I hope so. Can’t wait to see what people will say!
G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.
-
@rjpeters70:
In short, I’m for Battleships sailing the seas, because I like the size of the platforms, but I think their munitions are useless. Hence, change the weapons packages, put modern C4 systems on board, and put the New Jersey, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin back into service.
I think that in the late 40s or early 50s the USN considered completing the unfinished USS Kentucky as a missile ship. The four completed Iowas were brought back into service by Ronald Reagan as part of his drive to create a 600-ship Navy. They were given new electronics suites, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and CIWS point-defense systems. They each served about ten years in this revised configuration, but one of their big drawbacks is that each ship’s complement was very large; from memory, I think each full BB crew equalled something like 5% of the US Navy’s entire 1980s-era personnel roster, or some such outrageous figure. Big carriers have even larger crews, of course, but they have different capabilities.
I love battleships and I have a particular soft spot for the four Iowas, but unfortunately the kind of conversion you mention would probably be prohibitively expensive. Even the relatively conservative refit they underwent in the 1980s to give them Tomahawks and Harpoons proved to be costly, despite the fact that the most drastic thing they had to do was removing four of the 5-inch gun turrets as weight compensation for the missiles and (I think) cutting into the armour plating at a few points to accommodate the power and control cables for the missile launchers. Any retrofitting that would involve cracking the armoured citadel on a substantial scale would take a lot of time and a lot of dollars.
Interestingly enough, one of the arguments that was made back in the 80s in favour of their reactivation was the fact that their very obsolescence worked in their favour. Because there were virtually no armoured ships left in the world, armour-piercing naval weapons had likewise become rarities, which meant that contemporary anti-ship missiles designed to kill soft-skinned vessels would have a much tougher time dealing with a heavily-armoured battleship. (Weapons intended to destroy heavy fortifications on land might perhaps be a solution in such a case.)
-
G40e in my mind is first a balance adjustment.
There are flaws in the current OOB ruleset.
Cruisers are a flaw, the 6VC system for Japan is considered by many a flaw.
G40e should enhance the overall experience.Cruisers at 10 is an enhancement, it is more balanced with the other units.
It adds more strategic depth, giving nations another viable option.
It also is by nature more historically accurate relative to its current OOB price of 12.
At the same time it has a very minimal effect on overall game balance.
No setup changes required, no other changes required.The same can be said of 10 IPC tacbombers.
I’m not sure about 12 IPC bases as far as overall balance implications.
At 12 IPCs it is simpler, as now bases and minor ICs all cost the same. (12)
It also is very clear I think that 15 is too much.AAA are another problem in current OOB rules. They are never worth purchasing and are confusing to new players.
I would be in favor of returning to classic AA, but this would require setup changes.
Making AAA a normal unit (A1D1) is both simpler and gives them a little more strength.
They maintain current OOB AA shots. (Defense only)Current neutral block rules are very stale, they severely punish any neutral play.
Adding neutral blocks is definitely an enhancement. It would add some depth without adding too much complexity.
I think YGs version is simplest: South America, Mongolia and the rest. 3 blocks.As far as BBs are concerned i think the solution is to leave them at 20 with cruisers at 10.
Let them be overpriced as they were in reality. They still would serve a unique role (staying power) and would be purchased however sparingly.
This game should be more a ‘do over’ rather than a reenactment. BB should be an option, but cruisers should always be the better buy. (They are not OOB)Technology is very stale OOB and rarely used.
All the major powers pursued technological advances during the war.
Rolling for tech based on income, without worrying about cost, is a quick and simple method of ensuring technology will play a part in every game.
Breaking the existing techs into 4 categories (OOB has 2) also gives the player a little more choice while maintaining some luck factor.Adding rail and keeping it simple would both speed up the game and add more importance to VCs.
Each home allied VC gives +1 movement to friendly units during noncombat move. Same for axis. This is neither OP or over complex, requires no additional playing pieces and makes sense. VCs would have the most extensive transport systems anyhow, and you would never rail from a captured territory.Il add thoughts on scorched earth later…
-
G40e in my mind is first a balance adjustment.
There are flaws in the current OOB ruleset.
Cruisers are a flaw, the 6VC system for Japan is considered by many a flaw.
G40e should enhance the overall experience.From these twos criterias, and if there is no historical accuracy goal,
I would add that
1- like having more buying options and
2- being able to put more variety of units on the board.The main buying dilemma, IMO, is about choosing grounds vs naval units.
Naval in itself will not give you any land territory.
Winning the game is about conquering the most territories to get the higher incomes and get the VC. It is a sacrifice to buy (and to loose) costly ships (vs a lot of ground units), let it be the less painful.As I see it, the winning strategy is the one which is able to optimize the ratio ground/naval units because once a debarkment is done all ships in the water are frozen IPCs (which explain why planes are so useful) and cannot add their A/D punch to ground units going further mainland (unless still attacking another coastal territory or, there is some convoy raiding within range).
Since transport is need to supply the lines of ground units and is defenseless. You need also to optimize the ratio of TP/naval units which can protect them.
Too much warships can mean not enough grounds or not enough ships to transports them: the few TPs can be overly protected but it would be against your territory expansion capacity.
On the contrary, too few warships and you can loose all your stack of TPs and all the mobility to achieve your strategy goals.This is the idea, it could be more develop, but I’m sure you get it.
All this line of thinking to defend the perspective that warships should go as lower as a balance game allowed it.
And let all warships have a competitive interests for all strategies possible.
It will allow more ships on the board while keeping the same flow of ground units.
Of course, it could also mean that naval powers can buy the same navy but have more ground units. (The real impact would be a matter to discuss, if anyone whish to explore in this direction.)So, based on all the preceding criterias and goals, it means:
SS 6, TP 7, DD 8, CA 10, Cv 15, BB 18, Fg & TcB 10, StB 12.I’m not sure where you stand for SS and TP, so I kept OOB.
The OP cost is probably not up-to-date:4. Enhance naval units
Submarines 7 IPCs
Destroyers 8 IPCs
Cruisers 10 IPCs
Battleships 18 IPCs
Aircraft carriers 16 IPCs
Transports 6 IPCs -
Ok so we have 2 different conversations going on, and one I believe is definitely off topic.
Baron: Im not sure how many games of global you play, or how competitive they are, but G40 has no problems with warship buys. Many are purchased. I believe ship to plane to land costs are near perfect right now, any deviations could have balance implications.
You point out that you must build land to actually get money, transports to move your land and warships to protect said transports and/or destroy them.
What are you saying?
This is how it is meant to be yes?
This best illustrates some form of realism yes?From these twos criterias, and if there is no historical accuracy goal,
I would add that
1- like having more buying options and
2- being able to put more variety of units on the board.More units is most of the time not a good thing.
It can water down the game, and would increase time required if anything.
Cruiser v BB is a great example of too many units.
However if there is a niche to be filled then …I do not wish to abandon historical realism, only that gameplay should be more important.
-
@Uncrustable:
Ok so we have 2 different conversations going on, and one I believe is definitely off topic.
This is clearly one conversation off topic.Baron: Im not sure how many games of global you play, or how competitive they are, but G40 has no problems with warship buys. Many are purchased. I believe ship to plane to land costs are near perfect right now, any deviations could have balance implications.
Sorry, you are right I’m still too influenced by Classic, 1942 and 1941.You point out that you must build land to actually get money, transports to move your land and warships to protect said transports and/or destroy them.
What are you saying?
This is how it is meant to be yes?
This best illustrates some form of realism yes?
The point is ground units are the primary units, never naval units.In these other version of the games in which you don’t have as much money as in G40, buying sea units can hindered your chance of victory.
What I meant is buying an expensive fleet is just to protect transport, and it is just a mean to move ground units. Even destroying a whole fleet, with another is not the key to victory. Moving ground units is the major points, and the more units you have the more you can conquer over others.
Capital ships and cruisers are the most expensive units (are the biggest miniature and are very funny to play with) but have nonetheless a secondary function vs the far cheaper ground units.From these twos criterias, and if there is no historical accuracy goal,
I would add that
1- like having more buying options and
2- being able to put more variety of units on the board.More units is most of the time not a good thing.
It can water down the game, and would increase time required if anything.
Here is two new criterias which are also to be considered.
Cruiser v BB is a great example of too many units.
However if there is a niche to be filled then …
Sorry, I don’t understand the example, what I usually eared is that there is only Sub and Destroyer spam. Not much BB or Cruiser buying.I do not wish to abandon historical realism, only that gameplay should be more important.
Ok. That’s right.The first scale of cost for unit was the lowest.
Here is the most historical I think, because it will create clearly a lot of buying for destroyer and cruiser pairing and almost no BB buying:
SS 6 TT 7 DD 8 CA 10 CV 16 BB 20.However, it will outbalance what was considered balance in OOB combat (ex.: 80 IPCs) :
4 DDs + 4 CAs vs 4 BBs. 49% vs 46%
1 DD + 6 CAs vs 4 BBs. 32% vs 63%
It becomes:
5 DDs + 4 CAs vs 4 BBs. 74% vs 23%
8 CAs vs 4 BBs. 66% vs 31%Finally, having a more competitive BB (as the maths showed in the earlier post) but still historical (keeping a small cost advantage for DD+CA over BB):
DD 8 CA 10 CV 16 BB 19.(76 IPCs) 2 DDs + 6 CAs vs 4 BBs. 59% vs 36%
It keeps also what you seems to like the R1 buying opening which let ANZAC and Italy built 1 cruiser.
By the way, I remembered (in Kion maths) that BB vs CV, CV was the weakest and that’s explain the 15 IPCs CV.
After calculation, Carrier vs DD or CA showed that on average for DD at 8 and CA at 10, CV+ 2 planes should cost 36.25 IPCs, so OOB cost for CV is at the good place.
If I try to summarize the points,
Subs can be 6 or 7 IPCs (and still be a competitive units, but less interesting fodder),Destroyer was OOB good at 8 (no need to change anything).
Cruiser need a fix up to 10 IPCs, but can also be good at 11 IPCs under some helping circumstances (giving some other capacity, or if BB is at 20 IPCs, etc.)
Carrier was good OOB at 16 IPCs and could also benefits from the TcB reduction to 10 IPCs.
Battleship is balance at 19 IPCs (CA at 10 or even 11, to keep parity with DD+CA),
and going down to 18 IPCs (with CA at 10) make it statistically a more powerful unit vs DD, CA and CV,
and keeping OOB at 20 IPCs will make it far less attractive vs 10 IPCs CA (unless for the double hit).Depending on which part of historical accuracy we look:
no building of new BB during WWII (keep OOB) or
how its heavy guns and armor plating make it far superior in naval battle vs DD or CA, or CV in direct contact (someone can still choose 18 IPCs).There is for all taste here,
I don’t see compelling reason to determine one cost structure over an other inside these parameters.
Do you see any? -
Yes 20 IPC BB is best.
No change from OOB.
Far more historical realism.
Still has a place in the game as a heavy hitter and with it’s staying power (2hit).Your point about warships playing second fiddle to land units is both true and should be true IMO. I really fail to see what you are trying to say with regards to this.
What did naval do in the real war? What does control over water get you in reality? No direct income, but indirectly via convoy and troop transports. This is played out just as it should be in this game. I.e. Warships solely to protect transports and/or destroy them or to convoy raid/prevent enemy from convoy raiding.Naval purchases are crucial, but a good player will punish you for overspending on it.
This is a very healthy game mechanic.SS 6
DD 8
CA 10 *
CV 16
BB 20Transports 6 or 7 ?
This is something that needs looked into a bit deeper… -
Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers? :lol:
Decision on transports should be easier. I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting. 7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.
-
Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers? :lol:
Decision on transports should be easier. I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting. 7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.
Yes ;) but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lolI think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA -
Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers? :lol:
Decision on transports should be easier. I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting. 7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.
That is another criteria: original feature vs Larry OOB.
When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser.About TT is there any other way than playtesting?
I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
My old Iron Blitz version could do it. -
@Baron:
About TT is there any other way than playtesting?
Playtesting would be the way to go, yes.
I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
My old Iron Blitz version could do it.Right. I had Iron Blitz too. :-) Marines!
-
The Cold War scenario was cool!
UK+USA vs. USSR with all powers having all techs! -
@rjpeters70:
I thought Iron Blitz was a terrific game. Never understood why Marines weren’t incorporated into the main game.
If I remember:
Marines A1D2M1C5, attack 3 in Amph Ass.
Can have 2 in TT
Seems a balance problem. -
The only advantage marines have over tanks is transport efficiency. Any marines that survive are just normal infantry, unless they embark on another amphibious assault.
In Classic, though, you could only transport 1 tank, or 2 infantry. Take your pick.
With current rules of being able to transport 1 tank + 1 infantry, the added capability of marines is not as dramatic as it was in the old Hasbro CD game Iron Blitz
-
USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAsGamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12That is another criteria: original feature vs Larry OOB.
When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser.
Not sure if this is just a statement or what…there has been loads of analysis on this subject, and 10IPC cruiser was proven to be the most logical, here and several other threads.
I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this. -
Uncrustable, in my incomplete knowledge of TripleA I do not know of a way to edit unit stats
You might want to contact Veqryn as you are getting to the point of wanting to try things out using Triple A
-
To what extent does Larry H admit the 12 IPCs cruiser was broken?
G40 revised was an opportunity and he stays on OOB cost.On the forum we know well all the analysis behind the 10 IPCs CA.
But someone new on it will think like Larry: 11 ok as HR, but 10 is too detrimental vs BB.Usually we explains rules not all the reasoning behind.
At first glance on cost, not talking about all other interesting feature of G40E, no one could guess how much analysis there is in. -
@Uncrustable:
Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers? :lol:
Decision on transports should be easier. I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting. 7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.
Yes ;) but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lolI think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USAYep. 19 sucks. 18 & 20 are more easthetics numbers. :-D
I think some players will have this kind of line of thinking once cruiser cost at 10 IPCs explained and understand:
@MrRoboto:Yes I agree. 10 IPC cruisers are still weaker than everything else except 20 IPC battleships (which are the 2nd worst sea units right now).
I think the main point of cruisers and battleships being too weak is because they don’t really have a certain role to perform.
Subs: By far the best attacking unit. Still very strong on defense due to being cannon fodder cheap. Strong convoy. Requires the enemy to have destroyers.
Destroyers: Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blockers. Prevent first strike and submerge.
Carriers: Carries planes, which not only have a longer range than ships, but also are not blocked by destroyers.
Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).Once said, based on that idea that a costlier unit should not be equal to a cheaper ones , so must be a bit more powerful than the cheaper ones to get some interest, I rather prefer where you stand when you posted this (but keep OOB Sub at 6):
@Uncrustable:
Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes:
11.8(Excluding transports) 11.6 IPCsSS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphibious support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hits.The actual DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition.
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare as well.These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron as well as myself.
But, ultimately, you choose your cost structure.
I will no more insist about CA or BB cost.
I’m open to discuss on Transports, but I think the real interest will be about the possibility to adjust prices on AAA.The question is which option is the more time-consuming for AAA developers: creating directly your version with a specific cost structure or a module which allow anyone to play with cost of any units.
I’m pretty sure this customizing function will interest many players.
-
@Uncrustable:
USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs
Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.I agree with you on all this.
Maybe just add for Marines NA of USA that it is only for PTO (to keep it historical as much as possible)?
I suggest to read this thread on Marines, it can help having a bigger picture:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg748607#msg748607This NA is good for Japan on defense.
But weird for USA on offence because the first round is the landing phase, the most difficult when no Inf is at his best when reaching the beach.But it is simpler for game mechanics at a strategical level.
-
I think a better way for the 2 NAs
All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
Does not stack with artillery bonusMech are not considered infantry
-
Hi, we agree.
I think I tried to answer to an older version of your post.
Isn’t?I come to the same conclusion:
@Uncrustable:
I think a better way for the 2 NAs
All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
Does not stack with artillery bonusMech are not considered infantry
All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
Except for Japan?USA will usually lost infantry on the first round.
Often, the second units on a TT is a Art, already A2.So this US NA is not even vs Japan.
Basically, any surviving Inf paired with Art, already get A2.
It is only the remaining and unpaired Inf which will get this bonus.
On the first round (the more important) they attack @1.What do you think of this slightly modified US’s NA:
US Marines: all Inf attacking an island in PTO except Japan and Australia get
Attack @2 after first round of an amphibious assault.
So if any US player want some ground punch on the first round, he will anyway put some Art unit on the transport.
Suggested Topics
