@Baron:
From what you learned, I understand that any directed hit priority from Fighter toward other planes (hit air first) would be a huge task, true?
It would be easier to give AA fire to Fighter and allow a special phase of AAA in a Naval Combat, right?
Well you can already have air to air battle before regular combat, so might be able to do something there. You can also give other ships anti-sub ability so a plane could hit a sub with ships other than DDs.
@Baron:
From what you learned, I understand that any directed hit priority from Fighter toward other planes (hit air first) would be a huge task, true?
It would be easier to give AA fire to Fighter and allow a special phase of AAA in a Naval Combat, right?Well you can already have air to air battle before regular combat, so might be able to do something there.
You can also give other ships anti-sub ability so a plane could hit a sub with ships other than DDs.
Does it imply that such other ship than Destroyer also receive a blocking ability, or this two separate lines of code?
Because, it is needed to let Sub submerge against Cruiser, CVs, Subs, BBs, TPs but still being hit by any of them, if player choose not to submerge?
So, it allows aircrafts to hit subs in combat but able to submerge.
so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.
Here’s a quote from Veqryn on air battles:
here is how it works
you can now have air battles before normal battles
strat bombing air battles the defender gets asked if you want to commit and how many air to commit
normal battle air battles the defender can commit any air units in the territory that are not already committed to the strat bombing air battle. any air units not committed to the normal battle, will die if the territory is conquered.
you can now scramble to any potential air battle, including scrambling to defend against strat bombing or a normal attack
you can now specify number of rounds that an air battle will last (default = 1)
you can now specify number of rounds that a normal battle will last (default = -1 = infinity)
allowed both attacker and defender to withdraw from an air battle. it will completely remove them from combat and also remove them from any subsequent combats in the territory. if the defender loses the territory, the withdrawn air will die.
after the air battle is over, any surviving air will participate in the normal battle that follows
so with this you could have a 1 round of air combat before each battle, thereby giving the side with air superiority a chance to inflict some damage before the main battle starts.
so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.
Actually it turns out you can have planes hit subs in v3. Air Attack Sub Restricted needs to be turned off. A plane will behave the same way as a crusier or w/e towards a sub. Sub still can’t hit plane, unless you gave it an AA capability.
so basically have a plane act like non DDs do right now ? Sub submerges no go, stays and fights and the plane gets a crack at it ? Not sure about that. My guess is you can’t.
Actually it turns out you can have planes hit subs in v3. Air Attack Sub Restricted needs to be turned off. A plane will behave the same way as a cruiser or w/e towards a sub. Sub still can’t hit plane, unless you gave it an AA capability.
So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?
P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battle
Interestingly many cruisers are already nicely paired up with transports in the set up cards for these games.
:-DOK so still a 2-3 line revision.
1. M3 transports and cruisers
2. Defenseless bomber
3. AB +2Let’s run down the list…
Defenseless transports now suck less for the cost. Cruisers suddenly become interesting at 12 ipcs. Bombers bomb like they’re meant to, and the air vs naval game is brought more into line as a result. We get a 5 ipc sweet spot unit again. Fighters can run escort/intercept more effectively. Islands with airbases or naval bases are much improved. There’s a chance that more VCs are up for contention, with less emphasis on the center crush for a change. America can get into the fight a bit faster.Seems pretty solid for not really having to do a whole lot rules-wise.
One thing that’s kind of cool about the AB+2, is that it means that Japan can use Hawaii as a strategic bombing base vs SF. Or the Truk AB at Carolines to run raids vs Australia. The Americans could use Marianas as a strategic bombing base vs Tokyo if they bought an AB there, and Guam already has one if its recovered. Both Iwo and Okinawa can serve as bases for US escorts in raids vs Tokyo with a purchased AB. So all these islands have much more significance to the gameplay as potential base locations (in a way that fits with the history.) Similarly these rules activate sz 8 around the Aleutians, and make Midway more interesting at the same time, because these too can serve as a potential raiding bases. The Japanese would have a real incentive to contest their control.
For a rationale specifically concerning the cruiser, I imagine all these units as occupying a niche role for the gameplay. The sculpts themselves represent collective forces, so a cruiser needn’t be just a cruiser, but represents a battle group at a certain scale… in this case a more agile fast moving unit, meant to serve as escorts for the troops. The plan is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, and only engage when absolutely necessary (they want to deliver that precious cargo where it’s supposed to go, with as few frills as possible.) Contrast these with the main battlegroups, the larger surface fleets composed of Carriers and Battleships and Destroyers at M2, who move with a somewhat different purpose. Their main job is to clear the sea lanes and engage the enemy directly, or secure a zone for defense. Again I’m talking more in gameplay terms, how these units are actually used (less concerned with the historical analogs of a given sculpt, since you can imagine fleet composition to scale however you like.) In this scheme subs are somewhere in the middle. It actually works quite well, because subs can pair off against the faster moving transports and cruisers when they try to break away from destroyer cover at m3, giving subs a chance to attack before the destroyers arrive (against ships that are more vulnerable to their surprise strike). So there is a bit of a trade off, the movement bonus leaves such Cruiser+transport groups more exposed to sub warfare, which gives the opponent more of a reason to screen with subs.
Curiously, I think this HR might produce a naval situation in both the Atlantic and Pacific that looks more like the actual war. More cruisers subs and destroyers in the Atlantic. More bases and carriers in the Pacific. I also like what it does for 1942.2 too, because transports and cruisers at M3 would be pretty exciting there, even without the bases of G40. (It provides a desired movement potential for the ruleset over OOB, to compensate for the defenseless bomber getting removed from a combat role). On that smaller scale map, this M3 version with Cruisers/Transports, works better for the balance around sz 53. A pearl attack on J1 is way less attractive without the bomber, and UK actually has a chance to disrupt this even further with their India/Aussie cruisers. A much better balance by sides in the Pacific for 1942.2.
I recognize that naval escorts moving faster than larger forward warships is a bit of an inversion, but I think it works much better for the gameplay, and can be explained away with that idea of a ‘range’ of operations. Here the transport/cruiser doesn’t reflect faster individual ships, but rather a bunch of slower ships that are operating across a longer distance with more regularity over a given period. The unit might be “fast” in gameplay terms, but it actually represents more missions by many slower ships, all doing the same sorts of things, over an extended period of time. The cruiser/transport sculpts could stand in for hundreds of individual vessels all on a similar type of mission across the broader region, just abstracted into a couple game pieces for gameplay convenience. The sculpts give a nod to the historical type, but this should not be a straight jacket in my view. What’s more significant is how these units combine to create the broader play pattern, which is hopefully more entertaining and ends up looking a bit more like the historical conflict in WW2.
I think it would be nice to have two gamefiles for basic testing with the following changes…
1942 sec ed v5 San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
Global 1940 sec ed San Francisco Rules:
- M3 Cruisers/Transports
- Defenseless Bomber
- AB+2
The rationalization for all units seems appropriate and gives something to explained why things work that way.
I pretty like Japan and USA fighting over some Islands and TTys within range for M6+2 StBombers with AB, G40 or StB M6 1942.2 without AB.
Maybe, if more range are needed for escorting Fighters in 1942.2, VC can works as AB+2M, only for SBR mission.
That way, Fighter will not make 1 shot abusive move from UK to Russia/Caucasus or Persia.
Hi taamvan! Great post
:-D
I think there are two key issues with G40’s developmemt that make it particularly difficult. The first is that it was designed as two stand alone games, put together. Many of the things that strike me as somewhat sloppy about G40 can probably be attributed to that approach. The separate theater games (though not without their own internal issues) seem to scale somewhat better, in terms of rules overhead and play pace, than the larger combined monster.
The second issue is that the initial playtesting for this thing was totally reliant on FtF anecdotal feedback, which is just always slower and less comprehensive. It’s hard to know what info in the various alpha phases, came from actual games played, or just from solitaires, or simply imagining what might happen. I know it wasn’t tested using tripleA, because we hadn’t built G40 into it yet haha. My guess is that part of the appeal you find in the balance of the balanced mod, is that it was first hacked into tripleA, and then underwent a serious testing period, with several changes made based on feedback and analysis of game saves. I think this is really the only viable way to go, with a digital alpha. Otherwise it just takes too long to gather gameplay evidence.
In the pages of this thread, and elsewhere on these HR forums, I’ve often been torn between a practical desire to fix the existing games to my satisfaction, and a less practical desire to influence the development of a new type of A&A gameplay, or at least muse on general ideas that make a cleaner break with boxed game. I think the reason CWO suggested that I start this thread, was to really put the focus on the later, but I am continually pulled back to adjustments for the boxed game, since it’s more expediant and we all own it.
For a long time, and still really, my main interest was in basic map design and the production spread. I think there are so many underlying issues that could be easily addressed by a different approach there. I kind of ‘went off’ at one point, probably a bit too harsh, trying to make the case against zero ipc territories…
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=18480
I still totally stand behind all the points I tried to make in that conversation. But at a certain point, it’s like OK there doesn’t seem to be a 3rd edition anywhere on the horizon. So outside of tripleA mods, or printing custom map materials like at HBG, we’re kind of stuck with the boxed map.
I think the core ruleset is somewhat easier to change. The ideas proposed recently are pretty different than anything I’ve seen proposed for the official products before, but still usable with the boxed materials, which is why I think it has promise.
I’ve always felt that National Objectives were unnecessarily complex, ever since they were introduced in AA50. I use them like everyone else, and have participated in the discussions about new NOs that might represent an improvement. But to me they have always seemed like afterthoughts. The sort of thing that might have been used post testing to create the desired play balance, but which involve so much overhead and tracking, that I’ve always found them full of headaches as a starting point. Maybe it’s just the Classic player in me, that still prefers a more simplistic or streamlined approach to the design whenever possible. I’m not opposed to new NOs, but I would like them to follow the desired balance and play patterns. For example, when determining what the exact bonus value needs to be for a given objective, so that it actually serves to drive the gameplay, rather than being ignored as “not enough cash at stake” to make such and such worth doing. If we add NOs or change existing NOs, to me it makes sense to do that once we know what is actually needed, for example to make worthless islands interesting, or to pull players off the center crush, or make a given powers economy sustainable etc. My first step in terms of balance adjustments, would be to raise the value of existing NOs, if the OOB ones aren’t adding enough to the gameplay. Then consider adding others, if they’re needed for the proper give and take.
For a full set up change, I have next to zero confidence that anything I might propose would be broadly acceptable. It’s frankly hard for me to see which criteria were used to map out the distribution of forces for the boxed set up in the first place. You can imagine that it was all very scientific and systematic, using Larry’s DaVinci code to determine which territory or sz would get such and such units. But something tells me that’s not how it went down in reality. Instead I think some arbitrary choices were probably made in the first draft, and then become fixed, as it moved through successive iterations. Like alright so we have Egypt with such and such, now how many Germans do we need in North Africa? Or we have such and such in Japan, now what do we add to the Philippines for that to make sense? I think probably the same occurred with the production spread. Building off arbitrary choices initially, but which are then fixed to try and create an opener that “feels” right. I don’t know if I have the energy to go through a process like that, or that it’s even necessary. When it’s still possible to just use what we’re given as a point of departure, change some rules, and still perhaps arrive at the kind of gameplay we want.
Well anyway, one can hope. I’ll keep my rabbit’s foot at the ready lol
:-D
To the specific San Francisco HR discussion… Ok if submarines not hitting submarines is off the table in tripleA, then we need to go another route. I think the 1:1 for dd/ss is still a contender in that case. It doesn’t alter the complex interactions that players have already memorized, just scales them in a way makes subs more attractive. I’m not sure it goes far enough to make subs truly independent of surface fleets, but at least it makes them harder to blast out of the water with a single dd and a gang of aircraft. I’m still all ears, if we can think of a better rule for subs, that still follows the kiss formula.
The replies from CWO and L.Hoffman have me feeling pretty comfortable about the defensless bomber, the AB+2 and the M3 cruiser. The M3 transport requires a bit of imagination to justify, but it’s effects on the gameplay are interesting enough that I would be willing to propose whatever abstractions and contortions might be required to defend the idea. If it’s poison gas, at least it’s got the charm of Nitrous Oxide, and Japan and America can both laugh their way into a Pacific naval meltdown hehe.
No A&A HR I’m aware of has ever attempted to introduce a separate rate of movement for transports on the water. Since Classic it’s always been M2 for everything. Even the NB+1 introduced in 1940, still treated all ships the same way for the bonus. Here you have something rather different. I think it has the potential to be at least as significant as the tank blitz on land, something that will drive the play patterns on the water, in directions we haven’t quite seen before.
Ps. I like that last suggestion Baron about the VC escort too. We’ll keep it in the back pocket. I can also imagine other possible ideas for a simple aircraft movement bonus in 42.2, like having the movement from an island into a sz not count towards the total (something we once discussed for zero ipc Pacific Islands) but perhaps only if the plane is conducting SBR or flying escort? Something like that might work if it’s needed.
@Baron:
So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?
P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battle
Yea should work on 42.2. I’ll add it in if you want. It can be turned on/off in map options.
I didn’t realize the air battles could be that extensive. Let me know if you come up with an idea for it and I’ll test it on the mod I’m workin on. : )
@Black Elk
yea unless I misunderstood ya we can’t do the 1DD can only block 1 sub thing. Anyway got all the other stuff ready to go.
I recommend a G40.2 focus on 1) new, revised start 2) same unit rules and turn order 3) NOs and island money that make you chase the money� island hop or put your income at risk to make money taking more dynamic 4) addressing SB’s power with better AAA, better interception, or something jesus its broken
Very insightful post Taamvan. Thanks.
Couple questions:
NO and Island money: I assume this is directed at the Pacific. Do you have any specific suggestions? I don’t always understand why certain territories have a given $ value, but some of it has to deal with the supposed abundance of war resources there. Most of the small Pacific islands have little-to-no resource related value, so I don’t see how you could arbitrarily make them worth more $ (EDIT: more than $1). The other option would be more NOs to accomplish this. But as you said they are artificial and you would rather see the strategic motivation for taking territories constructed within the game itself. More NOs sounds like more “pyrrhic trap(s)…”.
What did the Balance Mod do for the StratB to lessen its power? Leaving the StratB at OOB A4 D1 M6 C12 and trying to curtail its power with other units and mechanisms (AA, interception, etc…) seems like a much more intensive and complicated effort than simply changing the StratB attributes.
To the specific San Francisco HR discussion… Ok if submarines not hitting submarines is off the table in tripleA, then we need to go another route. I think the 1:1 for dd/ss is still a contender in that case. It doesn’t alter the complex interactions that players have already memorized, just scales them in a way makes subs more attractive. I’m not sure it goes far enough to make subs truly independent of surface fleets, but at least it makes them harder to blast out of the water with a single dd and a gang of aircraft. I’m still all ears, if we can think of a better rule for subs, that still follows the kiss formula.
The replies from CWO and L.Hoffman have me feeling pretty comfortable about the defensless bomber, the AB+2 and the M3 cruiser. The M3 transport requires a bit of imagination to justify, but it’s effects on the gameplay are interesting enough that I would be willing to propose whatever abstractions and contortions might be required to defend the idea. If it’s poison gas, at least it’s got the charm of Nitrous Oxide, and Japan and America can both laugh their way into a Pacific naval meltdown hehe.
No A&A HR I’m aware has ever attempted to introduce a separate rate
of movement for transports on the water. Since Classic it’s always been M2 for everything. Even the NB+1 introduced in 1940, still treated all ships the same way for the bonus. Here you have something rather different. I think it has the potential to be at least as significant as the tank blitz on land, something that will drive the play patterns on the water, in directions we haven’t quite seen before.Ps. I like that last suggestion Baron about the VC escort too. We’ll keep it in the back pocket. I can also imagine other possible ideas for a simple aircraft movement in 42.2, like habing the movement from an island into a sz not count (something we once discussed for zero ipc Pacific Islands) but perhaps only if the plane is conducting SBR or flying escort? Something like that might work if it’s needed.
Fine for back pocket Movement bonus for 1942.2
On helping Submarine survivability, there is three things which can provides more odds of survival in case of massive air and single DD attack:
a) 1 single round of blocking submerge capacity, so second round all surviving subs can escape in same SZ, DD presence is no more relevant on second round.
Triple A should allow all Subs an option to submerge on second combat round.
Specific window would open to offer sub commander this option, same way it happens when there is no DD on the opposite side.
b) Limiting the number of submarines blocked, with an appropriate ratio (1:1, or 1:2),
c) Applying both rules a and b.
I play-tested only C, combining both a and b.
IDK if both are possible in Triple A.
About a) the one time opportunity feel pretty like in Classic time when planes got a single shot before Sub submerge.
I prefer this because being trapped round after round until killed is mostly like auto-destroy with a meager defense @1 for Sub.
It brings no satisfaction, only survival to fight another day is the key. Giving attacking opponent a single shot is enough.
If I have to chose, a) is better than b IMO.
It is consistent with Destroyer blocking all Sub’s Submerge, Stealth Move and Surprise Strike.
It only specify that blocking Submerge is for the first combat round only.
Not so different than OOB, but gives hope from defending Subs POV.
b) Blocking a specific number of Subs (1:1 / 1:2) needs to be referred to same ratio for Stealth Move and Surprise Strike and Submerge.
First, I would not rise to 1:3, rather keep OOB, this is not far that much when 2 DDs can block 6 Subs. It is a lot of unit in a single SZ.
1:1 and 1:2 can brings more Submarines passing trough DD blockers. This reach the goal of spreading naval unit.
On Stealth Move, 1:2 seems more reasonable for DD C8 vs Sub C6 (all depends on which units is cheaper, if DD is cheaper then 1:1).
Suppose 6 Subs are in Baltic Sea and 1 UK DD is North Sea SZ112 and another DD in SZ111 and you want to reach empty UK’s Convoy SZ119.
You may launch 2 Subs against SZ112 in CM, if cleared in NCM you launch all 4 Subs, and 2 remains SZ111 and 2 Subs reach SZ119.
Or launch 2 Subs against SZ112 in CM, 2 Subs against SZ111, and if all SZ cleared last 2 reach SZ119. Otherwise, both Subs would be blocked along the path.
But, for Triple A play test, I probably prefer 1:1, so it can be more easily players enforced for the second subs.
Seems also more interesting to have Subs able to pass trough DD net.
A different issue coming from blocking 1:1 Surprise strike, add a lot of complexity is that differential between Sub and DDs whether positive or negative on each combat round makes for some Subs getting Surprise strike and other round none.
After 1 game, I returned to 1 DD is full blocking Surprise Strike, easier to manage.
Going that way, DD and Sub should be same cost or DD cheaper.
Option A sounds pretty good to me. I like that it harkens back to Classic in a way.
Giving subs the option to dive in the second round of combat seems pretty reasonable, and not overly burdensome on the gameplay. Doesn’t involve too much rules overhead, and provides the desired result where subs are not so easy to trap and destroy, and thus have a better chance of independent opperations.
Can it be achieved in tripleA?
@Baron:
On helping Submarine survivability, there is three things which can provides more odds of survival in case of massive air and single DD attack:
a) 1 single round of blocking submerge capacity, so second round all surviving subs can escape in same SZ, DD presence is no more relevant on second round.
Triple A should allow all Subs an option to submerge on second combat round.
Specific window would open to offer sub commander this option, same way it happens when there is no DD on the opposite side.
b) Limiting the number of submarines blocked, with an appropriate ratio (1:1, or 1:2),
c) Applying both rules a and b.I play-tested only C, combining both a and b.
IDK if both are possible in Triple A.
About a) the one time opportunity feel pretty like in Classic time when planes got a single shot before Sub submerge.
I prefer this because being trapped round after round until killed is mostly like auto-destroy with a meager defense @1 for Sub.
It brings no satisfaction, only survival to fight another day is the key. Giving attacking opponent a single shot is enough.If I have to chose, a) is better than b IMO.
It is consistent with Destroyer blocking all Sub’s Submerge, Stealth Move and Surprise Strike.
It only specify that blocking Submerge is for the first combat round only.
Not so different than OOB, but gives hope from defending Subs POV.
@Baron:
So, is it possible to copy, paste a line of code from V3 into V5, so Subs still get there Submerge phase before lonely planes try to hit them?
And still, in massive naval combat, planes’ hits can be allocated to Subs, as it was a Cruiser successful roll to hit?
P.S Thanks for infos on Triple A Air battleYea should work on 42.2. I’ll add it in if you want. It can be turned on/off in map options.
I didn’t realize the air battles could be that extensive. Let me know if you come up with an idea for it and I’ll test it on the mod I’m workin on. : )@Black Elk
yea unless I misunderstood ya we can’t do the 1DD can only block 1 sub thing. Anyway got all the other stuff ready to go.
To let planes attack directly Submarines (like Cruiser) clearly open new options to simplify interactions, if you can do it.
Turn on/off is a massive feature from my POV. :-o :-o :-o
It would allow people to test both features: OOB complex and much simpler Fg vs Sub.
On Air battle, do you mean that it is not restricted to SBR?
You can introduce it over regular TTY with no IC on it? Really?!?
It would open kind of 1914 air combat option if the case…
Still, since it is an optional
I just got this idea to change Sub fodder dynamic to DDs padding:
Just increasing the DD to make it a better defense unit than offense.
While Submarines remains the best offensive.
However, both oppose similar combat values: A2fs vs D2 and A1 vs D1fs.
That way, it allows to keeps subs at low 6 IPCs.
And if Subs can submerge after first round, it will be better to save it for later.
Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D2 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.
Cost 6
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C6 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.
Even more it still might work with Sub at 5 IPCs (to get another unit to this sweet spot).
The Sub success ratio is weaker than OOB. However, on defense it is stronger than OOB.
So, in that case, it gives more room for Sub survival. And it is not considering the increase number of DD available due to reduced cost to 6 IPCs.
6 Subs A2 C5 vs 5 DDs D2 C6:
Overall %: A. survives: 73.8% D. survives: 24.3% No one survives: 1.9%
OOB: 8 Subs A2 C6 vs 6 DDs D2 C8:
Overall %: A. survives: 88% D. survives: 11.1% No one survives: 0.9%
5 DDs A1 C6 vs 6 Subs D1 C5
Overall %: A. survives: 27.6% D. survives: 72.2% No one survives: 0.6%
OOB:6 DDs A2 C6 vs 8 Subs D1 C5
Overall %: A. survives: 59.3% D. survives: 39.7% No one survives: 1%
Yea unfortunately triplea can’t do a, b or c. I think It’ll have to be approached along the lines of Baron’s latest idea.
Yes to both of these Baron. @Baron:
To let planes attack directly Submarines (like Cruiser) clearly open new options to simplify interactions, if you can do it.
Turn on/off is a massive feature from my POV. :-o :-o :-o
It would allow people to test both features: OOB complex and much simpler Fg vs Sub.On Air battle, do you mean that it is not restricted to SBR?
You can introduce it over regular TTY with no IC on it? Really?!?
It would open kind of 1914 air combat option if the case…
Still, since it is an optional
They might just need a higher defense to keep 1 DD from pinning them. Let the planes take a wack at’em if they don’t submerge and it should help in big battles. Idk
Damn, pesky subs stalling us up :-D
Alright, but can we spell it out a bit more, to tease out the implications?
I do see the merits of the proposal he just made for a C6 destroyer, but one thing I like about preserving the OOB cost structure for ships, is that it allows for a simple implementation of the shipyards tech if players want cheaper naval units across the board. Introducing a new cost for dds, would require a new wording for that tech option, and could also open issues with naval parity for all the other units relative to the DD, and end up a Pandora’s box.
I want to be deliberate here. Let’s try to fix the sub once and for all, like I’m hoping we just did for the strategic bomber.
:-D
Yea unfortunately triplea can’t do a, b or c. I think It’ll have to be approached along the lines of Baron’s latest idea.
Yes to both of these Baron. @Baron:
To let planes attack directly Submarines (like Cruiser) clearly open new options to simplify interactions, if you can do it.
Turn on/off is a massive feature from my POV. �:-o :-o :-o
It would allow people to test both features: OOB complex and much simpler Fg vs Sub.On Air battle, do you mean that it is not restricted to SBR?
You can introduce it over regular TTY with no IC on it? Really?!?
It would open kind of 1914 air combat option if the case…
Still, since it is an optional �They might just need a higher defense to keep 1 DD from pinning them. Let the planes take a wack at’em if they don’t submerge and it should help in big battles. Idk
At least, option a) can still be tested when Subs are the only target in a given SZ.
It can be players enforced. At least in a F-2-F. Computer will not stop after first round for sure… Still possible to edit after combat solved.
From the author:
@knp7765:
A couple of house rules that my group uses:
1 - Defending Subs are allowed to submerge after first round of combat even with enemy destroyer(s) present. Basically, the attacker gets to roll with whatever he/she is attacking with, including aircraft of course. If they score hits on the subs, then tough luck. If they miss some/all of the subs, then the subs can submerge and escape the battle. I get the idea of destroyers cancelling the first strike capabilities of subs and spotting them for aircraft attack, but I have never liked the idea that a sub is “trapped” and can’t submerge just because an enemy destroyer is present. In reality, subs COULD still evade destroyers, it was just a little harder. Plus, I don’t like the idea of a single destroyer showing up with 10 fighters to wipe out a stack of subs.
well…it’s probably beyond my capabilities but you might be able to have a trigger where after 1 rd of combat the dd would turn into a non dd 2-2 unit. After combat another trigger would change it back.
Idk if it would let the new unit join the fight or not. Probably crash it. I guess I could give it a try. Take a little while for me to figure out how to word it. Be cool if it worked though
Damn, pesky subs stalling us up� :-D
Alright, but can we spell it out a bit more, to tease out the implications?
I do see the merits of the proposal he just made for a C6 destroyer, but one thing I like about preserving the OOB cost structure for ships, is that it allows for a simple implementation of the shipyards tech if players want cheaper naval units across the board. Introducing a new cost for dds, would require a new wording for that tech option, and could also open issues with naval parity for all the other units relative to the DD, and end up a Pandora’s box.
I want to be deliberate here. Let’s try to fix the sub once and for all, like I’m hoping we just did for the strategic bomber.
:-D
From a play-test POV on Triple A, it is easier to add into roster a C6 Destroyer as a Destroyer Escort (DE) A1 D2 C6, 1 hit ASV.
While dropping Sub to 5 IPCs.
It will increase naval action.
And can be easier to make comparison.
Such DE D2 C6 will make better fleet padding defense than Sub for just 1 IPC higher (keeping it submerge for offence) and on offence DE A1 will be first casualty.
The Triple A parameters are much more complex as Barney seems to inform us.
The limitations have to be known to see if there is a way to improve it a bit, or not.
yea pretty much a pipe dream on the trigger idea : ). Seems as if this has been hashed out a lot over there with no real satisfactory answer. Veqryn said it would take months to do something so doubt any of the new guys tackle it either. Never know they seem to have quite a few more people working on stuff these days
Somehow you just new it would come down to this damned submarine again hehe.
Dive! Dive!
It’s stands right next to the strategic bomber and the transport, as the unit which consistently causes the most headaches.
You can tell these 3 have been the most problematic units from the start, since they are the units which underwent the most significant changes since classic.
Subs keep drawing other units into their wake, even the inclusion of the destroyer as a brand new unit (and then creating a series of complex interactions between them) hasn’t been enough to solve the issue. The persistent naval nightmare.
:-D
I hate to come back to it again, when I feel like we’re so close to an interesting ruleset to test, but the real issue is that we have a unit which should be targeting economies as a combat unit.
I always liked the idea of a submarine that was purely focused on raiding. Not to throw us off course, but anyone for a more radical change to the unit?
Defenseless sub? Hehe
I feel like I’m standing on the edge of a black hole here, but is it possible that the sub gets the m3, with a special action? Removed from normal naval combat. Only does raids. Can be destroyed in the process (the way bombers are by aaagun fire), can be “intercepted” by destroyers somehow?
I mean it would be a huge break from the past. But G40 did finally introduce the sub raid as a general concept. Something that could work for both G40 and 1942.2?
