NEW BREAKTHROUGH CHARTS

What about this one?

Superior Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers and cruisers are now upgraded. Your aircraft carriers requires two hits to destroy, and your cruisers defend and attack on a 4.

or this one?

Fast Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers and cruisers range increases to 3. When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is also increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leave from and end up in the same sea zone.

@Emperor_Taiki:

6. Heavy Armor
Tanks defend at four

6. Dive Bombers
On a roll of 1, Fighters chooses what opposing unit is taken as a causaulty

Well, I don’t like Dive Bombers at all. However Heavy Armor is more historical correct than Mechanized Infantry as a development, but Heavy Armor is a game breaker with a defence roll of 4 or less. A 4 in defense make amor a better piece than infantry in every aspect, armor will simply dominate infantry. That is why I prefer Mech Inf.

When it comes to your number “6”. I deliberately left this number because I want the player to choose any technology/development of her/his choice on a roll of 6, from the prespecified breakthrough chart.

@Gargantua:

You guys think that stuff is cool?  I created an Empire builders version…

… But anyways.  I thought I would share a few of the Excellent techs/abilites we developed.

Thank you, but no thank you! Too much ganja  :mrgreen: in those techs, hence no reality and game balance. Not cool enough for me. Come up with a balanced and historical tech for navy and I will be very  :-D

@Imperious:

…I might make this move 3 cruiser under the Battlecruisers tech because these also represent pocket battleships which would appear out of nowhere, sink a lonely ship and then hide before a cruiser group could catch it. I would not make the BC a 4 attack unit.

The battlecruiser is a ship as large as a battleship, with the big guns of a battleship, and the sea speed of the fleetest cruiser, but with considerably less armor than a battleship. They were to revolutionize cruiser design. After this new type of capital ship came into service all previous armored cruisers were instantly obsolete.

They would scout for the battle fleet (in which role they could brush aside the armored cruisers that the enemy customarily deployed to foil such scouts), they could equally prevent enemy scout cruisers from approaching the battle fleet. They could chase and dispatch “cripples” after a battle. They would also be tremendously useful in running down and destroying enemy commerce raiders on the high seas.

From the beginning, battlecruisers had their detractors. They were criticized for being too big, too expensive, and too lightly armored. They were called “white elephants” and “deviates”. But when the Germans, and later the Japanese, started laying down improved (and much better protected) versions in response to the British battlecruisers, the type was clearly here to stay. Except for the pure battlecruiser there are other battlecruiser-style ships, sometimes called “super cruisers,” “large cruisers” or “pocket battleships”.

The first battlecruisers (the Invincibles) were contemporary to the Dreadnought, the first modern battleship; the last battlecruisers (the Alaskas) were contemporaries of the last battleships, the Iowas. As the improved battlecruisers got bigger and better protected, the improved Dreadnoughts got bigger and faster, until finally the two types merged into the third generation fast battleships of World War II. Ships so large that they could combine the heavy armor of battleships, and the speed of battlecruisers, in the same hull.

So Impy, why not attack and defend on 4 as well as as a move of 3. What is your suggestion to make battlecruisers worth pursuing?

One variant of Fast Capital Ships that would be historical correct is:

Fast Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers, cruisers and battleships are now faster and have a move of 3.

This might be a better tech than Battlecruisers, what do you think?

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. They also have a move of 3.

@WILD:

I would like to see some kind of AA ability for the three capital ships. Only one would get a shot @ 1 per sz (fleet), similar to AA guns.

I had a tech named Naval Antiair before a so callad AA Cruiser with a AA ability, but it is simply not worth persuing. Remeber that it costs 30 IPCs to develop a tech on average! I would take one BB and a FTR for those IPCs any time. More over in World War II, pure naval firepower didn’t mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

I think about a variant of ASW (anti-submarine warfare) for planes as the fifth naval tech.

Anti-Submarine Warfare
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

@Imperious:

Anti-Submarine Warfare NEW
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

i would add that cruisers are ASW units as well. Also the ASW units only cancel out the subs first strike at a 1:1 basis.

I am not in favor of ‘fast battleships’ , but only cruisers and carriers. Leave DD and BB as 2 movers.

Ok, I will think about the addion of cruisers for the ASW. It might be good. But your comment on BBs for Fast Capital Ships is worthless if you don´t give a good argument for your stand point. I did gave a strong reson to why BBs should be included i the text above, for historical resons! Moreover it is a more balanced tech if one can bring in BBs to soak up hits.

@Imperious:

…ok make it a 4-3 unit because the armor we still like a cruiser…not a 4-4 unit, but a 4-3 unit moving 3.

Also, allow it to use any remaining movement points it has left after combat to move the balance after combat…to simulate the idea that it gets away after it sinks…

example: the BC moves one space and sinks a cruiser, then moves 2 more spaces in NCM away to avoid getting attacked by the enemy …this make is a good surface raider.

I don´t like the 4-3 idea because it still only takes a singel hit to destroy a cruiser and the tech will hardly be worth persuing at 4-3. Bottomline is that your idea is not balanced, do the math. However I like your idea of special movement in NCM. How about this variant:

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat, any of your surviving cruisers in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.

However I still like the tech Fast Capital Ships more than Battlecruisers!  :wink:

@Imperious:

How does the “math” apply here considering this is technology? Technology introduces a new advantage so how does the math favor a 4-4 unit and not a 4-3 unit?

Math is game balance. I has always been the one of us talking about balance when you talk about history, this will be fun. The thing is that Tech is math as well, even if the dude that designed this game has not not realized it yet! On average one spend 30 IPCs to develop a tech and there is a rsik premium as well, since one can not choose the tech you want. So the reward one are looking for to put IPCs on R&D is actually higher than 30 IPCs, depending on how many of the techs that will be valuable for the player. This is the basics. If there are lousy techs the riskpremium gets higher. Lets say Russia only want four out of six techs since the other two are more or less wothless to him. The payback the Russian player would be looking for to develop tech would be 40 IPCs (30 IPCs plus 2/6 times 30 IPCs).

There are three factors that will count for techs and those are; attack, defens and special abilities like movement and hits etc. The easiest way to find out if a tech is balanced is to compare the cost of the new tech and see if will be costeffective in attack and defens capability. And then look at any special abilities that will be of any strategic value and try to put a price on that. This will be different from time to time dependant on the mix of your and your enemies force. But the bottom line is that a tech should be worth persuing and that is at least 30 IPCs of investing instead of purchasing normal units for the IPCs.

Talking about game breakers and tech, you self advocate a A-Bomb tech. One could argument that such a super tech would compensate for lousy techs on the breakthrough charts. Fair enough, but I think that the R&D is risky as it is and does not need to be more of a gambling, but rather more strategic. I think it would be better to have different charts for land, air and sea. This would reduce the riskpremium I talked about before. More over I think that any tech should not be a definitive game breaker. One should stay with the back bone of the game, and that is that it must always be cheaper to defend than to attack. No unit shall be better than an infantry in defens. Ok, must stop there.

@Imperious:

…The Battleship moving three represents that they also have long range as well as speed. They do not have long range, rather this is a trait of cruisers and possible carriers. Battleships suck up too much fuel to patrol the distance of 3 sea zones unless they carry tankers and that never happens when they are in battle because tankers move very slow and if the tanker is sunk the Battleship is helpless in the middle of the ocean. Also, warships need to move a high rate of speed when in battle and suck up fuel even worse.

Cruiser by definition of their name ‘cruise’ long distances and have a much lighter frame that allows them to move fast and carriers are mostly build on a cruiser hull template.

IN the game having 3 ships out or 5 moving 3 is not balanced and reduces the value of the other two ships.

Range and speed is not the same thing. I agree with you here and has acted accordingly…

By the way, when it comes to tech the hole idea is to make a unit more valuable and hence reduce the value of other units.

@Imperious:

Your post does not answer the question.

If these cruisers you propose with the new technology as a 4-4 unit moving 3  VS:

A Cruiser with ASW capabilities , a 4-3 unit that moves 3 spaces and can allocate its remaining movement after combat gives this second choice enough glitz to make technology investment worthwhile.

If i had a choice i would easily take the second choice. It offers greater utility to the cruiser.

I would choose the same as you here, but the ASW capability is not the purpose for battlecruisers. I like the special NCM ability, as I told you before.