G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

I also swapped sides which I can send you as well.

Yes please.  :-D

If you want to put OOB comparison for same IPCs basis on each side…
Group 1 (6DD A1 D2 C6 vs 6SS A2 D1 C6)
Group 2 (6DD A1 D1 C5 vs 5SS A2 D1 C6)
Group 3 (5DD A2 D2 C6 vs 5SS A2 D1 C5) it would be:

6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win

8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub win

So the nearest “Destroyer on offense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1 C6
6 DD vs 6 SS
60-62% DD win

12 DD vs 12 SS
66-67% DD win

@barney:

Group 1                             SFR                      OOB
6 SS C6 vs 6 DD C6       72-74% SS win     46-48% SS win

12 SS C6 vs 12 DD C6   79-81% SS win     48-51% SS win

Group 2
5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5        61-64% SS win     16-20% SS win

10 SS C6 vs 12 DD C5    66-68% SS win      24-25% SS win

Group 3
6SS C5 vs 5 DD C6         50-53% SS win      73-77% SS win

12 SS C5 vs 10 DD C6    52-53% SS win      82-84% SS win

Thanks Barney.   :-)

So the nearest “Destroyer on defense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 Destroyer A1 D2 C6 ADC1
6 SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6 DD A1 D2 C6         72-74% SS win
12 SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12 DD A1 D2 C6    79-81% SS win

8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub win

The nearest odds OOB “Destroyer on offense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 Attack Depth Charge 1,
61% DD win compared to 60% OOB

The nearest odds OOB “Destroyer on defense” configuration is actually:
Group 1 DD A1 D2 C6 Attack Depth Charge 1,
73% Sub win compared to 88% OOB

This seems interesting but it is only relative to Subs vs DDs

Even with same cost and similar combat values,
Subs A2fs D1fs M2 C6 are now more powerful than OOB Subs due to always first strike and not blocked by Destroyer.
So this new Sub is a bit more powerful than Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship. But it is not the main issue.
Above of all, because it is same cost than Destroyer, Submarine compete with Destroyer as fodder unit.

I can easily imagine that on defense, Submarine would be taken as casualties mostly coming from attacking’s Sub successful hit.
Simply because both attacking and defending get their roll, while Destroyers still have to roll.
Naturally, it is better to maximize number of rolls per combat round.

So, it can be circumvent whether by a lower cost for Destroyer (5 IPCs),  
or a special player enforced rule: “Submarine must be taken as last casualty amongst warship.”
Or both.

Using 5 IPCs A1 D2 M2 Destroyers directly decrease other warships combat power, especially on defense (OOB D2 cost 8, now it would cost 5).
Hence, it is a call for a DD5, SS6, TP7, CA9, CV12, BB15 cost structure.

Otherwise, (if Triple A cannot manage to “forbid Sub to hit Sub”, as Barney told us) it requires that we agree to try it with the special rule:
Submarine must be taken as last casualty amongst warship.

That way, it may be balance to work on DD A1 D2 M2 C6 ADC1 (which is consistent with the basic 2 IPCs give 1 combat point or 2:1 IPC/pt ratio for Naval unit).
However, I strongly believe that Cruiser M3 C12 and Battleship 2 hits C20 needs stronger boost to be balanced with Destroyer A1 D2 C6.
Here, I’m thinking about AA capacity (which can be done in Triple, Barney proved us.)
And even something more or different for Battleship (1 Inf carrying capacity? an increase Convoy Raid of 2 Dices as Subs? other?).
On the other side, Destroyer should no more be able to Convoy Raid, because, on same IPCs basis, it means 3 Dice compared to 1D6 for Battleship.

An issue remains about planes on attack.
They appear also weaker attack per cost ratio compared to Destroyer.
DD at 5 IPCs is extreme but 6 IPCs DD can still be an acceptable issue since many people complain about Fg being too cheap or OP.
Here, my single adjustment to 6 IPCs DDs should be on Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4-6, TBR A1 D6 damage and A1 Depth Charge, cost to be put at 10 IPCs.
This would slightly increase the attack ratio of TcB compared to Destroyer.
But, contrary to OOB, now Destroyer are much more cost effective against planes.

Finally, keeping Subs and DDs at 8 IPCs is also problematic.
It takes 25% more IPCs to feed SZ in basic Naval units.
This will not help increase Naval interactions.
It can be suggested : DD C7 Subs C8 IPCs or DD C6 Subs C7, but need a few more AACalc comparison to find which is better.

Good work Baron. How skewed would it be if subs cost 7 and the DDs 6, everything else remain the same ? It would make the DD the fodder choice over sub which is the main issue correct ?

I did some minor battle testing. Various combinations of SS DD Trprt Ftr on Attack Defense. The SFR SS had a slightly higher survivability than OOB. When I ran the battles it was definitely noticeable that SFR subs survived more due to being able to submerge if surviving a depth charging.

Maybe that’s enough to try them at 7 ?

I’ll post your battle request in a few minutes

@barney:

Good work Baron. How skewed would it be if subs cost 7 and the DDs 6, everything else remain the same ? It would make the DD the fodder choice over sub which is the main issue correct ?

Can you run this simulation, and swap units to get both situations:
7 DDs A1 D2 C6 against 6 Subs A2 D1 C7?
7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% DD wins

For 6 Subs A2 first strike C7 vs 7 DD D2 C6,
Overall %*: A. survives: 51.3% D. survives: 48.7% No one survives: 0%

So it is pretty much 50%-50%.
This seems to make Destroyer too powerful.

8 DDs A1 D2 C7 against 7 Subs A2 D1 C8?
8 DD vs 7 SS ** 74-77% DD win**

For 7 Subs A2 first strike C8 vs 8 DD D2 C7,
Overall %*: A. survives: 54.4% D. survives: 45.7% No one survives: 0%

Slightly better for Sub on offence.

DD A1 D2 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1

7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win

6 SS vs 7 DD 50-53% SS win

8 DD vs 7 SS  74-77% DD win

7 SS vs 8 DD  55-56%  SS win

@barney:

DD A1 D2 ADC1 vs SS A2 D1

7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win

6 SS vs 7 DD 50-53% SS win

7 DD vs 6 SS 76-77% win for DD?, right

Can you edit in your last post to include 8 DDs vs 7 Subs, for completeness?

In this Sub is considered as an Air unit, if you give a Defensive AA to Cruiser and Battleship, both will be able to hit Sub in the opening combat sequence, right?

Probably 6 IPCs Destroyer and 7 IPCs Submarine is the most interesting niche in the cost structure.

Since, Submarine can also submerge on initial surprise strike sequence, it allows them to not be taken as casualty or provides an alternative “to be part of ensuing naval combat or not to be part of”. Survival to fight another day can be better than being sunk along the rest of the fleet.
Now, Submarine have the choice.
Weaker in offence, but much more able to survive on the long run. It seems OK to me.

That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.

I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?

Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?

Finally, I would keep both units at 6 IPCs.

Defending Subs can submerge anytime and it is a game changer.
Sub is now directly vulnerable to Fg and TcB units attacking @1.
Sub commander can save them from their unfortunate low defensive stance, to the next turn into attacking upper hand unit.

I like the 6 IPCs Subs A2 D1 because it remains OOB. One less thing to learn.
In some cases, it was already possible to make a few surprise attack on lonely warships.
Now, it is against every warships and Destroyers needs an arch-enemy, DD is very strong on defense.

I like the 6 IPCs DDs A1 D2 because it is consistent with Larry Harris cost increment.
Also both units are some kind of mirror: SS A2 D1 M2 C6 vs DD A1 D2 Att Depth Charge@1 M2 C6

I would try that one and adjust from there.
What do you think?

@barney:

That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.

I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?

Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?

Yes. I saw it. Thanks.

I still would try both at 6 IPCs.
Tac A3-4 D3 M4-6 at 10 IPCs to slightly increase plane offense against water. (10 is much easier to remember)

I’m not too concerned about Cruiser now, since it gets M3 with Transport.
The issue is about Battleship. Now, there is no reason to buy it. None.
Nothing to gain if you simply built DDs and Carriers, much better.
All battles simulations involving DDs vs BBs are a lost cause for Battleship.
It needs an ability to make it competitive or a cost redux…

Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB.

@barney:

Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB.

If we try giving 1 infantry (we can call it Marines division without using a special unit) on Battleship, it is a bit better for defense with 2 hits, A4 D4 M2 ShoreB4 C20 than

Cruiser 1 hit A3 D3 M3 ShoreB3 C12 + 1 TP A0 D0 M3 C7  total 1 hit, 19 IPCs but 2 ground units and 3 Move, faster.

At least, it makes more sense to bring along some ground units, so you can use Shorebombardment ability.

Maybe there is other possibility to try something without a complete overhaul. Keeping OOB set up as much as possible.
This roster can work and is pretty near the ideal cost structure and remains pretty balanced within himself.
ASA: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1

Destroyer A1 ASA1 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C9, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C12, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C15 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ

Fighter A3 ASA1 D4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 M4-6 C10?, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A

Is it 2D for convoy raiding by plane?

I used ASA,
Do you prefer Depth Charge Attack DCA?
or
Anti-Sub Patrol ASP?
Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol ASAP?

DCA doesn’t describe all kind of Aircrafts Patrol Attack.

Reducing TcB to 10 help toward all improved cost/defense ratio from warships.

Fgs+TcB OOB 21 IPCs/ 7 pts, 2 hits = 3 IPCs/pt vs BB 20/ D4, 2 hits = 5 IPCs/pt
SFR 20/7= 2.86 IPCs/pt, 2 hits  vs 15/D4, 2 hits = 3.75 IPCs/pt

Maybe to help Fighter you can reduced it to 9 IPCs, so you get 5, 9, 10 spot for aircraft.
Fg is same cost than Cruiser. TcB is slightly over.
This may saved cost ratio toward DD and BB.
But this can be a plan B, only if after playtest aircraft seems too weak for the price.

In 1942.2 without TcB, maybe it is better to makes Fg A4 D4 C10.
It plays all Fighter, Fighter bomber and TcB bomber roles.
And increasing attack with lower cost can help against warships better defense ratio (DD A1 D2 for most part).

**@Black_Elk:

I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.

Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.

The simpler road placing both DD and Sub at 7 IPCs. But 8 IPCs you hinder Germany U-boat production.
3 boats at 7 IPCs… Not much variety for purchase.

Maybe, in that case TP may be put on 6 IPCs spot?

Or we can look on the other simulations with higher depth charge factor and weaker DDs such A1 D1.

This last one makes for a good fit inside OOB cost.
And simplify casualty selection because DD is cheaper, and weaker in itself.
A player will prefer to save a 6 IPCs First strike unit @1 over a simpler 5 IPCs @1.
Also, the offense /defense ratio between such DD and BB is only 5% stronger.
So BB is not outclass and since DDs no more block Subs, it is not as attractive.

The cost effectiveness of such DD is far better than OOB but not the highest.
IMO, it needs a play-test to say it is broken. Also, it is still easy to implement.
However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
So Fg and TcB will both have part in attack and defense.

Group 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
                                              SFR                        OOB
6 DD C5 vs 5 SS C6        77-79% DD win      60-63% DD win

5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5        61-64% SS win        90% Sub win

6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win

8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub win

This would be much simpler to test (and be in line with intended simpler SF rules):

This roster can work and is pretty near the OOB cost structure and remains probably much balanced within himself. Considering that weaker Subs (compared to this cheap 5 IPCs DD unit) have much survivability than ever.
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1

Destroyer A1 ASAD1 D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, no air operation if damaged
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ

Fighter A3 ASA1 D4 ASD1 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 ASD1 M4-6 C11, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 or 1? dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A**

@Black Elk
so you want the whole naval revamp added in ? Sounds good to me or do you just want SFR with the first 3 ? It just gets kinda screwy with multiple mods.

Hmm…I could probably make the naval a tech and when it activates all the naval would kick in. Or you could have multiple techs and have the sub DDs a different one. Just need to edit the tech and you’d be good to go. Hell I could even add one for the combat move AAgun and Pacific Islands.

Anyway don’t want to overachieve. That’d take a few days, probably a little longer, to do. Just let me know :)

You can get both worlds IMO, near OOB cost structure with DD A1 D1 ASA1 ASD1 C5 SF rules.
And revised cost structure with DD A1 D2 ASA1 C6 with total overhaul
See link, lead above edited post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1630011#msg1630011

That way, you get two different xml files and games.
Provides possible compared analysis betweenn both to make up your mind.

Depends on Barney. …

@Black_Elk:

We should just go for it.

I have certain reservations, like about the naval spam against coastal air defense. Here just trying to recall that the roster favors the purchasing/production power of some nations over others and the map is not as even in the geography as a pure unit to unit Calc might recommend. The US and Japan in particular can get pretty huge over time. The UK and Germany rather less so. I don’t want to see the battleship spam delivering overly crushing bombardments or absorptions if that unit ever becomes too cost effective haha. But I guess I’d rather see it proved in the play out, than just making hypotheticals.

I say we put into effect like this.

Code name: San Francisco
Defenseless Strategic Bomber at 5
M3 Transports and Cruisers
AB+2

Code name: Oakland? San Diego? LA expansion haha? Whatever sounds cool.
Maybe just West Coast Naval Rules for now.
All of the above plus
Submarine and shipyard improvements outlined above.

Basically a complete overhaul to Naval cost structure. With the emphasis on the integration of the Submarine.

Just to keep it clear. SF rules I think I have my head around. The full naval expansion I think needs the proof of concept in tripleA.

Let’s just make the ideal roster, then see how the play patterns shakes out. Using the OOB starting unit distribution.

What about Philadelphia Experiment for this total overhaul for warships?
(Could be an Hoax but can be founded on some truths. Rumors may hide more than meets the eyes. It was about an allegedly technical and scientic breakthrough on a US Destroyer.)
Keeping SF rules for what we know already plus a different Destroyer A1 D1 at 5 IPCs sweetspot too with special Anti-Sub Air Patrol offence and defence @1, also given to Fg and TcB.

2 xmls is np. I’ll go ahead and finish up SF Rules. Won’t take long. Is no big deal to change either.

OK SFR is ready to Rock. I’ll go ahead and bust out Philly too. No big deal if the plan changes.