G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as �casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.

Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.

Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.

So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.

Thanks for your input and experience, I do find it valuable, particularly since I am operating completely on theory right now.

I am beginning to like your revised air unit cost and attack/defense attributes. Combined with the price reduction, it looks like it could make for better gameplay.

The more modifications and intricacies, the slower and less fun the game becomes; I certainly understand that. My suggestion for Tac targeting was under the assumption that it is used with OOB rules for the most part, which has at least one fewer naval combat hit/roll rule than you have in your HR set. That said, I can see that by allowing Tacs to target by default and in every combat round is likely too powerful. Capital ship attrition will likely rise precipitously and it becomes almost a no brainer to purchase Tacs over Fighters. Sounds like there need to be some limits such as targeting first round only or targeting on rolls of 2 or less.

Decreasing overall warship cost is appealing, in that it may offset attrition and result in larger navies. However, will that have any effect on land and air purchases if they remain at similar to OOB values? Initial thought is no, it will not. Only because those units are needed to take and hold territory which actually wins the war. Ships/Sea Zones are meaningless in this respect because having a huge navy will not win you the war in and of itself. You still need occupying land forces.

@Black_Elk:

The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.

Valid concerns for sure. I will think about it a bit more. It needs to work properly and efficiently if it is to be included.

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

1. Is Tac targeting on land not so problematic because the land units are cheaper and there are more of them than naval units? (Presumably, every Tac target on land is going against a Tank, when possible.)

2. How exactly do you have this system working against land units? Is it targeting every round of battle? Do they hit @4 or do they have to roll lower (2 or 1) to allow targeting?

The interesting thing with Triple A 1942.2 is that bomber already D6 damage and Fg A1 D1 if interception option is checked.
It needs only to give A0 to bomber in SBR, maybe Barney can see where is this code value in XML files.
I believe you already know how to change other combat values from A4D1C12 to A0D0C5. Am I right?

I see there’s been some activity since I was here last : ) I’m not positive if you can have a A0 D0 unit and no HP. Maybe. I’ll be able to find out tomorrow.

So using global as our “test” game what do we want ? Bomber A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB ? C5 SBR only ? Or M+2 W/AB ? Bump Tacs up to 12 bucks hit at 4 all the time ?

As  mentioned earlier, the Rd1 German, JPN, UK and Italy Bmbr attacks will be affected. Once you get past that, just let it roll I’d say.

Anyone ever consider carpet bombing for attack?
strat bomber rolls 3 die for a 2 or less in the attack….a defend 1 in SBR and SBR 3 rolls at 2 or less…defend at 0 in a battle like an air transport

I’ve been checking out this discussion and am looking to see where this goes. I could test this in my 40 game.
I did some die rolling for the Stg Bomber being C5 A0 D0 M6 1D6.

I did test rolls on 3 bombers after getting through interceptors and AA guns. I rolled 3 dice for 3 bombers 20 times and came up with a 220 total number for 20 die rolls. So ave. roll for SBR was 11 damage.  When I was doing test rolls , I was thinking maybe it was to strong. So I made it where bomber gets 1D6 -1 roll for SBR and that comes out to 10 damage for 3 bombers avg. attack.

With a D6 die being a 3 on ave roll would =  9 damage a attack and at -1  8 damage per attack on ave.

When I did the die rolls with 5 bombers it was to high for damage to the point of SBRing taking over the game. I also don’t want that in game. Just ave would be 5 bombers doing 15 damage per turn. 10 damage with the -1 factor. So would have to spend 1 icp to build a piece.

So trade off would be does a country want to spend 25 icp’s to do ave 15 damage on IC. It would cost IC 6 icp’s before it could build 1 piece but if country lost 2 bombers to interceptors or AA gun now they spent 25 icp’s for ave 9 damage on IC.
Cost attacker 10 icp’s to defender fix IC cost 1 to 9 icp’s. Doesn’t include icp costs for escorts. Most of the time the escorts can’t reach IC unless there close.  
May have to have +1 to D6.
3 bombers ave 9 +3 = 12 damage. Cost defender 3 to 12 to fix.

I checked ave rolls with the Baron SBR rules I’m trying in my game.
3 bombers ave 9 +6 =15 damage and 9 ave roll for IC reduced damage would = 6 damage total. Won’t work.

So looks like have to do 1 game each to see how Stg Bomber gets a 1D6 for SBR or 1D6 +1. If bombers get a @1 on air battle then make it 1D6 for SBR.
Maybe Baron can crunch numbers,  where would attacker gain anything on defender when it came to losing bombers to making attacker repair IC and keep them from building less pieces.
The Tac bomber may have to be C8-9 A3-4 D2-3 M4-5 and gets a First strike hit on ground and navy since now you lose the Bomber attack.

: )
I’m gonna try Bmbr A0 D0 M6+2 w/AB No SBR C5 ? No Hit Points. Might be able to idk. Do a +1 to all naval movement version as well.

:)

Tacs A4 D3 M4+2w/AB C12

@barney:

: )
I’m gonna try Bmbr A0 D0 M6+2 w/AB No SBR C5 ? No Hit Points. Might be able to idk. Do a +1 to all naval movement version as well.

:)

Tacs A4 D3 M4+2w/AB C12

Don’t forget to reduced bomber damage to 1D6, if possible, please.
Otherwise, this C5 Bomber will be overpowered.
Are you going to make a version without +1 Naval and another with?
Thanks Barney.

@LHoffman:

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

1. Is Tac targeting on land not so problematic because the land units are cheaper and there are more of them than naval units? (Presumably, every Tac target on land is going against a Tank, when possible.)

2. How exactly do you have this system working against land units? Is it targeting every round of battle? Do they hit @4 or do they have to roll lower (2 or 1) to allow targeting?

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

2. TcB A3 D2, (3 planes Carrier) so accordingly any hit let’s attacker (3 or less) or defender (2 or less) pick opponent casualty ground unit.
   My other houserule works with TcB A4 D3 (2 planes Carrier) and need a “2” or less roll to pick ground casualty, otherwise as usual owner’s choice.
   Fg A2 D2 (3 planes CV), always hit aircraft first (still owner’s choice amongst planes), then AAA and after, it becomes owner’s choice as usual for ground units.
   Fg A3 D4 (2 planes CV), need a “2” or less roll to hit any plane as casualty, if none this apply to AAA, then casualty as usual (special “1” or “2” roll have no effect.)

@Leatherneckinlv:

Anyone ever consider carpet bombing for attack?
strat bomber rolls 3 die for a 2 or less in the attack….a defend 1 in SBR and SBR 3 rolls at 2 or less…defend at 0 in a battle like an air transport

Considering how strong is StB OOB, 3 rolls @1 were once suggested for Carpet bombing. Also, you can hit up to 3 units!
On offence SBR, the farthest is up to 3 rolls @1, 1 roll per plane max.
Never use defense 0 or 1 in SBR.

@SS:

I’ve been checking out this discussion and am looking to see where this goes. I could test this in my 40 game.
I did some die rolling for the Stg Bomber being C5 A0 D0 M6 1D6.

I did test rolls on 3 bombers after getting through interceptors and AA guns. I rolled 3 dice for 3 bombers 20 times and came up with a 220 total number for 20 die rolls. So ave. roll for SBR was 11 damage.  When I was doing test rolls , I was thinking maybe it was to strong. So I made it where bomber gets 1D6 -1 roll for SBR and that comes out to 10 damage for 3 bombers avg. attack.

With a D6 die being a 3 on ave roll would =  9 damage a attack and at -1  8 damage per attack on ave.

When I did the die rolls with 5 bombers it was to high for damage to the point of SBRing taking over the game. I also don’t want that in game. Just ave would be 5 bombers doing 15 damage per turn. 10 damage with the -1 factor. So would have to spend 1 icp to build a piece.

So trade off would be does a country want to spend 25 icp’s to do ave 15 damage on IC. It would cost IC 6 icp’s before it could build 1 piece but if country lost 2 bombers to interceptors or AA gun now they spent 25 icp’s for ave 9 damage on IC.
Cost attacker 10 icp’s to defender fix IC cost 1 to 9 icp’s. Doesn’t include icp costs for escorts. Most of the time the escorts can’t reach IC unless there close.  
May have to have +1 to D6.
3 bombers ave 9 +3 = 12 damage. Cost defender 3 to 12 to fix.

I checked ave rolls with the Baron SBR rules I’m trying in my game.
3 bombers ave 9 +6 =15 damage and 9 ave roll for IC reduced damage would = 6 damage total. Won’t work.

So looks like have to do 1 game each to see how Stg Bomber gets a 1D6 for SBR or 1D6 +1. If bombers get a @1 on air battle then make it 1D6 for SBR.
Maybe Baron can crunch numbers,  where would attacker gain anything on defender when it came to losing bombers to making attacker repair IC and keep them from building less pieces.
The Tac bomber may have to be C8-9 A3-4 D2-3 M4-5 and gets a First strike hit on ground and navy since now you lose the Bomber attack.

You must consider all 6 possibilities and make an average result per D6: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 /6 = 3.5
So, 11 damage for 3 StBs gives 3.667 IPCs on average. It is just slightly above 3.5
D6-1= 2.5 on average (0+1+2+3+4+5= 15 / 6 = 2.5)
D6+1= 4.5 on average (2+3+4+5+6+7= 27 / 6 = 4.5)
D6+2= 5.5 on average  (3+4+5+6+7+8= 33 / 6 = 5.5)

@Black_Elk:

Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.

1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?

In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?

I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.

If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.

Actually, for playtesting 1942.2 and G40, there is two things.

1. 1942.2 SBR without escort and intercept is far more aggressive than OOB.

2. G40 SBR played under 1D6+2 damage will make OP compared to OOB.

3. OOB Triple A SBR 1942.2 gives bomber D6 damage. This provides 2.917  avg damage minus 2 avg StB casualty for a result of +0.917 IPCs per Bomber/raid.
   The new Cost 5 Bomber provides a much lower average casualty: -0.833 , this make average raid +2.084 IPCs per Bomber.
   It is more than 1 IPC increase, that should be noted.
   (However, 0.5 less excessive than G40 OOB SBR, +2.583)

With intercept the change is far less drastic.
OOB 1 StB A1 C12 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1

• 3.690 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC per StB per raid
  1 StB A0 C5 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1
• 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903 IPC per StB per raid
  A difference of 0.880 IPC per raid on 1:1

So, with C5 bomber vs 1 Fg (+0.903), odds remains pretty similar to Triple A 1942.2 SBR (+0.917) no intercept.
But A0 C5 Bomber has no FIT, it is always beneficial to intercept.
So to keep odds as low as usual OOB.
That was not the case OOB Triple A.
This new bomber requires much more interception as an intrinsic part of its core rule, otherwise people may be bias and think it is OP if there is only AAA to fight C5 Bombers. Just a warning…

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

---

1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.

1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?

In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?

I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.

If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.

Actually, for playtesting 1942.2 and G40, there is two things.

1. 1942.2 SBR without escort and intercept is far more aggressive than OOB.

2. G40 SBR played under 1D6+2 damage will make OP compared to OOB.

3. OOB Triple A SBR 1942.2 gives bomber D6 damage. This provides 2.917  avg damage minus 2 avg StB casualty for a result of +0.917 IPCs per Bomber/raid.
   The new Cost 5 Bomber provides a much lower average casualty: -0.833 , this make average raid +2.084 IPCs per Bomber.
   It is more than 1 IPC increase, that should be noted.
   With intercept the change is far less drastic.
   OOB 1 StB A1 C12 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1

• 2.431 - 3.667 = -1.236 IPC per StB per raid
  1 StB A0 C5 D6 dmg vs 1 Fg A1 D1
• 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903 IPC per StB per raid
  A difference of 2.139 IPCs per raid on 1:1

So, with C5 bomber vs 1 Fg (+0.903), odds remains pretty similar to Triple A 1942.2 SBR (+0.917) no intercept.
However, A0 C5 has no FIT, it is always beneficial to intercept. So to keep odds as low as usual OOB.
That was not the case  OOB Triple A.
This new bomber requires much more interception as an intrinsic part of its core rule, otherwise people may be bias and think it is OP if there is only AAA to fight C5 Bombers. Just a warning…

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

---

1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

This is what I was trying to talk about in my post.  Also mean’t you crunchin numbers which you have here now. Thank You.

What’s the plan for interceptors ? They D2 while escorts hit at 1 ? I know that’s how it used to be except for bmbrs hit at 1 as well. Which, obviously, is a big difference.

@Baron
yea no bonus 2 on sbr. I’ll get started on it. Also a Naval M3 version. I might be able to make that an option inside the game so you’d only need one version. That would take longer if possible. We’ll see how this goes for now

A couple of quick notes on the effect of a 3-move navy in 1942.2:

I don’t think San Francisco or Washington DC will ever truly be in play in a game that’s still undecided, because the US will always have the income to place a ton of infantry and/or blocking destroyers. E.g., if J1 builds 4 transports, then A1 blocks Midway island with 1 DD; there are no 3-zone paths from Tokyo to San Francisco that avoid Midway. If J2 kills the blocking destroyer and advances eastward with loaded transports (instead of dropping those troops in Asia, where they are needed), then America buys 8 infantry, 2 fighters for San Francisco, reinforcing with additional fighters from Hawaii, Eastern US, etc. as needed, and now even 4 loaded Japanese transports isn’t really enough to take San Francisco.

I do worry about India disappearing on J2. There’s a hard limit on how many troops the Allies can get into India before a J2 attack based on the starting positions of the Allied units and the 3-income production limit on the India factory. Unless you’re going to build fighters in the Caucasus on R1 and fly them to India, that limit is somewhere around 10 units. But if Japan builds something like 3 transports, 3 infantry on J1, then Japan can hit India with 14+ units on J2, taking the factory at a profit. That’s a huge problem for the Allies, especially since they can build another 3 transports on J2 to setup an instant 3x3 shuck from Tokyo to Calcutta. The Caucasus should fall by turn 5 at the latest, probably closer to turn 4 on average. That really doesn’t leave time for American Atlantic purchases to arrive at the front lines, even with a 3-zone move. Even though an American Atlantic fleet purchased on A1 can now physically reach France on A2, America just doesn’t have the cash to buy enough transports to hold France, plus enough warships to defend the new fleet in the Med or the English Channel, where it will be in range of the entire German air force. Maybe you could open the Dardanelles, so that America can reinforce the Caucasus directly on A3 (Washington -> Casablanca -> Stalingrad)? Kind of weird to have the Americans hopscotch an Italian-held Mediterranean and just sail straight into the Black Sea, but it could work.

I think a 3-move naval roster will work great in Global 40 – the map is so huge that you really need the third move.