G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[baron Münchhausen]

Now your second idea is really interesting, giving them 3 movement only, when empty. That is actually an awesome idea. It will be easier to send them back to pick up reinforcements. Good job here!

I agree there is something to do with this.

[baron Münchhausen]

Quote from: Uncrustable on Today at 12:40:58 pm
-On Cruisers i have strongly argued that they are worthless in the past, but have since stepped back a bit. They still need help, but i do think they have a place,

That’s why I’ve not seen a SINGLE cruiser being purchased in well over 100 games I’ve either played or watched. They don’t have a place right now. Giving them 3 movement is far from what they need.

Another interest of Cruiser, besides bombardment, it is a D3.
When you have a bunch of TTs and 2 or 3 DDs, someone can wish increase the protection in a SZ by including a costlier unit.
In OOB, the only alternative is just buying another cheaper DD with only D2.
Or getting a CV (16 IPCs), still D2 + at least 1 FG D4C10)= 26/2 units= 13 IPCs for A1.5D3, 3 hits
with a 2nd plane: 36 IPCs/3 units = 12 IPCS for A2D3.33, 4 hits

So a cruiser is the fastest way to give more punch (said A3D3) to a small fleet.

However, with 3 planes which can scramble with AB A2D3C7, you get almost 2D3 for 1 cruiser IPC cost.
No more need to add Cruiser to protect a fleet, built Fgs in AB then put a Carrier in the SZ.
7+7+16= 30/3= 10 IPCs/ unit  for A1.33D2.67.
The changing cost of aircraft will sign the doom of Cruiser I think.
Planes have a better projection of power and can attack/defend both land, air and naval.

[baron Münchhausen]

5. Enhanced air combat (land combat only). All planes in a land battle now participate along with defending AAA in a single round of air combat. See #4 for air combat values. All planes are rolled simultaneously (keeping attacking and defending dice separate obviously). Add up the total hits for each side, divide by 2 (rounding down), that number represents how many aircraft are destroyed for each side. The defender also rolls AA dice (no change from OOB rules on AA dice), owner chooses all casualties. The casualties are immediately removed from play. AAA may not be chosen as casualties in this round.

I am under the impression that this HR is going too much tactical  on this aspect instead of keeping the simplicity required from a strategical game.
I don’t understand this division by 2.

**I would prefer the kind of “1” roll on a first round of battle to reveal:
a critical strike destroying an enemy’s aircraft.

For Fg any “2” or less rolled /  For TcB  a “1” rolled /  for StB “1”-“1” / “1”-“2” / “2”-“1” get a hit, or any 3 or less out of 2D6 rolled (3/36 = odds at 1/12).

Other successful results imply a ground unit as casualty for this first round.**
Keep AAA preemptive roll as OOB, before any air units attack.

Why are you limiting this first round aerial battle to ground combat?
It should work for both ground and naval battle.

About the division by 2, it is another layer of unusual trick.
If it is a carnage amongst planes, you should go back to the OOB Global escort rule, at least.
All aircrafts Attack @1 and defend @1.

I know it is sad because defending aircrafts should have an advantage over attacker.
Maybe, the aerial battle should use these stats:
Fg A1D2  TcBA1D1  StBA1D0

Another way to slightly improve Fg A1 is to give them a preemptive shot.

[toblerone77]

Uncrustable, just taking a look at these I think you’ve got some good ideas. I’m going to study a bit of it some more when I get to an actual desk top (on the phone right now as I type) and get a better look.

[Derek]

Why south Africa? You only said something about south America (which is weird in the first place, because there is only one pro-allied neutral, and no uk territory with ipc value) In case you really want South africa to become anzac, I have to argue against it. South africa is a very important fallback plan for UK, if egypt falls (or to help defend egypt). It’s not doing anythin really for anzac

It was a typo that i somehow didnt catch lol, it has been fixed. South Africa because of historical reasons. British Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, and Newfoundland were considered “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”
But for balance purposes i believe you are right

What’s not okay for me, is that you’re buffing a unit, that is already the strongest. Additionally to the advantages of submarines at the moment, in your rule they can be used as cheaper blockers than dd (because they are surfaced). And the fact that they can choose to stay surfaced in a battle means, that you do not need to fear air-only attacks as much as you need to do now, since they can be chosen as casualties.

I did not make it clear enough that the only changes to OOB are those listed. I can see how it can be misconstrued.
But submarines still cannot block, in current OOB rules it is implied that submarines are not submerged. Because you have to decide whether or not to submerge if there is not a destroyer present. The destroyer essentially blocks submerges, or simply makes it pointless.
Again you make a good argument for submarines being OP, increasing to 7 IPC might be too much ?
What would be your recommendation? Im assuming just leave them be?

Now the Strat is far worse compared to the tac. Would you rather have

7 tacs = 70 IPC
21 attack, may be improved up to 28 if paired with fighters/tanks
21 defense
7 hp

or

5 Strats = 70 IPC
20 attack (or 2*10, as you like, but it’s the same)
20 defense
5 hp

You really need to do the math!
Actually the fighter might even be stronger than the tac now:

5 fighter = 40 IPC
10 attack
15 defense
5 hp

4 tac = 40 IPC
12-16 attack
12 defense
4 hp

Granted, the tac will be stronger on the attack IF they are paired with tanks/fighters. Without support, they are even weaker in offense. And they are much weaker in defense. But your original plan was to establish the fighter for air-battles only.

How many tactical bombers do you see purchased in comparison to fighters and strategic bombers?
According to the math, tactical bombers posses an edge in pure combat. But strategic bombers more than make up for it in range and SBR power. I believe this to be both logical and historically accurate. And fighters are no more stronger than tacs in this set than OOB.
Fighters are a better purchase on defense alone, but for offense it would be efficient to have them in pairs.
I think you will see more tactical bomber purchases, while still seeing plenty of fighters and strategic bombers.
I also compared everything to destroyers and it works out pretty well.

Now your second idea is really interesting, giving them 3 movement only, when empty. That is actually an awesome idea. It will be easier to send them back to pick up reinforcements. Good job here!

Yes i agree, move 3 only in noncombat when empty. Thanks.

That’s why I’ve not seen a SINGLE cruiser being purchased in well over 100 games I’ve either played or watched. They don’t have a place right now. Giving them 3 movement is far from what they need.

Well atleast we both agree that something needs changed about them. Im not a big fan of giving them an AA shot.
What are some of your ideas on making cruisers more relevant?

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

9. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 2 or 3. On a roll 4 or higher the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.

This one I like right off the bat. I think this one is ready to go as is.

[MrRoboto]

@Uncrustable:

What would be your recommendation? Im assuming just leave them be?

@Uncrustable:

What are some of your ideas on making cruisers more relevant?

My idea of units is to have each ship has its own role. You can have a look at other strategic games. Whenever units don’t have a specific and distinctive role, it causes balance problems.

The land units in A&A are nearly perfectly balanced.

Infantry = base unit. Cheap, cannon fodder, best defensive unit
Artillery = best attacking unit
Mech+Tank = not as efficient as Inf or art, but faster for flexibility

Now let’s have a look at the Naval units.

Submarine = By far the best in offense. Best in Defense due to being so cheap cannon fodder. Strong convoy. Bypass blockades without dd. Requires DD to negate first strike.
DD = Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blocker. Needed to attack subs.
Carrier = Main source of damage in defense. High flexibility due to higher plane range. Great support on landings.
Battleship = Soak one hit. They are actually just bad destroyers without the ability to detect submarines. Unless you can manage to repair them. Each time you repair them, their value has increased a lot. Slight support on landings

What about the cruiser?
Comparison to DD: Far worse in attack/defense. No additional ability against submarines. Too expensive to be used as cannon fodder or blocker
Comparison to BB: Slightly weaker than BB in attack/defense. No soaking. Even weaker landing support.

My idea of a solution:

a) Increase submarine cost to 8. Make them attack on 3, defend on 1.
b) Redesign battleship.
  b1) Remove bombard ability.
  b2) Remove convoy ability.
  b3) New ability: Damage facility. A Battleship can bombard a facility on a coastal territory for 1d6, with a range of 2. This counts as an attack, so no other movements can be made in that turn afterwards. It’s basically like having rockets at sea.
c1) Reduce cruiser cost to 11
c2) Bombard immediately removes the unit from the board, if it hits. Cruisers still attack or defend at 3, but bombard at 4.

Now let me explain my proposals.

The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

Cruisers/Battleships/Destroyers: You cannot balance all 3, without giving them different abilities. As long as the cruiser is just a small battleship, math will always find the better of these two. And if cruiser and BB are exactly equal, there would be no reason to buy the more expensive one.
With my proposal, the destroyer will become the sole cannon-fodder unit. In addition it serves it’s current role as blocker and anti-submarine unit.

The cruiser is worse in attack/defense IPC-wise than the destroyer, but is a huge support on landing operations. By far the most landings are small skirmishes, like the battles for the DEI. The new bombard will help there greatly, both sides. The destroyer should still be better at pure sea battles though. I’ve not run the math in detail yet, perhaps bombard needs to be buffed to 5, not sure here.

The Battleship is about as strong as a cruiser in pure naval battles, but has the ability to bombard facilities in addition to it’s soaking skill. Range 2, but only against facilities on territories with access to sea. This gives battleships value after the big naval battle is over (besieging Japan, escorting the transports in the canal).

@Uncrustable:

How many tactical bombers do you see purchased in comparison to fighters and strategic bombers?

Not much, I give you that. They are only very slightly stronger than fighters (10 tacs with 40 offense, 11 fighters with 33 offense) WHEN they are paired with tanks/fighters, while being clearly weaker in defense.

My argument about units needing a pure role is true here too.
At the moment the fighter is the defending plane, the strat the attacking one. But the tac is just a bad mix of both, which is why they’ve not bought much.

Your new air combat system solves this problem partly. Fighters are only efficient as escorts for tacs/strats.
In your latest table, they come off too strong though (I’ve made the math in my last post which proves this).
And while it is okay that Strats are worse in offense, than tacs, because of the higher range, the latest IPC costs are just too much. Tacs are SO MUCH better than strats, that the higher range does in no way pay for the increased cost.

I’m too lazy to work out a cost system for these 3 planes right now. But your first idea actually was better than the latest one.
Make fighters escort-only units which are super strong in offense and defense in the air-battle. I don’t know if attacking or defending fighters should be better in the air battle. How did they work in the real WW2?
Make tacs, that are clearly winning in purpose of fighting ground/naval units in offense and defense, compared to fighters. They should be roughly equally strong like destroyer too, IPC-wise (attack/defense per IPC). (Probably make them stronger than dd and more expensive, in the same rate)
Make strats only slightly stronger in offense IPC-wise, a lot weaker in defense. This places the strat in the current position: being long-ranged glass-cannons.

[toblerone77]

I messed this post up a bit and had to edit it. It pertains to your naval proposal.

a)I like the CA stats. More than one person has suggested this. Good idea. This is a 50/50 proposal. There are a lot of experienced players as well as less who like this idea. I see this as an easy fit to your project.

b)The cost reduction to transports makes sense to me. If some changes to point C are made.

c)Those of us like myself, BlackElk and DerKuenstler have been passionate about the defenseless TT. I think this comes from the idea that a theoretically one attacking unit could destroy an infinite amount undefended transports. I like your ideas on this Uncrustable, but for the sake of the community and to promote your project I suggest this:

The current OOB rules remain intact except. Once or if transports are the only unit present or remaining in a sea zone, all attacking aircraft or warships get 1 round of attack on a 1:1 basis. the remaining TTs can: 1. be treated as if they were “ignored” as per OOB rules. or 2. Retreat and evade to a friendly sea zone containing at least one friendly surface warship 1D6 per TT at a roll of one. This would apply ONLY to defending TTs. � If TTs are involved in an unsuccessful naval battle prior to an amphibious assault it would only be logical for them to be destroyed.

Example 1:

2 Fighters attack 2 enemy DDs and 2TTs.

Both fighters roll a 1 and 3, The DDs are hit and return fire rolling a 4 and a 5 missing the fighters.

Instead of automatically destroying the TTs the 2 fighters get one round to attack. They roll a 1 and a 5.

One TT is destroyed and the combat is over. The TT remains is now considered ignored.

Example 2:

SZ109- UK has 2DD and 4TT.
SZ108- US has 1DD and 1 CA.
Normandy Bordeaux-Germany has one STB
SZ110-Germany has 1BB and 1DD �

Germany attacks SZ109 scoring 3 hits against UK destroying 2DDs, and 1 TT.

UK rolls for DDs and scores 2 hits. German BB soaks one and chooses it’s DD for the other.

The UK decides to risk an escape/evade roll to SZ108 where US ships are present, rather than endure another assault from the German bomber and BB losing 2 TTs almost assuredly (The UK could take another barrage saving one for sure or risk saving all remaining 3). The 3 remaining TTs roll a 1, 5 and 2.

1 TT escapes to SZ108 and combat is over.

Remember, for Example 2 to be an option there must be an adjacent SZ containing at least one friendly surface warship. The defending TTs must risk a roll to escape/evade or let attacking forces one last strafe or bombardment. Also remember this applies ONLY to defending TTs, if this were combat involving a failed coastal assault, � all TTs are lost per OOB rules.

[gamerman01]

For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.

[toblerone77]

@Gamerman01:

For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.

I took a look at this. I’m not a league player myself. Should it come up I’ll point them your way.

LOL I think we all have some projects going on.

[gamerman01]

Sure, just check back with us in 6 months and see if we have a finished product that you might enjoy playing

[Derek]

My idea of a solution:

a) Increase submarine cost to 8. Make them attack on 3, defend on 1.
b) Redesign battleship.
� b1) Remove bombard ability.
� b2) Remove convoy ability.
� b3) New ability: Damage facility. A Battleship can bombard a facility on a coastal territory for 1d6, with a range of 2. This counts as an attack, so no other movements can be made in that turn afterwards. It’s basically like having rockets at sea.
c1) Reduce cruiser cost to 11
c2) Bombard immediately removes the unit from the board, if it hits. Cruisers still attack or defend at 3, but bombard at 4.

Now let me explain my proposals.

The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

Cruisers/Battleships/Destroyers: You cannot balance all 3, without giving them different abilities. As long as the cruiser is just a small battleship, math will always find the better of these two. And if cruiser and BB are exactly equal, there would be no reason to buy the more expensive one.
With my proposal, the destroyer will become the sole cannon-fodder unit. In addition it serves it’s current role as blocker and anti-submarine unit.

The cruiser is worse in attack/defense IPC-wise than the destroyer, but is a huge support on landing operations. By far the most landings are small skirmishes, like the battles for the DEI. The new bombard will help there greatly, both sides. The destroyer should still be better at pure sea battles though. I’ve not run the math in detail yet, perhaps bombard needs to be buffed to 5, not sure here.

The Battleship is about as strong as a cruiser in pure naval battles, but has the ability to bombard facilities in addition to it’s soaking skill. Range 2, but only against facilities on territories with access to sea. This gives battleships value after the big naval battle is over (besieging Japan, escorting the transports in the canal).

I really like these ideas.
I will disagree with subs being the best fodder unit on defense. Destroyers are better on defense, and they can hit and take hits from aircraft. 2 Range for the BB IC bombard seems a bit much though for WWII era warships. The long range rockets were large and would hardly have been efficient being carried and fired from surface ships. Reduce it to 1 and i love it.
On the cruiser bombard, i like going back to removing the hit before the battle. This seems more realistic.
I would propose the cruisers participate in the bombard phase (where the casualties are removed immediatly) and the 1st round of normal combat. They would bombard at either a 2 or 3 for both. During the normal round whatever the cruiser may hit is not immediate removed (treated like a current oob bombard)

My argument about units needing a pure role is true here too.
At the moment the fighter is the defending plane, the strat the attacking one. But the tac is just a bad mix of both, which is why they’ve not bought much.

According to the math, tactical bombers posses an edge in pure combat. But strategic bombers more than make up for it in range and SBR power. I believe this to be both logical and historically accurate.
I feel the tactical bomber should be the better in a pure combat, esp on offense. That is against other units. Where the Strategic bomber should be a long range SBR machine. The fighter an air superiority unit (Escort/intercept SBR), best on defense, supports tactical bombers.

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

some quick math
5 Fighters (40IPC)  Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
3 Strat  (39IPC)    Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

Defender has option whether or not to scramble in air defense in normal combat (as in OOB rules for SBR intercept and scrambling from airbases)
Essentially the air combat becomes a scramble operation for the defender, no strategic bombers. This prevents such things as China’s lone fighter going up against a swarm of japan air, unless it wishes to ofcourse.

This i think is starting to come together, both navy and air. Really glad your helping Roboto ;)

[toblerone77]

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

I do really like the idea of establishing some more realistic form of air combat. I have some suggestions I need to work on before I present them but I like this idea.

[Derek]

Gamerman i really like your chart.
Do the French territories act as friendly allied neutrals? That is they can be walked into?
I do not like the French units not being able to move, what is the reasoning behind this?
What happens in the crazy scenario where neither Germany or Italy takes France round 1?

I like all the cost adjustments, esp the bases. I do not believe they should cost more than a minor IC.

[Derek]

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

Yeah you’re right when you show it in a combined arms model taking the entire force into account. I’m thinking about it from a different angle.

[Derek]

There are no combined arms on defense. And i showed both values in the chart.

[MrRoboto]

@Uncrustable:

I will disagree with subs being the best fodder unit on defense. Destroyers are better on defense, and they can hit and take hits from aircraft.

I could show you a complicated formula to prove my point, but let me just tell you:

On sea the best possible defense you can have is 5 subs per each full carrier (+2 fighter). Of course you need at least one destroyer to negate first strike from the enemy submarines. Nothing else beats this combo in defense. In offense the best combo is pure submarine :-)
This combo obviously has one big problem: Air-only attacks. You don’t have cannon-fodder here.
That’s why the ideal defensive fleet is: Full carriers (with fighters), as much destroyer as needed to defend against air-only (approx 2 per carrier). rest submarines (5 subs per carrier). Since submarines are the best in offense too, this combo is something like the dream team.

@Uncrustable:

2 Range for the BB IC bombard seems a bit much though for WWII era warships. The long range rockets were large and would hardly have been efficient being carried and fired from surface ships. Reduce it to 1 and i love it.

Yeah I feared it would be unrealistic. However, in the game you would only be able to use this, after you’ve won the naval battle already. There are not many situations, where your battleship is on the enemy coastline, before you’ve defeated the enemy fleet. If the range is only 1, battleships might be slightly too weak.

@Uncrustable:

On the cruiser bombard, i like going back to removing the hit before the battle. This seems more realistic.
I would propose the cruisers participate in the bombard phase (where the casualties are removed immediatly) and the 1st round of normal combat. They would bombard at either a 2 or 3 for both. During the normal round whatever the cruiser may hit is not immediate removed (treated like a current oob bombard)

Well one bombard@2-3 + participate in one normal combat round should be roughly equal to one bombard@5, right? This is just personal preference now. Since your rule is a bit more complicated to read, this might shift the decision. But your way would work too I guess.

@Uncrustable:

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

some quick math
5 Fighters (40IPC) �Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
3 Strat �(39IPC) � �Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

Okay let me have a look at this.

Tacs without support are not stronger than fighters in attack and far worse in defense. They excel however, when combined.
Strats however are too weak. Even unsupported tacs are stronger than strats (which means that even FIGHTERS are stronger than strats!!!) and they have obviously no defensive capabilities. Higher range does not justify this. Reduce the cost to 12 please.

Math for 12-ipc strats:

Fighters vs Strats

3 Fighter: 3 HP, 6 Attack. Or 6 fighters, 12 attack.
2 Strats: 2 HP, 8 Attack. Or 4 Strats, 16 attack.

Actually Fighters are very, very slightly stronger in offense than Strats. Still not enough power for strats.

Tacs vs Strats

6 Tacs: 6 HP, 18-24 Attack.
5 Strats: 5 HP, 20 Attack.

Still, unsupported Tacs are still as strong as Strats, while also having defense and the option of combined arms.

Conclusion: 12 IPC is still too high for strats. I would not buy them as a player. It seems they have to cost 11.

But we have other problems now:
Actually we changed fighters - made them weaker and cheaper. What followed was, that we had to reduce tacs and strats too. But now a carrier might be overpriced. We could reduce carrier cost as well or increase it slightly but allow them to carry 3 planes.
Also, with weaker fighters we might think about allowing 4 planes to scramble against amphibious assaults.

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

Well I guess I’m just misunderstanding figures then. You seemed to be giving the defense value of a TacB equal to fighter because of the fact that it is battling in multiple facets of combat thereby making it make sense considering all units present within the battle between land and air . I agreed with your math when compared at total value of cost+attack+defense. Thereby giving it a better value in defense with all factors considered.

My perspective was when looking at the actual units, tac bomber vs a fighter in single combat. The fighter’s primary role is to shoot down other aircraft and would easily destroy a tactical bomber. Whereas the tac bomber is meant to destroy ground units, carries a heavier armament, and is far superior to a fighter when attacking ground units.

[Derek]

Math with bombers at 12 IPC
15 Fighters. 30      A/D 45
12 Tacticals 36-48 A/D 36
10 Strategic 40      A/D 10

Now we have little incentive to purchase tactical bombers, as bombers are equal on offense with more range + SBR

Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of the 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

some quick math with bombers at 13 IPC (bombers actually 1 IPC cheaper, but 13 is a prime number so this will do)
5 Fighters (40IPC) �Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
3 Strat �(39IPC) � �Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

Im not sure you read this all the way through?
Fighters are the best on defense, and can escort and intercept SBR.
Tactical bombers are (on purpose) the best on offense, and the best all around (again on purpose) pure combat air unit. However tactical bombers can no longer SBR, they cant escort SBR, and they cant intercept SBR.
Strategic bombers have a good offense (nearly exact same as unsupported tacticals), but with increased range. and the ability to SBR

3 units, 3 different roles. balanced among themselves. and, if you do the math the new fighter is actually slightly better than the old fighter. There is no need to change aircraft carriers yet.

the 3 roles are historically accurate aswell…what else would you want lol

on the battlefield a tactical bomber is going to be more efficient both in the air and vs moving ground units than a strategic bomber

again one more time…
Fighter = Best defense, air superiority (SBR escort and intercept)
Tactical = Best offense, best all around air combat unit
Strategic = Long range, good offense (better than fighters not as good as supported tacticals), can SBR

Well I guess I’m just misunderstanding figures then. You seemed to be giving the defense value of a TacB equal to fighter because of the fact that it is battling in multiple facets of combat thereby making it make sense considering all units present within the battle between land and air . I agreed with your math when compared at total value of cost+attack+defense. Thereby giving it a better value in defense with all factors considered.

My perspective was when looking at the actual units, tac bomber vs a fighter in single combat. The fighter’s primary role is to shoot down other aircraft and would easily destroy a tactical bomber. Whereas the tac bomber is meant to destroy ground units, carries a heavier armament, and is far superior to a fighter when attacking ground units.

Tobloerone77, i think you are confused lol, and at the least overthinking everything.