2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?

@Afrika:

Not necessarily, since subs don’t attack air.

Well AK, what a combo means depends on what the opponent does! If the enemy has build up a fleet, that player most likely lack a big airflottila since it cost a lot to buy a fleet or an air flotilla! So if you will attack a fleet then buy subs, that are protected by a fully loaded ACs and perhaps a DD. Always try to stack your navy in one sea zone.

By the way what did you vote?

@trihero:

… battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements. If you go in for a round and absorb hits on battleships then retreat, you have lost nearly nothing while incurring casualties on the other navy…

IMO: Yes this is an advantage, but as I said it is probable more theoretical than practical when veterans play the game, who are aware of every units cons and pros!

@trihero:

… I would take the battleships because they’re great at flushing out troops on the islands and because you hardly lose the core of your investment once you get enough of them…

IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.

@trihero:

…I’m pretty happy overall with the cost of battleships vs destroyers. If anything I think that destroyers need to have some incentive vs battleships, not the other way around. I’m just not that happy about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters…

About your incentive for DDs vs BBs I do have a suggestion. What about If DDs got the ability to bombard on a 2 in an amphibious assault, like a battleship? Then control of the sea, would be more valuable, hence a bigger incentive to buy navy! The main reason for why the game designers didn’t want the destroyer bombardment from A&A:P and A&A:E was because they wanted pieces to have only one main special ability. But also the fact that the territories in A&A:R were too big compared to A&A:P. A relative smaller map means that the destroyer bombardment would be more useful and hence a too big benefit. I simply don’t agree upon that and have never got an argument that are good enough to convince me.
 
I would like you to be more precise on why you are not pleased about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters. IMO I think the cost and abilities of fighters are balanced compared to navy units abilities and costs. How ever I do agree upon that land troops in general are a better buy than sea units.

In order to make the air as well as navy more attractive to buy relative land troops I do have four house rules that would do:

Destroyer Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Air Supremacy
Fighters can support infantry attacks and artillery defense if no enemy fighters are present. Air supremacy increases your infantry’s attack to 2 or your artillery’s defense to 3. Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.

Heavy Artillery (replace Combined Bombardment)
Your artillery are now heavy artillery. They attack on a 3.

Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

The supersupmarine tech cost around 30 IPCs to achieve and a submarine (SS) cost 8 IPCs. So If we consider a fleet of 72 IPCs we see that BBs are never really a choice if one will invest 78 IPCs (6 subs + super sub tech). Break even seems to be around 72 IPCs for BB vs SS (considering super subs tech)! I know this more of theoretical than practical work, but I consider it interesting!

3 BB (24IPCs/BB)

Cost: 72 IPCs
Att: 34 = 12
Def: 34 = 12
Hits: 6

5 super SS (30 IPC tech + 8IPCs/SS)

Cost: 70 IPCs
Att: 53 = 15
Def: 53 = 15
Hits: 5

1st combat cycle

sSS scores: 15/6 = 2,5 hits -> 3 BB left (absorbed by 2-hit rule for BBs)
BB scores: 12/6 = 2 hits -> 3 sSS left

2nd combat cycle

sSS scores: 33/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2 BB left (opening fire means no return fire from casualties)
BB scores: 24/6 = 1,33 hits -> 1,67 sSS left

3rd combat cycle

sSS scores: 1,673/6 = 0,83 hits -> 1,17 BB left
BB scores: 1,174/6 = 0,78 hits -> 0,89 sSS left

4th combat cycle

sSS scores: 0,893/6 = 0,44 hits -> 0,72 BB left
BB scores: 0,724/6 = 0,48 hits -> 0,41 sSS left

5th combat cycle

sSS scores: 0,413/6 = 0,20 hits -> 0,52 BB left
BB scores: 0,524/6 = 0,35 hits -> 0,06 sSS left

@trihero:

Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).

To win the battle of the seas should be an incentive, that is why I suggest Convoy Rule and Destroyer Bombardment. By these to new rules it will be more important to take control of the sea, or one will get bombarded and ruined and cannot do much about it! Japan and Germany seems to be the loosers one might think, but I think it depends on how you play. One thing is sure one must change the stategy a bit. The Air Supremacy and Heavy Artilley tech favor the Axis in my opinion, but just a bit. I dont think these rules will tip te game too much to Axis or Allies favor, but rather make the navy more important! What do you think about these optional rules of mine? Do you like any of them?

@trihero:

No, they are unconditionally the losers in this situation. Germany can never keep his navy alive unless he wants Russia crashing him on like R4 or something, and the US can outspend Japan for a few turns……

I think the Axis needs to be given a chance to create a strong navy, but they really don’t have the cash to do so. You can increase the incentive to maintain a navy but if you don’t give the Axis a way to actually do this while maintaining their land territories then…

I agree upon Germany when you talk about buying a navy, but the Convoy rule can never affect Germany negatively. Rather it helps Germany and Japan to thwart UK to build any ICs in Africa or Asia! The Air Supremacy definitely help Germany to conquer Russia and most likely Africa and more over it help Japan in main land Asia a lot! No buddy, you act on feelings here, not statistics and facts! These two rules certainly favors Axis and the heavy artillery tech most certainly will do too! S

Something that would protect the German fleet in the Mediterranean is a rule for Gibraltar that says that noone can pass Gibraltar with navy, except for subs, unless one control Gibraltar. What do you think about that?

@Afrika:

The navy is fine the way it is. BBs are very fine, UK can use them to great effect against Europe, as can Germany use it’s BB to support land troops attacking Africa. The repair is very nice as well and BBs can pay for themselves conceivably.

I would much rather buy a carrier and a fighter (26 IPCs) or an infantry, an artillery, a transport and a fighter (25 IPCs) than a BB (24 IPCs) to fight Europe! Buddy you are lost! Germany will chose that battle, not UK! Germany will attack the navy with air and perhaps a few subs. And when they do, they will be sure about the odds to win! The repair is useful if one win a battle and UK wont if Germany decides to attack the navy! And that is especialy so if UK buy BBs instead of fully loaded ACs!

@trihero:

Oh sorry I didn’t see that it only applies to US/UK/Japan. I thought Germany’s IPCs could be sunk that way hahaha that would suck.

I like your suggestion overall; isn’t it going to come up in Advanced A&A in a different form? To be honest I’m never going to use optional rules that’s not “official” unless my friends want to. I use u-boat interdiction NA as Germany when I wanna sink IPCs : )

Where have you red about this Convoy Rule in Advanced A&A. I have not seen it yet!? If so I am very happy, cause then you might use my house rule, since it will become official! ;-)

Imy just wrote a lovely idea that would do in combination with destroyer bombardment (shore bombardment on a 2). In order to get a free shore shot you must land 2 infantry for each shore shot. I think this will actually make the shore bombardment more realistic and balanced. Any comments? :?

" no more 3 battleships supporting one infantry, killing 3 german infantry and retaking france 20 times in a game.", Impy!

@Afrika:

@B.:

Buddy you are lost! Germany will chose that battle, not UK! Germany will attack the navy with air and perhaps a few subs. And when they do, they will be sure about the odds to win!

No.

1)Germany must spent the bulk of her IPCs on land units.

2. For UK, first I would make 1 CV to make use of those 2 fighters that start on the UK, then make transports and DD/BB as far as naval purchases go.

Well, the first thing Germany will do is to use some 6 fighters and a bomber and most likely a sub or two (those that are left) to attack the fully loaded AC. UK will loose for sure during the first cycle of combat and Germany wont loose more than a sub and a fighter! This wont force Germany to spend a daim on navy, but only use air units that he starts with. Air is good for land combat as well, so Germany will need to repurchase a few fighters if they are lost! If Germany are wise he will use fighters against naval units were he will win in the first combat cycle to reduce the risk for casualties (lost fighters) I will tell you the basics:

TACTICS

Tactics are an art, not a science. There’s no way to absolutely quantify them, no way to define secret formulas for victory. There are rules a good tactician follows, but they aren’t absolutely binding. The ‘secret’ to winning lies not in trying to manipulate the enemy, but in creating general situations in which you know the available menu of maneuvers and the balance of firepower will favor your force.

Superior Combat Power
If one add up the combat capability rating and divide by 6 you get an average number of hits that force will inflict on a round.
Mixed Force
A force of mixed combat capability will gain advantage after each side takes a casualty since it reduces their combat power by a smaller amount. If one attack a territory defended by a better mixed force, one will need a larger initial advantage.
Cannon Fodder
If one can take casualties in cheap units while the enemy has to take casualties in expensive units, one will come out ahead.

@Afrika:

And how will Germany attack it first thing with 6 fighters… She can’t… not even if she buys 4 fighters first turn can she attack it second turn.

Any time UK fleet will be in reach of Germany fighters in France he will attack if the odds strongly favor his force! If that does not happen in the first turn he will use those fighters against Russia until its time to fight that navy off!

@trihero:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=322&start=0

There you go :D

There’s 3 forums on that site with advanced A&A possibilities that Larry is putting in the game.

Some other very interesting stuff is a change to 10-sided dice, as well as “aiming” you choose the casualty if you roll a 1 instead of the enemy, and combined arms; for every set of 1 inf 1 arm 1 art you roll an additional bonus 2, and you can use a fighter instead of one of those requirements in a set.

Well, these rules are not like mine at all! In fact I would like to see those convoy zones. However for those who have the A&A:R map my rule will be a more generic form of convoys!

@Afrika:

@B.:

Any time UK fleet will be in reach of Germany fighters in France he will attack if the odds strongly favor his force! If that does not happen in the first turn he will use those fighters against Russia until its time to fight that navy off!

Right, Germany cannot destroy that force when it is produced. It will grow. UK won’t put her fleet in range of Germany first turn, unless perhaps Germany’s fighters  have made some odd move.

But that will take a long time to build that fleet, since UK will loose India and Australia and half of Africa in the first three game turns!