G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[Jennifer]

@Baron:

Once said, all I can oppose to defend a naval kind of AA  is, first, a “strategical game perspective”: it adds another interesting variety of naval weaponry to counter directly a massive air fleet and bomber spam strategy.

It  also adds a “psychological protective effect” to your fleet when someone launch subs+TcB against it: it adds a bit more uncertainty about casualties. The enemy may still get costlier air casualties instead of only loosing cheaper subs.

I admit, I had not thought of that specific scenario, but I agree with it.

Also, I was advocating leaving the Cruisers at 12 IPC and giving them AA Guns.  10 IPC + AA Guns would be too powerful I think.

As for the transport, I’d rather have a technology make them even cheaper.  Say 4 IPC each with Improved Naval Facilities instead of any attack/defense ability.  Just call it better logistics perhaps?  (4 IPC is pretty cheap, but considering it can’t really do anything but transport units, it’s not too bad for a technology…better than war bonds, no where near as good as jet power currently.)

Still working on a tiered tech development tree.  3 Tiers, 6 Categories.  Will post later for review and comment.  I work retail now and we have Black Friday coming so my time’s kind of being monopolized at work…

[Derek]

I couldnt possibly be more opposed to giving cruisers an AA ability.

@Uncrustable:

because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships

many planes were shot down all sorts of ways

If you send out an overwhelming force of air vs a small fleet of cruisers, and the cruisers are more than capable of hitting the enemy aircraft. You should win with minimal losses in this scenario.
The opponent is the one who took a risk, leaving his fleet vulnerable.

AAA guns on land represent a territory wide network of radar/AA
And unlike on water, they can be hidden where its virtually impossible to know where they are at untill they start shooting. Thus many aircraft are shot down before they even know whats going on.
But as the battle progresses, aircraft know where the heavy AA pockets are and can better avoid them.

This is simulated very well at the strategic level.
All units have AA ability, all units can shoot down aircraft, but AA simulates the above, the unknown.
You cant hide a fleet of cruisers on the open water, and it is silly to think that only cruisers would be outfitted with AA anyhow

And cmdr Jen, 10IPC cruisers works exceptionally well relative to the 8IPC destroyer. I do not understand your objectiveness to it.
believe it or not destroyers still hold a slight edge in combat, and are still the best blocker and the best overall fodder unit on the sea
subs at 7IPC are still the best offensive naval unit, still the best (by far) convoy raid unit, but now they are not a good defensive unit
at 10 IPCs you will see many more cruisers on the board, adding historical realism and fresher naval combat
Italy can purchase a cruiser round one, and in my test games does many times

cruisers could be such a fun unit, but currently are overpriced and rarely/if ever purchased

[Jennifer]

I agree, they need to be purchased more often.  We just disagree on how to achieve that objective.  You want to reduce the price to 10 IPC each, I want to give them AA Gun abilities.

You mention that there are shore and naval base AA Gun emplacements.  So why not reduce the cruiser to 10 IPC and let Naval Base AA Guns defend fleets in adjacent sea zones instead?  Would result in more bases being purchased as well, I wager.

[Derek]

@Cmdr:

let Naval Base AA Guns defend fleets in adjacent sea zones instead?  Would result in more bases being purchased as well, I wager.

i like this
interesting…

[Derek]

@Uncrustable:

@Cmdr:

let Naval Base AA Guns defend fleets in adjacent sea zones instead?  Would result in more bases being purchased as well, I wager.

i like this
interesting…

would have to be limited
3 AA rolls, or number of attacking planes, whichever is less
defense only
must be operational?

[BluGerman]

One idea i have been thinking about was when i was thinking about naval cost reduction (mostly for B-ship and Cruiser) and I was thinking that maybe with the cost changes we would be able to put in a whole other unit. What? another unit? is this guy crazy? and the answer is yes i am crazy however, i am thinking of putting in a Battle cruiser to be the halfway point between the B-ship and cruiser (which if implemented could call the light cruiser). The Battle cruiser was a real warship (The HMS Hood was a Battle cruiser) and was regarded as one step behind a Battleship. Now I would implement this unit with Uncrustable’s Naval prices (Trans=6,subs=7, DD=8, Cr=10, AC= 15, BB= 18) I have nothing worked for sure as this is just an idea, but i would probably make it 12-14 IPC and attack at a 4 while defending at a 3 (or attack at 3 defend at 4?… maybe even have it at 3 and 3 but taking 2 hits to sink?). To represent this unit on the board i was thinking of using original AandA Battleship as its size is conveniently between that of B-ship and cruiser in Global (to compensate for only being 5 nations in original i would make ANZAC use Russian ships and Italy use Japanese ships to avoid confusion on board). Maybe make light cruisers only able to do shore bombardment in presence of heavy cruiser and/or B-ship? What do you guys think?

[Derek]

There are almost too many ships now
That’s the problem, battleships and cruisers are too similar
Now you want to add a 3rd unit that is similar

Too many units is bad, it waters down the game, and creates ‘afterthought units’

Remember this is a grand strategic game, fifty different unit types would serve little purpose
Light carriers
Merchant carriers
Fleet carriers
Frigates
Destroyers
Light cruisers
Battle cruisers
Battleships
Dreadnoughts
-More of a tactical game representation

Also remember that we use 6 sided dice, and no unit aside from jets (a tech) rolls higher than 4
That leaves just 4 spaces for units. We have,
Sub using 1
Destroyer using 2
Cruiser using 3
Battleship using 4

Let’s say you were to implement a unit A4D4 1hit. (12IPCs) the cruiser would be better
How about A3D3 2hit? (15IPCs) In that case it would outperform the battleship

I know it sounds cool, but it would not serve much positive, if any, purpose in the game
It would not add to the experience
Not to mention not many wants to add outside prices to their game, or buy pieces just to play a new version
This should be playable out of the box.

The only unit that I think is perhaps needed (because of mech) is mobile artillery
But if you were to create such a unit, say goodbye to tank purchases

[BluGerman]

Yeah i didn’t have high hopes for it actually working myself :( I seem to be a man of many faulty ideas. Maybe after another thousand tries ill get the lightbulb right

[General 6 Stars]

BluGerman you are just fine thinking that way. My 2 advance games have all the extra stuff plus ground troops. So the game takes alittle longer and it makes you think of more things you can try and also it doesn’t make the game get to boring after awhile. Plus also have events cards you pick for each country at the start of every turn.

[toblerone77]

@BluGerman:

Yeah i didn’t have high hopes for it actually working myself :( I seem to be a man of many faulty ideas. Maybe after another thousand tries ill get the lightbulb right

@ BluGerman. G40e is a good project. However as uncrustable suggested, it’s not suited for additional types of units and is an attempt to enhance the OOB game.

That said, there are plenty of other threads in the Variants section of the forum regarding topics related to HBG, FMG, and other “aftermarket” parts. There is also an article submitted about additional parts and accessories for Axis & Allies.

There are quite a few of us here including myself who use non-OOB pieces for different uses and ideas.

[Derek]

Wonder what others think of this: Leave battleships at 20 IPCs, along with the other cost changes.
TRN-6, SS-7, DD-8, CA-10, CV-15, BB-20

Make battleships overpriced, inefficient, ‘terror weapons’ as they were in the real war.
-Roll 2 dice for battleships during conduct convoy disruption. (Same as planes and subs)
-In addition; UK and USA will roll a single dice during convoy disruption for each enemy battleship that is not in a convoy zone, and is on their respective side of the map board.
(Similar to ‘unrestricted sub warfare’ in 1914)
-UK Europe will roll for axis BBs on the europe side of the map board.
-UK Pacific will for axis BBs on the pacific side of the map board.
-USA will roll for all axis BBs.

This will create a more historical simulation of battleships. They were built primarily to raid enemy shipping from out of range of escorts, and to generally strike fear into the enemy. The allies went to exceeding lengths to sink these behemoths (see: Bismarck and Yamato)

This also creates a more diverse roll for each the cruiser and the battleship in game.
The cruiser being the superior combat unit. (as it should be)
The battleship being the overrated but sometimes effective, economic/propaganda threat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@BluGerman:

Yeah i didn’t have high hopes for it actually working myself :( I seem to be a man of many faulty ideas. Maybe after another thousand tries ill get the lightbulb right

This idea isn’t silly at all.
You can find similar ones on this thread and some interesting historical oriented post on cruiser also:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

@Cmdr:

let Naval Base AA Guns defend fleets in adjacent sea zones instead?  Would result in more bases being purchased as well, I wager.

i like this
interesting…

would have to be limited
3 AA rolls, or number of attacking planes, whichever is less
defense only
must be operational?

I find this idea interesting.
3 AA roll @1 is simpler.
But it don’t seem historically accurate:
warships and subs defend better out in the ocean, not at the sea-port.
So giving the same AA as a ground AAA seems to much to me.

You can already scramble up to 3 planes.

Maybe you can have a mix:
either 3 planes and 0 AA
2 planes and 1 AA,
1 planes and 2 AA,
0 planes and 3 AA.
Of course it is AA played as usually: preemptive and up to 1 roll/plane.

[toblerone77]

I think much of the debate has been settled in a certain directions but I’ll add my two cents.

I would level the cost of the CA and BB and reverse the A/D stats 3/4 or 4/3  specific to either vessel much like the fighter and TacB. I’d give the CA ASW capabilty 1:1 ratio vs. SS. I’d drop the two HP and offer 1:1 ratio AAA vs. Air for the BB.

Yes it is ahistorical I agree. It does solve some problems and gives a reason to buy either ship while promoting diverse fleets.

The costs I have run no figures for but I would suggest an even cost between the BB and CA that corroborates with the cost of DD and SS units.

[Derek]

Toblerone what do you think of this instead:

@Uncrustable:

Leave battleships at 20 IPCs, along with the other cost changes.
TRN-6, SS-7, DD-8, CA-10, CV-15, BB-20

Make battleships overpriced, inefficient, ‘terror weapons’ as they were in the real war.
-Roll 2 dice for battleships during conduct convoy disruption. (Same as planes and subs)
-In addition; UK and USA will roll a single dice during convoy disruption for each enemy battleship that is not in a convoy zone, and is on their respective side of the map board.
(Similar to ‘unrestricted sub warfare’ in 1914)
-UK Europe will roll for axis BBs on the europe side of the map board.
-UK Pacific will for axis BBs on the pacific side of the map board.
-USA will roll for all axis BBs.

This will create a more historical simulation of battleships. They were built primarily to raid enemy shipping from out of range of escorts, and to generally strike fear into the enemy. The allies went to exceeding lengths to sink these behemoths (see: Bismarck and Yamato)

This also creates a more diverse roll for each the cruiser and the battleship in game.
The cruiser being the superior combat unit. (as it should be)
The battleship being the overrated but sometimes effective, economic/propaganda threat.

[toblerone77]

I’m kind of like Cmdr Jenn in the fact that I prefer cruisers to BBs anyway. I usually don’t buy them and use smaller vessels to escort carriers and planes. So although we might have differing thoughts on some things, I’m not that big on Battleships anyway, so this change is fine by me.

[Jennifer]

@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

@Cmdr:

let Naval Base AA Guns defend fleets in adjacent sea zones instead?  Would result in more bases being purchased as well, I wager.

i like this
interesting…

would have to be limited
3 AA rolls, or number of attacking planes, whichever is less
defense only
must be operational?

Oh, I agree!  Naval bases should be operational at the start of the hostile player’s turn (so Japan cannot bomb a naval base in Gibraltar and then follow up with an air strike on the ships there that same turn, just to prevent the guns from firing.)  You could have more than one base, however, so Korea/Japan could both protect the Sea of Japan for instance. (Would have to buy a naval base for Korea, but that’s player’s choice if they want to do so - just like they can buy an airbase and scramble 6 aircraft for that sea zone.)

[Jennifer]

Blu -

I’ve used “half battleships” before in games, but we have the cruiser now which is essentially a half battleship.  If you wanted to introduce a unit like that at home, I would suggest a ATT 4, DEF 4 - 1 hit unit that costs 14 or 16 IPC.  I don’t think we need it in enhanced.

Escort carriers would be interesting as well - Crusty - but I am not sure if needed (so I agree with you.)  I’ve used them before as well, in games, what we did was cut the price of the carrier in half and limited them to one plane on deck.  At the time we had destroyers and said destroyers and escort carriers could move 3 spaces (again, there were no naval bases back then, so…) We ran into issues with transports and decided to let a single transport, if escorted by both a destroyer and an escort carrier, also move 3 spaces.  It was fun, don’t think we need it though.

[Derek]

Trying to get peoples thoughts on this…

Leave battleships at 20 IPCs, along with the other cost changes.
TRN-6, SS-7, DD-8, CA-10, CV-15, BB-20

Make battleships overpriced, inefficient, ‘terror weapons’ as they were in the real war.
-Roll 2 dice for battleships during conduct convoy disruption. (Same as planes and subs)
-In addition; UK and USA will roll a single dice during convoy disruption for each enemy battleship that is not in a convoy zone, and is on their respective side of the map board.
(Similar to ‘unrestricted sub warfare’ in 1914)
-UK Europe will roll for axis BBs on the europe side of the map board.
-UK Pacific will for axis BBs on the pacific side of the map board.
-USA will roll for all axis BBs.

This will create a more historical simulation of battleships. They were built primarily to raid enemy shipping from out of range of escorts, and to generally strike fear into the enemy. The allies went to exceeding lengths to sink these behemoths (see: Bismarck and Yamato)

This also creates a more diverse roll for each the cruiser and the battleship in game.
The cruiser being the superior combat unit. (as it should be)
The battleship being the overrated but sometimes effective, economic/propaganda threat.

[Jennifer]

Sounds okay.  Not sure really….so you are basically saying if a battleship is adjacent to enemy territories, even if it is not a convoy zone, it can do convoy damage?

Might be better to just let them shell naval bases, air bases and minor complexes if in an adjacent sea zone - but it counts as a combat action (start in said sea zone, elect to conduct shelling INSTEAD of moving or engaging enemies and of course, there could be no enemies in said sea zone.)  Little simpler, lets them both do CRD and Shell.