Do I need 10000 simulations to know that the average dice roll result on a single dice is 3.5? I only care about the most likely result, not the outliers.
But I guess failing that, I could always try using the VANN formulas ;)
@Genghis:
But I guess failing that, I could always try using the VANN formulas ;)
lol.
@Genghis:
Do I need 10000 simulations to know that the average dice roll result on a single dice is 3.5? I only care about the most likely result, not the outliers.
@Genghis:
Sea Unit Proposal Rev 2:
Subs: unchanged
Destroyers: can only cancel ability of subs on a 1:1 basis. If 1 DD and 5 planes attack 10 subs, only one sub can be hit.
Cruisers: Now cost 10. In addition, they have the Target Selection (Air) rule which means when a hit is scored by a cruiser, an air unit must be taken as a casualty if any is present.
Battleships: Now attack, defend and bombard on 5s
Aircraft Carriers: Now cost 18.
Please discuss
The values of accuracy required is up to you.
My suggestion is that there is no need to rise the cost of something which is not broken.
Battleship A4 D4 C18 vs defending CV+2 Fgs C36 is 50% vs 50%.
And BB A5 D5 C20 vs BB A4 D4 C18 are near 50% too.
So, why modifying 2 units instead of only one?
Just lowering BB to 18 IPCs or rising BB combat value to A5 D5?
If your calculations give something else, then it is the small scale of your simulation which bring an aberration into your results.
Ok if that’s true then I can leave the CV alone and just make the BB C18, cruiser C10 and target selection and DD’s only work with subs 1:1.
Target selection on Aircrafts will make Cruiser an interesting unit to destroy Fgs prior to weaker unit or hit soaker BB or Carrier.
@Baron:
While discussing on Global development, Larry said:
Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-eAfter all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 planeBecause, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.
I just realized that Tank A3 D3 were 5 IPCs at that time, so doubling the cost would have put Cruiser A3 D3 at 10 IPCs.
And what is strange is that Larry back off because he felt that it would make 2 hits, 20 IPCs Battleship obsolete.
I understand that 11 IPCs is a too odd number, but 10 was not.
However, all the A&A combat structure is based on this fact that cheaper ground units are always better cost effective than costlier. Subs, DDs, Cruiser were following the rule, why bend it for Battleship?
It would have follow the rule, in addition, the 2 hits repairable units is something still valuable.
I liked the idea making cruiser 10ipc and Battleship 18ips. Did it significantly change the purchases in games?
Cruiser is CA, light cruiser is CL. Even though a CA is technically a Heavy Cruiser, the most common form of the two is CA which if you use one term the CA is always that acronym.
@Imperious-Leader said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:
Cruiser is CA, light cruiser is CL. Even though a CA is technically a Heavy Cruiser, the most common form of the two is CA which if you use one term the CA is always that acronym.
It is almost a Zombie thread which is being revived. LOL.
I totally agree with you IL. A&A sculpt are CA. My original intent was about using a lower cost to make Cruiser A3 D3 M2 C10, 1 hit as the lighter version of Cruiser. At 10 IPCs, it leaves room for an Heavier and costlier Cruiser.
For instance, an Heavy Cruiser can be A3 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits.
Of course, it is an hypothetical cases, because people need to have both type of sculpt.
I like new type of units only if they are absolutely needed and bring somethings to the table which other units couldn’t. I wouldn’t really want 2 type of cruisers just sake of history, I didn’t even find particularly useful introducing mechanized inf, and tactical bombers.
@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:
I like new type of units only if they are absolutely needed and bring somethings to the table which other units couldn’t. I wouldn’t really want 2 type of cruisers just sake of history, I didn’t even find particularly useful introducing mechanized inf, and tactical bombers.
It depends about what kind of game you like on 1942.2 map.
I really like Tactical Bomber as an addition. However, the map is small for a second M2 unit along with Tank. It clearly switch the balance toward Germany and Axis.
I like to specialized my aircraft types. Since I have both G40 and 1942 games, I can use all my sculpts, as I wish.
Adding WW1 Battleship from 1914 can make it possible to add such. But I really don’t think it adds anything to game dynamic if there is another type of Cruiser. There is enough warships as it is, IMO.
How much bid do you give Allies in 1942.2?
@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:
How much bid do you give Allies in 1942.2?
Never use bid. Only 1942 customized game, as I have not much opportunity to play with friends. Usually, either side can win. I’m more interested in balancing my game with Triple A before playing on table top.
I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.
@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:
I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.
Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?
