@Der:
@Baron:
For now, I can just say that rising the cost of Submarine to 8 IPCs (along with an attack factor of 3) makes things more even on the number produces for the IPCs invested.
With Subs at 6 IPCs, this imply that a 24 IPCs investment is assuring a one shot surprise strike against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs.
Thus making this 1:1 blocker, not exactly an even match.
With both units at 8 IPCs, it is only a matter of strategic IPCs investment choice, both units will be on an even ground.
3 Subs at 8 IPCs against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs. Buying Submarines have no immediate advantage over buying Destroyers.
To me, this is an additional reason which make more acceptable this dual changes from OOB:
1- Submarines A3 D1 Cost 8 IPCs
2- Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8 IPCs, only able to block Sub on 1:1 basis.You are right - the subs @ 6 IPC are cheap and dangerous. But then isn’t that what they were in Battle of the Atlantic also? Subs were really the only things Germany could put in the water that worried Winston Churchill and the huge Royal Navy. If you make them “equal” to DDs, then I’m afraid we’re back to seeing them a non-factor again in games. If the RN assumes an aggressive posture, they can send packs of DDs backed by planes and other surface vessels to kill these subs before they have a chance to use their Surprise Strike on them. A DD with 2 fighters backing it will likely sink any sub, which can only return fire @ 1.
I suppose a guy could buy enough subs to wipe the ocean clean, but what would that accomplish? It would have to be done at the expense of losing ground on land. Every sub you buy is one less tank for the push on Moscow, or 2 less infantry to defend land somewhere.
I really appreciate your answer Der Kuenstler.
It helps me see deeper what is the problem about Submarines.
OOB Subs are dangerous on paper but too easily countered by some good containment tactics with Destroyers blockers and a bunch of aircrafts.
When Allies players manage to create a situation in which Axis Submarines are cornered and limited to a defensive stance, they are easily annihilated, too easily annihilated.
The main issue is about Submarine survivability.
Since, on many occasions, they work by themselves, they cannot count on other units for protection.
So, what does matter is to increase their own means of survival to be able to make, at least, a single offensive strike before being sunk.
In your thread Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…, you provided this means by reducing Destroyer capacity in two manners:
1- The 1:1 basis for blocking Submarine by Destroyer clearly increase this survivability.
2- That a Destroyer cannot block Sub’s Submerge is another one which can be combine with the first and really helps making the Submarine the elusive unit it should be.
But some players may feel that it is giving too much to an already dangerous units which, in addition, can be easily used as an optimized fodder when combined to a surface vessel warships fleet.
@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.
Submarine: Actually the submarine is the strongest sea unit right now. Nothing is even nearly as good at attacking, as the subs.
But what really surprises most: Submarine are the strongest in defense too, if compared with carrier+fighter. Submarines are the cannon fodder at sea. The best possible defense combination at sea is:
5 submarines per each carrier+2fighter.This trumps every other combination, IPC-wise. Since submarines are ALSO the best attacking unit, your fleet should basically always look like this:
Enough destroyers to have all the blockers you need
Enough destroyer to kill off convoying submarines.
Enough destroyers to support your carriers against an air-only attack (submarines can’t help here).
0-2 Battleships to absorb hits when attacking smaller fleets (if your carriers can’t be damaged)
5 submarines for every full carrier. More submarines, if you’re the aggressive power.This means submarines at the moment are too strong. A possible solution would be to raise the cost AND damage. Maybe 8 IPC, but 3 on attack (needs to be calculated, haven’t done that yet). This would mean the sub loses its cannon-fodder status and becomes an attack-only unit, similar to bombers.
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).
That’s why I feel more and more comfortable to reduce the Submarine combat effectiveness on offense (slightly) and defense (25% redux) by increasing the cost at 8 IPCs while giving an attack factor @3 and keeping the defense @1.
Just to let them have a better chance of survival against Destroyers and planes with the 1:1 basis limitation for Destroyer blocking Submarine’s Surprise strike and Stealth Movement only.
Don’t forget, on offense, such Submarine unit is not exactly “equal” to Destroyer on defense.
It is an Attack @3 (more or less with the First Strike, if they outnumbered DD units) against a Defense @2.
Probably giving around 75% against 20 %. It is still a powerful advantage even if both units are at the same cost.
Compared to 4 OOB Subs, which is very similar:
Overall %*: A. survives: 77.8% D. survives: 19.2% No one survives: 3.1%
3 regular attack @3 against 3 regular defense @2.
Overall %*: A. survives: 69.8% D. survives: 24.2% No one survives: 6%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aCru=3&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=3&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=3 First Strike @3 against 3 regular defense @2.
Overall %*:A. survives: 86.6% D. survives: 13.5% No one survives: 0%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=3&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=
So, all in all, this Submarine A3 D1 Cost 8, matched with a new Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8, blocking 1:1 Sub’s Stealth Movement and Surprise Strike only
is slightly weaker in combat compared to the OOB Sub at 6 IPCs but is getting a much higher odds of survival when attacked, due to the change on Destroyer abilities.
With this give and take, a costlier Submarine is still reasonable and well-balance (contrary to what I was afraid of, before you reassure me on how it is OK to have less retaliation capacity even for an ASV unit such as DD).
This main change about parity on cost creates, IMO, a change of perspective on which units worth to be picked as casualty.
That’s why I believe there is no more need to add planes pairing to Destroyer (a patch to limit subs fodder capacity and usefulness), hence providing us a more streamlined and simpler combat interactions.
@Der:
**I suppose a guy could buy enough subs to wipe the ocean clean, but what would that accomplish? It would have to be done at the expense of losing ground on land. Every sub you buy is one less tank for the push on Moscow, or 2 less infantry to defend land somewhere. **
That is one of my line of questioning.
Maybe one of the reason Larry Harris drop down the subs price at the same cost than Tank was to promote a more historical incentive for a German Atlantic Subs Battle.
Rising the Submarines’ cost to 8 IPCs can forfeit this strategic intent. 2 IPCs higher than Tank and just 2 IPCs below the versatile Fighter.
But maybe this increase survivability can be in itself a better incentive to invest in the Kriegsmarine than the lower cost of 6 IPCs.
Nonetheless, this matter for German’s Navy appeal, makes me provides the other cost structure in which both Submarines and Destroyers are at the same affordable 6 IPCs, while others Naval and Air units are put at a proportionate scale. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1371539#msg1371539
For example the 9 IPCs cruiser compared to 6 IPCs DD is not better than 12 IPCs Cruiser compared to 8 IPCs DDs.
The ratio is the same: two third (3/2).
The only exception which stay at the same cost was the Transport A0 D1, 1 hit, keeping it at 8 IPCs.
Maybe this can still keep the pace of projecting power and ground units, for UK but mostly USA.
And it doesn’t change the cost needed to move ground units from Continental Europe toward UK in a Sea Lion Operation or Africa.
But it is clear that it is a very different ratio of price between land and sea.
Instead of rough double land cost ratio:
Land cost X 2 = Naval cost
1 Artillery A2 D2 cost 4 IPCs = Destroyer A2 D2 cost 8 IPCs
1 Tank A3 D3 Cost 6 IPCs = Cruiser A3 D3 cost 12 IPCs
It would become x1.5 land cost ratio:
Land cost X 1.5 = Naval cost
1 Artillery A2 D2 cost 4 IPCs = Destroyer A2 D2 cost 6 IPCs
1 Tank A3 D3 Cost 6 IPCs = Cruiser A3 D3 cost 9 IPCs
I found someone likely minded on cheaper boat:
@eddiem4145:
The point that some units cost to much is obvious. I believe that is why the new set up for the 2nd edition added so many AA guns and bases, because no one would buy them.
The cost of a navy has always been to much since the first Axis and Allies. And though the cost has come down a bit, it is still ridiculously to high. For the us to buy on aircraft carrier with a full complement of planes and a couple of ships, it requires the vast majority of its income for one full turn. That is ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that in order to encourage the foolish expenditure of income for battles in the Pacific, they had to come up with unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific. Does anyone really think that Hawaii should be worth 7 IPC’s for the Japs but only 2 for the US. The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much less than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US.
Instead of making Hawaii worth 7IPC’s to Japan, its loss, even temporarily should result in a one time loss of IPC’s to the bank the US must surrender to equate to some sort of morale loss.
But the most obvious answer to encourage see battles should have been dramatically reducing the cost of Navies.
Transports $4 (since they are now defenseless with one AA roll) Subs $4, Destroyers $6 (they should be cost ineffective compared to cruisers but absolutely necessary to buy to counter act the subs), Cruisers $8, Carriers $10, Planes $8, Tacs $10, BattleShips $14, AA’s $3, Naval Bases and Air Bases $10.
Lets all rally around this concept and send a message to Larry when the inevitable 3rd edition comes out.
Reading all these replies is frustrating. Doesn’t anyone realize the cost of building such fleets. It has been and continues to be the biggest problem with axis and allies. Navy’s cost to much and are completely unrealistic. The land forces you have to give up to build even the most modest of fleets is ridiculous. The first one to do it only is saved by the foolish reaction of you opponent doing the same thing.
Though not as big as a problem as in the past, it is still a problem and instead of the solution being dramatically reducing the cost of navy’s, Larry came up with ridiculous unrealistic National Objectives (I don’t disagree with them all) to try and force inefficient naval battles in the Pacific. Inefficient because what you spend on Navy’s forces you to give up so much in what could be achieved in Land battles. This goes especially for Japan. The reason all the other versions resulted in Japan going all out against Russia is because it was the only smart thing to do.
But know, essentially all Japan has to do is capture Hawaii and the entire war is won??? So Germany could be collapsing, Italy could be wiped out and ooops, Japan got Hawaii, game over!!! Stupid!!!
Drastically reducing the cost of Navy’s was the right answer and though they were reduced slightly, they weren’t reduced nearly enough.
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10Lets just do it already.
Toblerone,
For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.
In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.
Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.
To the contrary, Mr Roboto is clearly advocating against a cost reduction for transport:
@MrRoboto:
Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game. And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual.
Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place. The action in Pacific is not forced by NO. Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
The relationship in cost between air force, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
@Uncrustable:
Moving on…
The biggest problem with drastically reducing the cost of naval units, is you then have to drastically reduce the cost of air units, or face a boat heavy game with little air being produced (hurting Germany the most). Then once you lower air cost, now you must also lower the cost of all land units or see massive amounts of air to very little land purchases (esp from Germany).
Then you are back to square one, everything has the same relative cost, just cheaper. This creates a more hectic game, esp for F2F games, and would require more pieces, namely chips. And most people wouldn’t accept it.Air is the Achilles heal to your cost proposals, because air operates over both land and sea, and must be balanced likewise.
From a relative standpoint, the cost of naval vs air vs land is perfect right now in my opinion.
And i have played well over 200 games of axis and allies, many of which competitively. Both revised and post revised rule sets.I do however feel that just lowering the cost of transports themselves would not break the game entirely.
Lets look at the price system as it stands.
Land: Attack + Defense value = cost (Infantry at 1/2 cost 3, arty at 2/2 cost 4, arm at 3/3 cost 6)
Sea: Attack + Defense X2 = cost (Subs at 2/1 cost 6, dest at 2/2 cost 8, cruisers at 3/3 cost 12, BBs at 4/4 would cost 16…but 2 hits to sink increases its cost to 20)
Air: Attack + Defense + Range = cost (Fig 3 + 4 + 4 =11, Bmb 4 + 1 + 6 = 11…they are adjusted respectively to 10 and 12, with Tacbmb at 11 in G40)Air is what brings it all together. Without air you have more flexibility in cost.
You could, in theory, simply house rule all units and facilities to 1/2 or 1/3 cost, without breaking the game. You would have to use decimals of course. This would give nations more options when it comes to purchases.
But still thinking about it:
@Uncrustable:
Reducing CAs to 10 and BBs to 18 seems to work.
DDs are even to slightly favored still vs both, and SS still beat both on offense, but lose on defense (as they should)could also go with MrRoboto’s SS idea:
Subs cost 8, A3D1
Raising cost to 8 and attack to 3, leaving defense alone
@Baron:
Thanks for your fast answer, as interesting as usual. […] I’m really glad that historical accuracy doesn’t plainly contradict this idea.Â
My pleasure. Another factor which fits this model, but which I forgot to mention yesterday, is the operating cost of warships after they’ve been built. The main component of those expenses are crew costs (training and pay), consumables (especially fuel and ammunition) and maintenance. An aircraft carrier with a crew (including its air wing) totaling around 3,000 people is obviously going to be a lot more expensive to operate than a sub manned by 60 guys, and a battleship with a crew of 2,700 men is likewise going to be a lot more expensive to operate than a destroyer manned by 330 people.
Fuel consumption is another cost factor. A little dinky 900-ton Flower-class corvette could cross the entire Atlantic (about 3,500 nautical miles) on a single load of fuel, whereas the 70,000-ton Yamato class battleships were such fuel hogs that the Japanese Navy kept them at anchor for most of the war, since sending them on a single mission took an appreciable bite out of Japan’s precious oil reserves. Subs were generally speaking fairly fuel-efficient vessels, which was necessary because their missions often required them to operate on their own for long periods of time. Size, however, doesn’t always correlate well with fuel consumption. Cargo ships can be very large, but they generally have low-powered engines that don’t consume much fuel. WWII destroyers were comparatively small ships, but they had powerful engines and they often dashed around at high speed, so they were known for their voracious fuel appetites. This was especially true for twin-screen fleet destroyers (single-screw destroyer escorts were slower and probably more economical), and in the US Navy it became a practice for thirsty destroyers in operational zones to refil their tanks from bigger warships who happened to be nearby. The Iowa class battleships were half-jokingly referred to as “armoured oilers” by destroyermen.
Hi Baron
Just to reply to your message I guess I don’t really have an opinion other than to say it’s worth a playtest.
That and as voiced earlier the higher price may make them less attractive to some.
I say give it a try :)
Hi Baron
Just to reply to your message I guess I don’t really have an opinion other than to say it’s worth a playtest.
That and as voiced earlier the higher price may make them less attractive to some.I say give it a try :)
About this,
you seems pretty skilled about Triple A.
I have a few short questions (but with long answers) about the 1942.2 version of Triple A:
1- Is it hard to change the cost and combat value of 1 single unit, for instance submarine?
2- Is it possible, without too much effort, to delete the necessary pairing of plane with Destroyer to hit submarines?
… Letting plane acting as the naval units, without restriction on unsubmerged submarines?
3- Is there a way to restrict the Destroyer blocker capacity to Surprise Strike and Hostile Sea Zone, so a Submarine would be able to submerge during the general combat phase?
4- Is it hard and complex to learn how to modify some aspects of a Triple A game?
Thanks for your reply.
@ Baron
I don’t think it really matters what game you’re playing as far as changing things. I’m not familiar with 1942.2. I guess it’s the new version of the original?
Anyway
1 Changing the cost and combat values is pretty simple.
2 I just tried this and unfortunately no
3 Probably not
4 Yes and no. Some things are relatively easy as listed in 1 above. Movement, IPC values, turn order are some others.
If you dl Pact of Steel 2 Veqryn explains how things work in the xml quite well. There is quite a bit of newer stuff since then but is a little harder to find. At least for me. I think you have to go into
sourceforge where they work on the code and I haven’t figured that out yet.
The destroyer and sub capabilities are hardcoded into triplea so you can’t do as much with them. You can make other naval units have ASW capability but you can’t give ASW to a plane on it’s own.
I don’t think you can pair the 1:1 ratio which is unfortunate as it would be really cool to incorporate DK’s sub and destroyer rules.
Currently the dev’s are doing some good work on the AI and the most recent wwI game. But I don’t think there will be a lot of new features other than those any time soon unless someone else joins
the team.
I could be wrong on some of these points but that’s my basic impression.
Thanks for the answers Barney,
as far as I can see you were curious to explore some features discussed here and there on Subs, planes and destroyers.
About Transports, do you know if there is some way to switch them from no combat value to letting them get Def @1, 1 hit?
Does the taken last is hardcoded into tripleA?
You could change transports pretty easily. They’re not hardcoded.
Do you mean that you can just add a “1” on defense and it will treated as a regular unit, with no auto-die and no taken last?
And if I prefer that it must be chosen last but still have combat value and a defense factor @1, it is also possible?
@ Baron
My last post is incorrect.
There is a ww2v2 ruleset where transports defend at 1 and can be taken as hits whenever.
There is a ww2v3 rule set where the transports can’t defend and are taken last.
These appear to be hardcoded.
I’ll look into it some more.
Here is some more info
Major Differences Between ww2v2 revised and ww2v3 1. In ww2v2 transport units are just like any other unit, and can be used as fodder by being taken casualty first in combat, however in ww2v3 style rules, transports have no defense power and may only be taken casualty after all other non-transport ships are dead.
2. In ww2v2, you can build fighters on carriers if you build both at the same time, and if you build a carrier you can move existing fighters to carriers when you build a carrier in the adjacent sea zone. In ww2v3, you can build new fighters onto existing carriers as well as new carriers, but you may not move existing fighters onto new carriers, as instead you can non-combat move the fighters to where the carrier will be built, then place the carrier under it.
3. In ww2v2, when you strategic bomb or rocket a factory, you immediately reduce the enemy’s PUs. In ww2v3, you do damage to the factory, up to twice the value of the territory. Each point of damage reduces the number of units that can be produced there by 1. The player may repair the damage during their purchase phase.
4. In ww2v2, when you fly over a territory with an AA Gun, the gun gets to fire at each aircraft. In ww2v3, the AA Gun only fires when you attack or bomb the territory it is in.
5. In ww2v2, submarines and transports block the movement of other sea units. In ww2v3, submarines and transports do not block the movement of other sea units, and may be bypassed or attacked.
6. In ww2v2, technology is rolled for, and if you miss nothing happens. In ww2v3, you buy tech tokens, and at the beginning of your turn you roll for each of your tokens. If you roll a 6, you discard all tokens and roll a second time to see which technology you get.
7. In ww2v2, no land units may retreat from an amphibious assault. In ww2v3, the non-amphibious units may retreat.
8. In ww2v2, bombardment immediately kills units, and you are allowed infinite bombardments. In ww2v3, a unit hit by bombard may return fire against the attacking units before dying, and the number of bombards is limited to the number of land units being dropped off from that sea zone.
9. In ww2v2, air units can hit submarines. In ww2v3, an owned destroyer must be present for air units to hit submarines.
10. In ww2v2, submarines may choose to submerge at the end of each round of combat. In ww2v3, they may choose to submerge before each round of combat (and consequently, you can’t kill them without a destroyer).
11. In ww2v2, submarines fire at the beginning of combat, and if there is no enemy destroyer then any casualties are removed immediately. In ww2v3, submarines get their surprise strike both on offense and defense, and both can be nullified by the presence of an enemy destroyer (so in ww2v3, if attacking an enemy sub, the attacker with a sub + destroyer, who’s sub hits, would immediately kill the defending sub with no chance for it to return fire).
So in v2 you could have planes hit subs. Looks like each version does a little bit of both of what you want to do but you can’t merge them.
Thanks Barney,
it seems that the old version is inspired by the Revised rule.
I was more about a way to integrate a transport with 1 hit value into the more recent (and better) rules.
One special thing which may rise an issue is this question that I somehow found in another forum and I made up a specific case to our Topic on Simplifying Transport unit:
@Baron:
What happens if we have a mutual elimination of all Combat units in a SZ with an amphibious assault going on, and Transports from both sides are still in the same SZ?
Attacker: 2 StBs, 2 TPs A0 D0, 1 hit value, but cannot attack
Defender: 1 DD, 3 TPs, A0 D1, 1 hit value eachFirst round: Attacker scores 1 hit and defender scores two hits.
Assuming that we still play TPs taken last or the defending player choose to keep the transport instead of the DD.Do the attacking transports live and can do the amphibious assault or must retreat instead?
I hope Der Kuenstler and Toblerone will tell me how they would treat such a naval situation, since both have played with a kind of Classic Transport within G40.2/1942.2 rules?
Would you still let the 2 Transports carry on the amphibious assault, since the 3 defending Transports could have been ignored if there was no combat unit with them?
In this case, the SZ would have 5 Transports in it, at the end of the attacking player turn.
Or do you see it as if the 3 Transports are acting like blockers and so can defend ( 3 Def @1) against the two incoming Transports?
You can create a new unit that has transport capabilities that defends on 1. IDK if you could force it to be taken last or not, I think maybe you can. You could always player enforce though.
IDK about the scenario. I guess I wouldn’t allow the trannys to block, but if you were playing with the hybrid rules I guess it would be a standoff ?
You can create a new unit that has transport capabilities that defends on 1. IDK if you could force it to be taken last or not, I think maybe you can. You could always player enforce though.
IDK about the scenario. I guess I wouldn’t allow the trannys to block, but if you were playing with the hybrid rules I guess it would be a standoff ?
Interesting…
As far as I understand, such TripleA will offer 1 transport at no combat value (as OOB) and 1 Transport with A0 D1, 1 hit acting like any other combat unit (such as Classic Transport), right?
This created transport won’t have the feature such as cannot block amphibious assault, and can be ignored by warships.
Am I right?
The usual solution, that I see is that the defending player will not choose to loose her Destroyer but would discard a Transport (acting like fodder unit, as in Classic time). And since a Destroyer is still present, then attacking transport have to retreat or be destroyed.
The case is over.
It is the obvious choice for the defending player, but I assumed he didn’t know his rolls when he put DD behind casualty line because he thinks his Transport are lucky and can survive.
But played as a Transport with D1 and 1 hit but with Taken Last rule and other feature of the non-combat unit (such as cannot block other enemy’s units), the case is fuzzy.
If the Destroyer wasn’t there, there will be no need to attack the 3 transports. And the amphibious assault would be performed.
But let’s suppose the attacker wants to kill these 3 transports anyway, while making an amphibious assault…
Maybe it is the way to see it.
As long as the invaders don’t face any warships or planes on defender side, the amphibious assault can still go on.
But all transport defending roll which hit must be allocated.
So, if both StBs were shoot down 1 in first and the other in the second round.
(Suppose they were unlucky, and get no hit.)
And on this last combat round, all three transports rolled “1”.
The 2 others hits, must still be allocated to attacking transports.
So, no more amphibious assault.
But, if at least 1 attacking transport would have survived at the end of the final combat round, then the amphibious assault can go forward.
Does it makes sense to you too?
However, it is different treatment if it was Submarines defending the SZ.
So, should we treat such Transport as the OOB rule on Sub?:
@Krieghund:
Romulus is correct. The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement. From the FAQ:
Q. Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships. If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A. No. Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them. When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it. However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.
In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them. Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge.
The wording of step 3 in the amphibious assault sequence implies that you can end the sea battle if only defending subs remain. This is of course incorrect, as subs can only be ignored during movement. There is a pending erratum to change this wording of to “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines, …”. I don’t yet know when this will be published.
I’d say yes to all
So here is the complete roster with the minimal changes to planes, Destroyers, Submarines and Transports:
Infantry A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery
Mechanized Infantry A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank
Artillery A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
Anti-Aircraft Artillery A0 D0 NCM1 Cost 5, 1 hit,
up to 3 @1 preemptive against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser
Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz or allow MechInf to blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 8
Surprise Strike (except when ASV is present),
Submerge (instead of rolling to hit a target),
No Hostile Sea Zone (except when ASV is present),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 8
Anti-Sub Vessel on 1 DD:1 Sub basis:
blocks Surprise Strike and No Hostile Sea Zone
but cannot cancel Sub Submerge (which will happen for defending Subs in regular combat phase after the attacker rolls, if a DD block the Sub’s Surprise strike).
Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.
Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 11
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 12
Shore bombardment @3
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 12
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 14, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)
G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)
Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 20, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4
Now, here is a more interesting alternate scale of cost for those which wanted more warships for their bucks, it keeps all the combat ratio between them very close to OOB :
Instead of having a bottom cost of 8 IPCs for Naval units, the base cost is put this time at 7 IPCs.
In addition, Destroyer operate slightly differently: 1 DD block all Surprise Strike, but 1 DD block 1 Sub’s Submerge and for the first round, 1 DD blocks 1 Sub’s Stealth Movement.
Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 7
Surprise Strike (except when at least 1 ASV is present),
Submerge (except when Subs is blocked 1:1 for the first combat round only) :
After the first defense roll @1, it can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round, happening in phase 2 Surprise Strike or Submerge.)
No Hostile Sea Zone (except when ASV is blocking each Submarine on a 1 Sub per 1 DD basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 7
Anti-Sub Vessel:
blocks all surprise strike, on all Submarines,
cancel on first round only Sub’s Submerge on a 1 DD:1 Sub basis (defense roll@1 in first round, can submerge in phase 2 of the second round),
block on a 1:1 basis Sub’s No Hostile SZ Movement.
Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty or can works as classics: casualty taken at the owner’s choice,
Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 9
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 10
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 10
OffShore bombardment @3
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 11
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.
1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 12, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)
G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 14, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)
Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 17, 2 hits
OffShore bombardment @4
I really think this scale can be funnier (letting people buying more impressive sculpts than just tiny ground units) while still requiring the same 8 IPCs for transports investment, this make them costlier than the basic fodder unit at 7 IPCs.
This can give choice about the “taken last rule” to let the player’s hands all the decision on casualty.
The combat values of each units will speak for itself to help the player minimize the effect of losses and maximize the potential combat values it can preserves.
The cost and combat values most of the time will be enough incentive, so the “unit general behaviour” (motives for buying it, offensive or defensive combat function, Non-Combat Move and usual casualties order) works in the way intended for this kind of unit.
@Baron:
Thanks Barney,
it seems that the old version is inspired by the Revised rule.
I was more about a way to integrate a transport with 1 hit value into the more recent (and better) rules.One special thing which may rise an issue is this question that I somehow found in another forum and I made up a specific case to our Topic on Simplifying Transport unit:
@Baron:What happens if we have a mutual elimination of all Combat units in a SZ with an amphibious assault going on, and Transports from both sides are still in the same SZ?
Attacker: 2 StBs, 2 TPs A0 D0, 1 hit value, but cannot attack
Defender: 1 DD, 3 TPs, A0 D1, 1 hit value eachFirst round: Attacker scores 1 hit and defender scores two hits.
Assuming that we still play TPs taken last or the defending player choose to keep the transport instead of the DD.Do the attacking transports live and can do the amphibious assault or must retreat instead?
I hope Der Kuenstler and Toblerone will tell me how they would treat such a naval situation, since both have played with a kind of Classic Transport within G40.2/1942.2 rules?
Would you still let the 2 Transports carry on the amphibious assault, since the 3 defending Transports could have been ignored if there was no combat unit with them?
In this case, the SZ would have 5 Transports in it, at the end of the attacking player turn.Or do you see it as if the 3 Transports are acting like blockers and so can defend ( 3 Def @1) against the two incoming Transports?
In games where we’ve played with “Classic” transports this battle probably wouldn’t have occurred. For the sake of argument we’ll say it did. The attacker’s transports would be forced to retreat because they cannot attack.
I say the battle wouldn’t happen because if we were playing a game with “classic” transports most players I’ve played with wouldn’t make that assault knowing the transports will have a defense in that instance.
In my FTF games where transports have a defense score HR, no one is buying AP’s for “blockers” and generally when AP’s are bought their almost always in combination with land units in the purchase phase.
As of right now I’m planning to use my 8-8-8 rule with 3-1-2-8 for subs formula that you have recently mentioned Baron.
My last game had one single HR which was just for ease of play because he was pretty much a newbie to anything later than the Hasbro CD rom. That HR was that “All subs are treated as regular naval units”. That was just to speed the game up and it wasn’t all that serious of a game.
Hope that helps.
@Baron:
Thanks Barney,
it seems that the old version is inspired by the Revised rule.
I was more about a way to integrate a transport with 1 hit value into the more recent (and better) rules.One special thing which may rise an issue is this question that I somehow found in another forum and I made up a specific case to our Topic on Simplifying Transport unit:
@Baron:What happens if we have a mutual elimination of all Combat units in a SZ with an amphibious assault going on, and Transports from both sides are still in the same SZ?
Attacker: 2 StBs, 2 TPs A0 D0, 1 hit value, but cannot attack
Defender: 1 DD, 3 TPs, A0 D1, 1 hit value eachFirst round: Attacker scores 1 hit and defender scores two hits.
Assuming that we still play TPs taken last or the defending player choose to keep the transport instead of the DD.Do the attacking transports live and can do the amphibious assault or must retreat instead?
I hope Der Kuenstler and Toblerone will tell me how they would treat such a naval situation, since both have played with a kind of Classic Transport within G40.2/1942.2 rules?
Would you still let the 2 Transports carry on the amphibious assault, since the 3 defending Transports could have been ignored if there was no combat unit with them?
In this case, the SZ would have 5 Transports in it, at the end of the attacking player turn.Or do you see it as if the 3 Transports are acting like blockers and so can defend ( 3 Def @1) against the two incoming Transports?
In games where we’ve played with “Classic” transports this battle probably wouldn’t have occurred. For the sake of argument we’ll say it did. The attacker’s transports would be forced to retreat because they cannot attack.
I say the battle wouldn’t happen because if we were playing a game with “classic” transports most players I’ve played with wouldn’t make that assault knowing the transports will have a defense in that instance.
In my FTF games where transports have a defense score HR, no one is buying AP’s for “blockers” and generally when AP’s are bought their almost always in combination with land units in the purchase phase.
As of right now I’m planning to use my 8-8-8 rule with 3-1-2-8 for subs formula that you have recently mentioned Baron. Hope you get a chance to play test it sooner than later. :-)
My last game had one single HR which was just for ease of play because he was pretty much a newbie to anything later than the Hasbro CD rom. That HR was that “All subs are treated as regular naval units”. That was just to speed the game up and it wasn’t all that serious of a game.
Hope that helps.
Do you play your HR Transport exactly as Classic TPs?
Are you sure that it is not an hybrid which apply the movement rule of OOB TPs, such as cannot block enemy movement ( the same way as it is for Sub)?
About the case scenario above, I believe that if there is some kind of mutual destruction and Transports are left on both sides, it should be played as it is with OOB Subs.
You decide to fight them, then you must sink them all to perform the amphibious assault,
OR
you decide to ignore them (as the rule allows it : you need to bring combat units with attacking TPs), so you conduct a direct amphibious assault.
Same treatment for TPs A0 D1 C8, 1 hit. In the above case, it means the 2 attacking TPs must retreat.
Does it seems right to you?
Now we get a simplification of rules on amphibious assault with such hybrid TPs (A0 D1, 1 hit): only 2 ways of playing it.
OOB has 3 ways of doing it :
1- vs Warships, must fight
2- vs Subs only, can fight or ignore them, but need to bring a combat unit (this last point was added in the 2nd edition OOB rules, I believe).
3- vs TPs only, can fight or ignore them, but no need to bring combat unit.
Another question about your 8-8-8 config.
Will you still use the “a sub cannot be hit by planes unless a DD is with them”?
Or do you agree with me that it is no more required with Sub A3 D1 C8?
Here is the basic grounds units cost.
Infantry Cost 3
Mechanized Infantry Cost 4,
Artillery Cost 4
Anti-Aircraft Artillery Cost 5,
Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6
Now there is 3 scales ( bottom 8+OOB / bottom 7+ near advanced shipyard / bottom 6 + 3/4 OOB cost) which can works between Naval units but their impact on the board (vs ground units and additional money) need to be tested:
Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 8
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 8
Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.
Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 11
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 12
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 12
1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 14
G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 16
Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 20
Proportionate to 7/8 of naval and planes OOB:
Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 7
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 7
Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.
Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 9
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 10
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 10
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 11
1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 12
G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 14
Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 17
Proportionate to 3/4 OOB, the lowest naval is at same cost as Tank:
Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 6
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 6
Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.
Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 9
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 9
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 11
G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 12
Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 15
I prefer the middle one. The cost are within tech margin and keep each unit on 1 IPCs incremented cost.
The others cost scale have even 3 units at the same cost!
Also 7 is a middle number between OOB cost of Sub at 6 and DD at 8 IPCs.
In addition, TP A0 D1 C8 start at higher level than usual fodder, which make it uninteresting fodder too.
On average you pay similar prices to get the cheaper units.
I play-tested the ideas below:
SUBMARINES A3 D1 M2 Cost 7
Surprise Strike, (blocked when at least 1 Destroyer or Anti-Sub Vessel is present),
Submerge, instead of rolling for a Surprise Strike attack (blocked by ASV on a 1:1 basis for the first combat round only),
Stealth Movement: No Hostile Sea-Zone (except ASV can block Submarine Stealth movement on 1:1 basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an Anti-Sub Vessel.
Re: Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1372793#msg1372793DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 7
Anti-Sub Vessel: each ASV blocks Surprise Strike capacity of all enemy’s Submarine units present.
Cancel Sub’s Submerge on 1 DD:1 Sub basis for the first combat round only
(When it occurs, defending Subs rolls a Defense @1 in the first round, and any surviving Subs can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round.)
Cancel Sub’s Stealth Movement on 1 DD: 1 Sub basis for Combat or Non Combat Move, all additional Sub units can perform a Stealth Movement as usual.TRANSPORT A0 1Def@1 Maximum per TPs group M2 Cost 8, 1 hit
A transports group get a single defense roll @1/round along with defending warships
(for this single defense roll, friendly transports are all considered being part of the same defending player’s group),
and each transport unit can be taken individually as casualty. As long as their is still 1 TP remaining, it can roll this single defense @1.
Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1373212#msg1373212
The Submarines in defensive combat situations always rise the question of taking them as casualties or not (since it has such a low defense @1 and unable to hit planes).
The option of submerging after first round (even when enemy’s Destroyers are present, as allowed according to the HR above, not OOB) is still a tough call.
It clearly leaves all tactical decisions to the player.
That is quite funnier than all Sub rules I tested before (and I tested numerous variations, believe me! :-D):
will you take the Sub unit as fodder or let your Destroyer taking the hit, which gives the opportunity to submerge and fight another day (on offense with a high @3)?
No complex rules with planes vs Subs either.
I can see it work, people. The Submarines is not always taken as fodder instead of a friendly destroyer, letting Destroyer be the main sea fodder. And the main reason is that you don’t want to loose you more offensive efficient Sub units in a desperate combat.
Sometimes, it is a tough call: giving an additionnal combat round to your Battleship, so you can have one last chance to make a hit @4, or simply submerging the Subs (sacrifying your BB) knowing that there is an enemy Battleship which will be without escorting DD and very vulnerable to First Strike Shots when your Subs will be on offensive.
The overall units interation is simpler while the Submarines have a much more offensive role, if you don’t use them as fodder (which are not cheaper than Destroyer, since they are at the same cost.)
You can easily play Defenseless TPs at 7 IPCs and both DDs and Subs at 8 IPCs, if you prefer.
You will still get the same simpler interactions between combat units (Subs, DDs, planes).
I forgot to mention that according to the HR above, owner choose the order of all casualties, including transports. So all the tactical choices are in his hands.
Thanks for the +1.
It is really appreciated.
I hope everyone have a chance to test it, the sub rule especially, in F2F game will give me a report.
Whether good or bad experience, please let me know.
Enjoy,
Baron
