G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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. Q1: Range 6?.

Fg : air combat value 1/2 vs
TcB: air combat value 1/1

Question 2: is it possible to give a slightly better Air Combat attack factor to Fighter over TcB?
Question 3: is it needed and historical?

Give Fgs A2D2 vs Air and keep A2D3 vs ground.

Or just a more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1?

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

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.

You may be right, I read you loud and clear, your cost structure justifies air and general combat stats. I would have done it a bit different but with the same or similar results as you came up with. It’s your project sir, carry on.

[MrRoboto]

@Uncrustable:

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

You’ve got it wrong here mate.

I’d prefer 12 tacs with 36 power over 10 strats with 40 power ANYTIME!

If you roll it out, the 123 win over 104 in about 60% of the time.
And that’s only unsupported! AND they def at 36 instead of 10.

[MrRoboto]

Uncrustable, you really seem to underestimated the effect of HP.

Even fighters are preferred over strats (when they cost 12)

6 Fighters:          4 Strats:
6 HP            vs  4 HP
12 Offense          16 Offense

Fighters are ahead in about 55% of the time. So that means fighters are basically equally strong in offense, while being tremendeously better in defense AND in air-combat. Range alone does not justify these high strat costs.

[Derek]

Updated OP. #s 2,4,5,6 and added 10

[baron Münchhausen]

@MrRoboto:

Uncrustable, you really seem to underestimated the effect of HP.

Even fighters are preferred over strats (when they cost 12)

6 Fighters:� � � � � 4 Strats:
6 HP� � � � � � vs� �4 HP
12 Offense� � � � � 16 Offense

Fighters are ahead in about 55% of the time. So that means fighters are basically equally strong in offense, while being tremendeously better in defense AND in air-combat. Range alone does not justify these high strat costs.

Why don’t use this scale of progression:
8-10-12
Fg-TcB-StB?

[baron Münchhausen]

Just to be sure you see this comment:
@Baron:

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. Q1: Range 6?.

Fg : air combat value 1/2 vs
TcB: air combat value 1/1

Question 2: is it possible to give a slightly better Air Combat attack factor to Fighter over TcB?
Question 3: is it needed and historical?

Give Fgs A2D2 vs Air and keep A2D3 vs ground.

Or just a more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1?

[Derek]

MrRoboto: Wish you would just read this. You would understand.

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.
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

[Derek]

Baron it is what it is for balance purposes, just read the post. Sure 12 is easier, but 13 is more balanced and better promotes tacticals.
Air superioty values are logical, fighters defend higher because they are over ‘home turf’ so to speak. radar, aa guns, spotters, etc etc
other than that all air combat values are 1s…

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Baron it is what it is for balance purposes, just read the post. Sure 12 is easier, but 13 is more balanced and better promotes tacticals.
Air superioty values are logical, fighters defend higher because they are over ‘home turf’ so to speak. radar, aa guns, spotters, etc etc
other than that all air combat values are 1s…

Ok for a better defensive fighter but…
on 1 on 1 basis FgA1 = TcBD1?  Fg are better on dogfight and it is not shown here.

The aerial combat is only for 1 round.
After, all Fgs revert to A2  vs D3 for the rest of the battle.

[baron Münchhausen]

About TcB vs StB, why not give:
TcB A4D3M4C10 vs StB A4D1M6C12?

You can add something else to either Fighter / TcB / Armor when paired somehow.

+1A bonus to Armor when paired with TcB.  OR
+1D or A? air bonus to TacB when paired with Fgs. OR
+1A bonus to Fg when paired with TcB.

[Derek]

Strategic bombers are big and slow, but tough and packing turret guns.
Fighters are small and fast, but weak and fragile.
Tactical bombers are a little of both, smaller quicker than the big bombers, tougher than fighters.

This goes without saying, but we are also confined to using a 6 sided dice. And as i have stated before, we are playing a grand strategic game on a table top.

Thus the air combat values of 1 across the board, save fighters on defense at 2.

[baron Münchhausen]

I wished I could convince you.  :cry:

The aerial combat is only for 1 round.
After, all Fgs vs Fgs revert to A2  vs D3 for the rest of the battle!

Or at least this one:
Just a little more complex bonus: 2 fighters paired give one of them A2 while the other keep A1 for single air combat round ?

[MrRoboto]

@Uncrustable:

MrRoboto: Wish you would just read this. You would understand.

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.
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

Yes I’ve read it multiple times. It’s what you want to achieve and it’s also what I want to achieve!!!

But your current model just doesn’t result in this!

The balance of Fighters to Tacs is right at the moment. Fighters are way better in defense and air-combat, unsupported tacs are better in attack. Supported tacs are way better.

But your strategic bomber is balanced totally wrong! You want the attack to be between unsupported tacs and supported tacs. And that’s where it should be.
BUT IT ISN’T

I try to explain it to you one more time.

Compare the Strategic bomber (12 IPC, 4 attack, 1 defense) with your fighter (8 IPC, 2 attack, 3 defense)

6 Fighters: 48 IPC, 6 HP, 12 Attack, 18 Defense
4 Strats: 48 IPC, 4 HP, 16 attack, 4 Defense

Get this: In your current model, even fighters attack better than strategic bombers (They are ahead in about 55% of the time). Not to mention their defensive value. Even with the greater range, I would never prefer a strategic bomber over a fighter.

Compare the Strategic bomber (12 IPC, 4 attack, 1 defense) with your Tactical bomber (10 IPC, 3-4 attack, 3 defense).

5 Strats: 60 IPC, 5 HP, 20 Attack, 5 Defense
6 Tacs: 60 IPC, 18-24 Attack, 24 Defense.

Now you planned to have the attacking strat somewhere between unsupported tacs and supported tacs. But that’s not the case. EVEN UNSUPPORTED tacs are stronger in the offense, than the strategic (Tacs are ahead 60% of the time!).
Why would I ever want to buy a Strategic instead of a tactical? The Tac is ALWAYS better in offense, incredibly better at defense and if I can support them, they are more than doubling the offensive power compared to a strategic bomber. Range alone does not justify that.

[Jennifer]

Have not read through everything YET nor really thought too hard on any specific detail, but just off the cost, I love the transport price reduction to 6 IPC.

At 7 IPC, before coffee, with kids nagging you for your attention, it’s just plain annoying to figure out how many transports + units and keep it under a certain cost.  All other warships are even numbers, this makes the xport even as well.

As for cruisers, I liked the idea of giving them AA guns and leaving them at 12 IPC.  Maybe add the bombard increase of yours to 4, but leaving them at 12 ipc.  Maybe I’m just stupid, but I like to buy cruisers as is - not a whole lot, but I find them really effective anchor points for reinforcement fleets, etc.  (5 destroyers, 3 transports and 1 cruiser being moved from W. USA to the fleet in the Philippines for instance.  Cruiser makes a HUGE difference in whether or not that little fleet is attacked by Japanese air power, and if attacked, should do more damage than if it was 5 destroyers, 3 transports and 2 submarines.)

Just some quick thoughts…as I said, really didn’t look and think too hard at it.

[MrRoboto]

Well Jen if you invest your money in destroyers, instead of cruisers, you’re always off way better (WAY!!! better).

The sole and only argument for cruisers is, if you have exactly 12-15 IPC or 20-21 IPC and need to defend immediately against one attacking plane.
If it might make a difference if you can hold a seazone with 1 cruiser instead of 1 destroyer, maybe to defend transports, in the first case. Or 1cruiser+1 dd instead of 2 dd in the second case. Then yes, in these extremely rare cases, a cruiser purchase is slightly better.