NEW BREAKTHROUGH CHARTS

Mr Andersson

@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.

Mr Andersson

@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.

Mr Andersson

@Imperious:

…Also, each researcher invested keeps rolling so your not spending 30 IPC to get a technology. On average spending just 5 IPCs will generate a 50 % chance of getting a technology after 3 turns, so its hardly a valid point to make about “the math” making the second candidate a useless technology.

About the math I was wrong, it is 15 IPCs on average. I was stuck in the old days, sorry. This means that I will need to change me techs, any suggestions?

Imperious Leader

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.

What the technology does is make the old cruiser and replace it with Battlecruisers. The ASW is part of a general upgrade in development of cruisers because Anti- Aircraft Cruisers did exist, Also pocket Battleships did exist, also Fast moving Battlecruisers did exist. I think that your fixated on just the name rather than looking at the advanced cruiser as a technological upgrade in various aspects that reflect how different nations employed them.

I would just rename the technology advanced cruisers or something else. The general idea is to encapsulate the various ways the cruiser received in developments by different nations at war. In some cases these are Pocket battleships, or Battlecruisers, Or fast battleships, or AA cruisers.

The three new ideas give the flavor of most of these kinds of developments.

Imperious Leader

About the math I was wrong, it is 15 IPCs on average. I was stuck in the old days, sorry. This means that I will need to change me techs, any suggestions?

Im looking at AA50 rules which is the most standard game at this point. Under these rules you pay just 5 IPC and each turn you get a free roll for technology, when the tech is finally achieved the researchers go away…so conceivably you only need to spend 5 IPC to get this technology or any other.

I think your still on revised and not many still play that thing. With AA50 and AA42 coming out they will definatly make Revised look like Milton Bradley edition and hence i dont think you want to still make rules for old games, but for adaptation to the new ones.

Mr Andersson

@Imperious:

…Im looking at AA50 rules which is the most standard game at this point. Under these rules you pay just 5 IPC and each turn you get a free roll for technology, when the tech is finally achieved the researchers go away…

According to AA50 rules the math says the following:

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

I like the semantic of yours for cruisers. I will think about the advanced cruiser tech compared to fast capitals.

Mr Andersson

What about:

Rocket Artillery
Your AA-Guns can conduct rocket bombardment attacks prior to land combat. This special attack is made immediately before normal combat occurs in the territory under attack and require that one of your AA-Gun is moved into the territory under attack during the Combat Move phase. Your AA-Guns can only fire at defending infantry units and only during the first round of combat. Roll one die for each defending infantry unit. On a roll of 1, that infantry unit is destroyed and immediately removed from the game without any ability to counterattack any attacking units.

Is it a better tech than Advanced Artillery, anyone? Or do you find it balanced at all, good or bad?

Emperor_Taiki

@Mr:

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.

I understand

What dont you like about dive bombers, is it too powerful?
What if they just chose what land unit they destroyed on a roll of 1?

Also 3 of my heavy tanks on defence would have and intial firepower of 12

While 5 infantry would have a firepower of 10 but so it does not obsolete infantry because they can take more causaulties and there firepower is not as fradgile( if you lose of of those tanks your down to 8), it just makes sence for tanks to be bought for defence if they have infantry for cannon fodder

Imperious Leader

According to AA50 rules the math says the following:

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

No this is not how technology is done in that game! You pay 5 IPC and get to roll one time each turn till you get a technology. The roll does not go away ever UNLESS you gain a tech ( by rolling a 6). So it can never conceivably cost more than 5 IPC to get a technology. However, if you want to get the odds going more you can invest say 15 IPC and get 3 rolls and have a 50% chance of getting a tech a turn. Once you obtain the tech the researchers go away and you must reinvest to get more rolls. This is the math.

Mr Andersson

@Imperious:

…. This is the math.

I told you the math and you dont get that I get it. Or you dont get it!

Imperious Leader

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

Good you get it then i can take this as some kind of misleading math, because you know that with AA50 techs you can get any tech with 5 IPC. It does not cost any more than 5 unless you hate to wait, So on average in 6 turns you can get any tech. If every player has equal access to technology, their is no reason to assume that getting one tech faster than another should be calculated as an added cost to determine value of technology. That is misleading form of assessing the math in these situations.

The actual cost of a tech is 5 IPC so the MATH says its fine to obtain any technology because no matter what you will gain more than the investment. And in terms of the game various techs are going to be stronger than others which is the case in all these games. So to conclude the MATH give no indication of anything relative to a 4-3 or 4-4 cruiser, except a battlecruiser as you mention has no armor plating and big guns, so it makes more sence to make it 4-3, while a 4-4 unit makes less sence because if we go with your own point the armor plating is like a cruiser and a cruiser is at 3.

Mr Andersson

@Imperious:

…So to conclude the MATH give no indication of anything relative to a 4-3 or 4-4 cruiser, except a battlecruiser as you mention has no armor plating and big guns, so it makes more sence to make it 4-3, while a 4-4 unit makes less sence because if we go with your own point the armor plating is like a cruiser and a cruiser is at 3.

Ok, let me put it this way. If a cruiser attacks a battle cruiser, what will happen? The battlecruiser will shoot down the cruiser before the cruiser get in range for fire with its smaller guns! So the bottom line is that armour doesn’t matter if you going for a gun fight with a stick! By the way I really do enjoy our discussion and if you feel that I am rude, please let me know. You do give very good fedd back from time to time and hopefully this will result in better House Rules. Can’t wait to see the new game. The Tech system in AA50 is a really good, even if I do think that the breaktrough charts can be better.

Mr Andersson

@Emperor_Taiki:

What dont you like about dive bombers, is it too powerful?
What if they just chose what land unit they destroyed on a roll of 1?

Also 3 of my heavy tanks on defence would have and intial firepower of 12

While 5 infantry would have a firepower of 10 but so it does not obsolete infantry because they can take more causaulties and there firepower is not as fradgile( if you lose of of those tanks your down to 8), it just makes sence for tanks to be bought for defence if they have infantry for cannon fodder

Dive bombers seems a bit uncreative and is actually something that all countries had during WWII as a part of their airforce.

I agree on you about the heavy tank tech, but would not this rule be too powerful for Germany. Have you play tested it to find out if it is balanced? A unit excel based on balance: firepower (attack and defens), cost, and mobility (movement). Perhaps also armor protection, i.e. abillity to soak up hits, and other special abillities.

What about these three land techs:

Heavy Tanks
Your armor defends on a 4.

Motorized Army
Your infantry and artillery have a move of 2 during noncombat move phase. The combat move of your infantry and artillery remains at 1.

Rocket Artillery
Your artillery have a first-strike ability at an attack factor of 2. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. This first-strike ability do only apply for attacks and is for the first cycle of combat only. In succeeding cycles of combat, your artillery hit normally.

Imperious Leader

Ok, let me put it this way. If a cruiser attacks a battle cruiser, what will happen? The battlecruiser will shoot down the cruiser before the cruiser get in range for fire with its smaller guns! So the bottom line is that armour doesn’t matter if you going for a gun fight with a stick! By the way I really do enjoy our discussion and if you feel that I am rude, please let me know. You do give very good fedd back from time to time and hopefully this will result in better House Rules. Can’t wait to see the new game. The Tech system in AA50 is a really good, even if I do think that the breaktrough charts can be better.

If one player has just cruisers and the other player has tech Battlecruisers…and the BC is defending then its an even fight. correct

If the BC attacks a cruiser it fires at 4, then if it kills the enemy ship it also gets to move away using its speed bonus in NCM using unallocated movement points (like you do with fighters) so its like a fighter in that it moves in both move phases.

But since it has 3 MP it will usually never be on defense because it can easily escape enemy cruisers that move 2, then strike and pick off ships. So in this regard i dont see many situations where it would be defending.

OK Lets make it a 4-4 unit even though it should be at 3… one hit however!

also just cruisers get the AA shot. If you notice Jennifer has this idea of AA battleships and that does not make sence.

AS far as movement bonus id still stick with carriers and cruisers as the only ships that do a 3 MOVEMENT. Battleships are slow and have limited range as well as destroyers.

Thats why you usually find them both together, with carriers and cruisers in another group or just carriers… consult midway and leyte gulf and how the japanese and Americans deployed ships.

Emperor_Taiki

@Mr:

Dive bombers seems a bit uncreative and is actually something that all countries had during WWII as a part of their airforce.

But didn’t some airforces have signifigantly better dive-bombers and ground attack aircraft, particularly the Germans and Russians.

And on the Heavy Armor idea, i didn’t say that it would not be overpowered, i just said it would not obsolete infantry.
And if it works really well for Germany i think that adds hitorical flavor.

I very much like the rocket artillery idea, nebelwerfers and katayushas are some of my favorite WW2 weapons.

i dont like the mech inf tech, not because i dont like your spin on it, i just dont like the idea of representing increased mechanization in an army my increasing stratigic movement capability or non-combat movement. It should rather show up in a tactical way, although that is complicated to do in an A&A game.

Mr Andersson

@Emperor_Taiki:

And on the Heavy Armor idea, i didn’t say that it would not be overpowered, i just said it would not obsolete infantry.
And if it works really well for Germany i think that adds hitorical flavor.

I very much like the rocket artillery idea, nebelwerfers and katayushas are some of my favorite WW2 weapons.

Well Emperor, have you play tested the heavy tank tech were armour defend on a 4 or not. Was it overpowered?

And do you think that the Rocket artillery of mine is a better tech than the standard advanced artillery? Or is the idea of a rocket artilery – too specific and detailed for this level.

Emperor_Taiki

@Mr:

Well Emperor, have you play tested the heavy tank tech were armour defend on a 4 or not. Was it overpowered?

And do you think that the Rocket artillery of mine is a better tech than the standard advanced artillery? Or is the idea of a rocket artilery – too specific and detailed for this level.

In past months i have played 3 games of AA50 that had tech rules or special abilities that gave Germany a tank that defended at four. It helped Germany greatly and the axis one all the games( in the games i have played the axis tend to win anyway)
They definently dont obsolete infantry though. I like them espeacilly late in the game and the Germans are trying to use them to defend there homeland, it feels historical.

Imperious Leader

Heavy tanks should be restricted to building only one per turn. to instantly get all your tanks at 4 then just start buying tons of these will lead that player to victory because its 4’s for 5 vs 2’s for 3.

I also limit each side to 6 of these used on the board at one time. Nobody can just churn out thousands of heavy tanks because of the cost in metal. Even Germany who was the best example of Hvy tank could not build more than a few hundred. They even waited to launch offensives under Hitlers orders ( Kursk and Bulge) till they got the production numbers up over a long period of time.

Mr Andersson

@Imperious:

Heavy tanks should be restricted to building only one per turn. to instantly get all your tanks at 4 then just start buying tons of these will lead that player to victory because its 4’s for 5 vs 2’s for 3…

If Tanks that defends on a 4 is too much perhaps artillery will do as a strategic defensive tech. Once Germany had been thrown on to the defensive in WWII the burden of combat shifted away from aircraft and tanks to the infantry and artillery. This were not because the former were not needed but rather their short supply forced reliance on the latter. The shortage of artillery therefore carried severe penalties. The inabillity to conduct effective large-scale counterbattery operations,as well as the loss of air superiority, was primary cause of German failure in both the West and the East. The early hopes of victory through mobility were replaced by an insatiable demand for the firepower of artillery.

Artillery was mostly a defensive unit during WWII. However, in A&A, it is usually only used as an offensive unit, mainly to give large infantry formations more punch, not for counterbattery fire upon enemy artillery. The task of destroying enemy artillery batteries can also fall to attack aircraft, but unless they are already on patrol overhead, they are usually not quick enough to save friendly forces from damage. More often, ground-based counter-battery fire would suppress the enemy artillery batteries and force them to move, while aircraft would follow up later with a strike to destroy the rest of the enemy artillery.

Fortress Artillery or Heavy Artillery
Your artillery defends on a 3.

Imperious Leader

So what does this have to do with heavy Tanks?

You want to replace HT with HA?

NEW BREAKTHROUGH CHARTS

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose

Country Specific Breakthroughs (Classic)

New Production Facilities

New Pieces/Rules on a Throwback Board.

Need some input on new unit att/def values

Revised Global 1940: New Setup

AARHE 1939 map discrepancies with player set up charts

Trying to start a new Axis and Allies Site

243

17.3k

39.8k

1.7m