FIrst off, let me start by saying that I have never even read the rules for any version of A&A other than classic/2nd edition, so keep that in mind for the following ideas.
Back in the day, my gaming guys and I noticed that there were some ship types missing from classic, but we never really did anything about it. Now I’m reading posts about destroyers and cruisers and such, and wanted to put forth some ideas for the communities consideration.
Here goes:
I like things logical and neat, so going by the costs of existing ships, I would make Subs and Transports remain as they are, as the base, while CV’s and BB’s costs would also remain at 18/24 respectively, there would be changes.
BB would cost 24 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-4/d6, but have 4 Hits To Kill (HTK)(rather than just two), and while they have just the one attack, against units that have more than a single HTK, it does two points of damage. The rational being, a BB isn’t going to break the game by killing multiple units a turn, but hits from very strong units (Bombers and Battleships), should do more damage than weaker units (everything else in the game), and so do more damage than other units. What effect this would have on units with just 1 HKT is unchanged, but for units with more than 1 HTK, this makes the BB a much more feared foe. Now for fleshing out the other surface combatants added into the game…
CA would cost 18 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-3/d6, and have 3 HTK. This makes the heavy cruiser more powerful and badass than the smaller ships, as well as making it more survivable, and thus possibly a better buy.
CL would cost 12 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-2/d6, and have 2 HTK. This makes the light cruisers more costly and powerful than all the lesser ships, while still being weaker than the heavier/more expensive and stronger ships. While an attacking BB or bomber could kill them with one hit (that does two damage), nothing else in the game could do that to them.
DD would cost 6 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1/d6, and have 1 HTK. The rational is that a destroyer doesn’t have to be able to carry troops/submerge, so cost less than transports and subs. The DD, as the weakest surface combatant, has just one HTK, but is cheap to produce.
Naval Bombardments. All four surface combatants would get normal one-shot-attacks just like BB do now, with the same restrictions.
Last but not least, the carriers.
CV would cost 18 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-2/d6, carry 2 fighters, and have 2 HTK. The rationale for these stats is as follows, aircraft carriers are, by their very nature, large ships with vast spaces to accommodate their aircraft, and are thus not up to the same standards as more compact surface combatants, and so only have 2 hits to kill, and while in normal games, they have a 1a/3d, I don’t really see a carriers gun armament as something more effective on the defence than offense, and so use them as a 2a/2d unit.
CVL would cost 12 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1/d6, carry 1 fighter, and have 1 HTK.
For those interested in being able to extrapolate bigger and badder ships, using what I have attempted to outline above, let’s summarize.
Surface combatants, BB CA CL DD, cost in lots of 6 IPC’s/PU’s per point of ATT/DEF/HTK, while carriers cost 6 IPC’s/PU’s for aviation facilities, as well as their equivalent hull costs, so 6/12 for their hulls, and then 6 more for aircraft capacity. Keeping in mind that having large amounts of open spaces within/atop a ships hull requires specialization of the ships hull away from maximum damage resistance, and thus the ships are inherently weaker than their surface combatant contemporaries.
So say you wanted to contemplate building a ‘super carrier’, just use the other two surface combatant hulls, and add 6, so two heavier than normal carriers could be built, and the player would have to decide what exactly they were wanting for their money, more fighters, or more survivability? Say one guy wants a flattop with more fighters, and so pays 24 for his ship that can carry 3 fighters, rather than the standard 2. Great, he gets his wish, but this carrier still has just the same 2a/2d/2htk as the ship that costs 18. Want to go the other way, and keep 2 fighter capacity, but get a stronger ship, cost 24, 3a/3d/3htk? Go for it. Of course, we could have someone that wants both of these, and then we would be looking at a hypothetical ship costing 30, with 3 fighter capacity, and 3a/3d/3htk.
All of this is meant as food for thought, and is in no way based upon ANY level of playtesting, so perhaps something interesting? Or just a waste of time?
A couple more things, construction times, and R&D needs to unlock some of this stuff.
More later, for now, any thoughts?