In this case, what would be the optimal way to handle the anti air fire? Hits at a 1 against all attacking air? Or restricted to some set number, like up to 3 fighters (similar to regular aaaguns) or 3 fighters per set of cruiser/bb/cv? That might be too under powered to make a difference. Probably easier to just make it like factory anti air fire, against all air that come at you.
I’m inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones.
Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.
Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.
Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.
It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.
Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.
So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.
Thanks for the great ideas, this is what I will present to my group for our Jan 10th game…
Modified shore bombardment…
Modified combined arms…
@Young:
Thanks for the great ideas, this is what I will present to my group for our Jan 10th game…
Modified shore bombardment…
- Sea combat no longer cancels bombardment capabilities during an amphibious assault.
- Bombardment rolls repeat every combat round during an amphibious assault
Modified combined arms…
- Battleship + Aircraft Carrier + Cruiser = 3@1 against air units (in addition to regular attack and/or defense capabilities).
I like it.
If there is some resistance about blockers tactics and Naval Combat:
- Sea combat no longer cancels bombardment capabilities during an amphibious assault.
Maybe you can have a in-between:
- Bombardment rolls repeat every combat round during an amphibious assault unless there is a Naval Combat in the SZ.
If the case, then BBs and Cruisers get only 1 Coastal Bombardment (as was originally OOB Shore Bombardment)
That way, blocker tactic is not totally obsolete.
@Young:
Thanks for the great ideas, this is what I will present to my group for our Jan 10th game…
Modified shore bombardment…
- Sea combat no longer cancels bombardment capabilities during an amphibious assault.
This messes with the timeline of the game. How would battleships have time to both fight a sea battle AND bombard the shore?
@Young:
- Bombardment rolls repeat every combat round during an amphibious assault
Way overpowered, and unrealistic. Historically, bombardment did not kill that many men, due to their entrenchment. (Think about how many Japanese were still alive on Iwo Jima after the huge bombardment, the largest in history at that time.) Also, how can the BBs possibly keep bombarding every round, after friendly soldiers have landed and are engaging the enemy at close quarters? Â
@Young:
Modified combined arms…
- Battleship + Aircraft Carrier + Cruiser = 3@1 against air units (in addition to regular attack and/or defense capabilities).
If you give a cruiser AA ability, ANY ship it pairs with will then get AA protection. Roll 1 die for each attacking plane, just like a classic land AA gun. That makes a cruiser worth having along with any sized navy. Â
I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.
Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.
Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.
It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.
Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.
So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.
@Der:
This messes with the timeline of the game. How would battleships have time to both fight a sea battle AND bombard the shore?
It is always mandatory to win the SZ battle before landing troops.
The timeline is stretched within a few months period.
The transports unload under somekind of cover by the big guns sisters.
They are never left alone.
1 or 2 months to clear the SZ.
1 or 2 months to make debarkment and the bombardment.
1 or 2 months to positioned the winners troops and occupied the land.
Big guns can acts as Artillery coming from the sea. On islands this was possible.
In a certain kind of view, each unloaded unit can be linked to a given BB or CA : they can shot into land as long as their corresponding land unit is alive.
The limiting rule on the number of ShBmb still applied: never more than the number of unload units.
On this last point, I think the attitude comes from a sense the the names of these pieces are sometimes arbitrary.
In a sense, yes, though my guess is that Larry’s unit development process works in the opposite direction. I imagine that his starting point is the observation (for example) that in WWII battleships were an important type of military unit, and that his next step is to figure out how the real-world abilities of battleships can be translated into unit values that fit his game system. With later games, in which new unit types are being fitted amongst pieces that are already establised, Larry also needs to consider where the new unit’s abilities ought to fit relative to the existing units. He needs to ask himself, for example, whether a cruiser is intermediate in combat values between a battleship and a destroyer, and whether it should have special abilities that distinguish it from one or both existing types. Ditto for tac bombers relative to strategic bombers and fighters. Ditto for mech infantry relative to regular infantry and tanks. As part of this process, he may realize that he needs to tweak existing units; I suspect that’s why the carrier was given a 2-hit capacity in Global, for example. So in this sense, it’s not a case of Larry coming up with a unit having certain combat values and then giving it an arbitrary name, it’s a case of him picking an existing unit type first and then giving it (arguably arbitrary) combat values, in view of he fact that any particular WWII unit type (like “battleship”) actually represented in the real world a broad range of models and classes with sometimes drastically different capabilities.
I could also imagine that say, we need yet another intermediate ship in A&A. And then people just adding in a new unit like “frigate”, or “light” or “heavy” or “battle” cruiser some random name, just because it’s needed to fit the desired unit abilities. Some intermediate unit at the Attack/Def values, with a reasonable name to fit, since that’s basically what happened when cruisers and destroyers were introduced.
As a piece junkie, I love new unit types. The above comment is interesting in the context of the present cruiser discussion, however, because in one sense it runs counter to the basic premise of this thread: that the cruiser is an intermediate unit category which doesn’t have much going for it under the OOB rules and which needs some kind of boost to make it worthwhile as a purchase. I recall that some other units have sometimes been called “niche purchases”, which I guess has two possible meanings: a) the unit is highly suited to specialized purposes, but not useful in other cases; or b) the unit is an unhappy compromise between established types that doesn’t have any particular distinguishing features that make it worth buying. So it’s possible that even finer gradations of units, as fun as they might be, would run into the same criticism.
Another question this raises (and I don’t have an answer to it) is the following one: do all units necessarily have to be equally attractive as purchases? The fact is that some WWII military unit types genuinely were less useful than others (depending on the context, of course, and varying from nation to nation). To some extent the OOB rules reflect this fact because not all game units are equally useful, or at least not equally useful to all players. The reaction to this state of affairs tends to be: “This unit isn’t getting purchased enough, so let’s change x or y or z to make it more attractive to buy.” This motivation is understandable in one sense, because it seems a shame to let some of these cool sculpts remain unused in their boxes, but isn’t there a danger that unit values will get distorted simply for the purpose of getting them on the board and making sure that each unit type is roughly as attractive as every other unit type? It’s just something I’m wondering about.
My opinion on bombardments is this…
1. Sea combat is always resolved before troops are able to storm the shores… So any surviving cruisers and/or battleships should be able to switch their roles. A presedent would be the way Strategic bombers can engage in air combat with interceptors, and then immediately switch to their SBR roles.
2. The problems our group is having are not related to strategic sea zone blocking of bombardments, it’s more about stray empty transports creating sea combat, or scrambling a single fighter in a battle that can only be described as suicide just to negate the many bombardments available. With the latter, wouldn’t battleships be able to engage air units with AAA fire while still preparing their guns for bombardment?
3. I agree now with DK’s argument that bombardments every combat round is unrealistic, as per my reasoning above when talking about bombardments after sea combat and during landing; I would think that the bombardments can hit enemy placements while landed units are still on the beach. Therefore, a first round bombardment only… is sufficient if the casualty from such a bombardment hit is immediately removed from the board.
On the topic of Cruiser + Carrier + Battleship = 3@1 Anti Aircraft Fire… is this 1st combat round only, or every combat round that the combination is in place?
I never think about something else than the usual first round single preemptive roll.
Exactly as AAA is working OOB.
Did you want something more powerful?
About #2.
It seems a gamey tactics.
When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
Never been a problem.
Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.
@Baron:
About #2.
It seems a gamey tactics.
When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
Never been a problem.
Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.
Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.
Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.
Have you considered, that improved shore bombardment helps the allies a lot more than the axis?
I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.
@Young:
I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.
I absolutely agree - cruisers need to be better - just throwing up a gauntlet so only your best ideas will get through. No harm meant to any.
@Der:
@Young:
I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.
I absolutely agree - cruisers need to be better - just throwing up a gauntlet so only your best ideas will get through. No harm meant to any.
No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.
@Der:
Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.
Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.
I agree with you on that point:
and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea.
I don’t think YG was implementing this particular point.
Shore bombardment cannot be a preemptive strike, unless you have some way to do the same with reasonable occasions in the game against amphibious invaders.
Toblerone77 suggested that Shorebombard is play OOB (cannot do it if Sea Combat happen) but
Cruiser also gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
Battleship also gives a +1A (as improved Artillery) to 2 Inf/MechInf.
For the duration of the land combat.
I believe this can work, since there is no additional hits outside the attacking ground units.
So imagine 1 Cruiser with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 12+7+6= 25 IPCs
Shorebombard @3, once
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Inf A1
1 Battleship with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 20+7+6= 33 IPCs
Shorebombard @4, once
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Inf A1+1=2
So, making an Amphibious assault with a Battleship is like having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs):
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Art A2
So, for every transport with a BB, you get a small reduction of 1 IPC for the same attack value.
With Cruiser, it is not exactly as having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs) because there is only one Infantry which get the Attack @2.
@toblerone77:
I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of
Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults.
1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.
Or
Cruiser and Battleship gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
And
Battleship is also able to move 1 Marines-Infantry unit on board.
1 Battleship with 1 Infantry on it. Cost 20+3= 23 IPCs
Shorebombard @4, once
1 Inf A1+1=2
And it solves the Marines unit at 3 IPCs case because it can Attack 2 Defend 2 in any Amphibious Assault supported by Battleship unit.
It fits the description of Marines, since they need less equipment, have smaller divisions and can be deployed in a short notice.
Hence, no need of Transport, just the Battleship unit (with a few support ships, as it is always the case, not represented but easily imagined.)
@Young:
No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.
Well erm, the costs of specific units changed like about 10 times in the past editions. Therefore I can’t see a problem with changing some of them once more.
Changing the gameplay rules of units is more of a problem, as it changes the setup. You get completely new possibilities to open the game (however, even if it sounds interesting, the more conservative players would never accept it). If you change for example the battleship rules from for “bad” to “good”, those battleships will totally turn around the first turns of the game. Maybe you will even change the overall balance of the game.
The charming thing with only changing unit’s costs, is that it will in no way ever change anything with the starting setup of the game.
Well, I’m not totally against changing the rules, but i like it as simple as possible, and I simply can’t understand your opinion on changing costs. Imho costs is the first thing one should consider to change, and only if this can’t give the specific unit its own niche, one should consider changing the rules.
As far as I understand the defender of a firm “12 IPCs”, is also about first round set-up and placements at the end of the opening turn.
Some Powers will be able to put a 10 IPCs Cruiser in the water instead of a Destroyer and this can change some forthcoming battle in the next turn.
Just an example.
Just real quick, to CWO’s question about whether every unit necessarily needs to be a good or desireable purchase? I don’t think so. As long as there are at least some specialized cases where players have a reason to buy it. Having somekind of unique special ability would be helpful. I guess you could make the case that it’s bombardment is special, but in my experience this hasn’t been enough to get them on the board. That’s why the triple combo Anti Air idea seems like it might work, in conjunction with a carrier and battleship. I could see the anti air umbrella as a dedecent incentive. Right now though their cost at 12 seems prohibitive compared with 2 subs on attack or 1.5 destroyers on defense for the pips.
I don’t have a problem with lowering the cost, since unit costs have changed pretty frequently over the past few boards. Still I think a unique ability would be more fun for the gameplay, to cement it in the roster as something other than a nerfed Revised Destroyer with no ASW
:-D
I’ve been playing global 1940 exclusively with the same 5 people for the last 5 years, and the cost of units have never changed even throughout the Alpha play tests. So for me, it would be difficult changing something so habitual, that… and it’s printed right on the map that cruisers are 12 IPCs are my humble reasons for not wanting to lower it. Anyway, to tell you the truth, the fact that no one is buying cruisers is not that big of a problem in our games, there are plenty in the setup, and more pressing issues to solve.
