OOB, this is not far that much when 2 DDs can block 6 Subs. It is a lot of unit in a single SZ.
1:1 and 1:2 can brings more Submarines passing trough DD blockers. This reach the goal of spreading naval unit.

On Stealth Move, 1:2 seems more reasonable for DD C8 vs Sub C6 (all depends on which units is cheaper, if DD is cheaper then 1:1).
Suppose 6 Subs are in Baltic Sea and 1 UK DD is North Sea SZ112 and another DD in SZ111 and you want to reach empty UK’s Convoy SZ119.
You may launch 2 Subs against SZ112 in CM, if cleared in NCM you launch all 4 Subs, and 2 remains SZ111 and 2 Subs reach SZ119.
Or launch 2 Subs against SZ112 in CM, 2 Subs against SZ111, and if all SZ cleared last 2 reach SZ119. Otherwise, both Subs would be blocked along the path.

But, for Triple A play test, I probably prefer 1:1, so it can be more easily players enforced for the second subs.

Seems also more interesting to have Subs able to pass trough DD net.

A different issue coming from blocking 1:1 Surprise strike, add a lot of complexity is that differential between Sub and DDs whether positive or negative on each combat round makes for some Subs getting Surprise strike and other round none.

After 1 game, I returned to 1 DD is full blocking Surprise Strike, easier to manage.
Going that way, DD and Sub should be same cost or DD cheaper.

@barney:

@Baron:

So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?
P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battle

Yea should work on 42.2. I’ll add it in if you want. It can be turned on/off in map options.
I didn’t realize the air battles could be that extensive. Let me know if you come up with an idea for it and I’ll test it on the mod I’m workin on. : )

@Black Elk
yea unless I misunderstood ya we can’t do the 1DD can only block 1 sub thing. Anyway got all the other stuff ready to go.

To let planes attack directly Submarines (like Cruiser) clearly open new options to simplify interactions, if you can do it.
Turn on/off is a massive feature from my POV.  :-o :-o :-o
It would allow people to test both features: OOB complex and much simpler Fg vs Sub.

On Air battle, do you mean that it is not restricted to SBR?
You can introduce it over regular TTY with no IC on it? Really?!?
It would open kind of 1914 air combat option if the case…
Still, since it is an optional

I just got this idea to change Sub fodder dynamic to DDs padding:
Just increasing the DD to make it a better defense unit than offense.
While Submarines remains the best offensive.
However, both oppose similar combat values: A2fs vs D2 and A1 vs D1fs.
That way, it allows to keeps subs at low 6 IPCs.
And if Subs can submerge after first round, it will be better to save it for later.

Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D2 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.

Cost 6
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C6 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.

Even more it still might work with Sub at 5 IPCs (to get another unit to this sweet spot).
The Sub success ratio is weaker than OOB. However, on defense it is stronger than OOB.
So, in that case, it gives more room for Sub survival. And it is not considering the increase number of DD available due to reduced cost to 6 IPCs.
6 Subs A2 C5 vs 5 DDs D2 C6:
Overall %: A. survives: 73.8% D. survives: 24.3% No one survives: 1.9%
OOB: 8 Subs A2 C6 vs 6 DDs D2 C8:
Overall %: A. survives: 88% D. survives: 11.1% No one survives: 0.9%

5 DDs A1 C6 vs 6 Subs D1 C5
Overall %: A. survives: 27.6% D. survives: 72.2% No one survives: 0.6%
OOB:6 DDs A2 C6 vs 8 Subs D1 C5
Overall %: A. survives: 59.3% D. survives: 39.7% No one survives: 1%