Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

I have created an Axis & Allies variant inspired by the simultaneity mechanics of Diplomacy.  It is an online game with all the game state stored in the server, so the players use a simple web browser to play.  The manner of play I envision is each player or possibly each team uses a physical board to track the game, and the online game provides the interface to create orders for the units, shows the outcome of conflicts, and provides an interface to execute and settle multi-unit battles.  Having a physical board and pieces isn’t necessary, as the game is tracked on the server, but I expect it is more fun to play along with physical units.  The current user interface is crude, but I think it’s sophisticated enough to be effective.  I’m looking for someone to help me play-test the game and provide feedback.  I will likely create a new user interface to overlay the existing system, but I need to actually play it a bit with a real opponent to know what direction to go with that.  If you are interested, you can read the docs here:

coyotebones.org/concurrent_AA/docs

if you are further interested in seeing the interface and play-testing with me, send an email to concurrent-aa-play-request@coyotebones.org.  Please send from a real email address, as I will register the address for your login to use the system.  Include in the message a nickname you would like to have on the system so that your email address is not exposed to other players.

I am currently working on a mod in TripleA that will do this. Germany owns Germany, Italy, Poland, and Libya. Britian owns, in addition to its regular territories: France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Morocco, and Algeria. Russia owns Finland. Japan only owns Japan, Manchuria, Kangitsu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Caroline Islands, and Formosa. Britian owns all Japanese territories that weren’t mentioned here, except for Wake Island, Kwantung, and the Phillipines, which are owned by America.

On round 1, Russia and America are out. That means that they will get no money, they can’t move units, and they can’t be attacked, with the exception of China. Americans in China get to move, attack, and be attacked normally. Also, Japan gets to attack the Americans on Wake Island, the Phillipines, and (on J3 or J4) the navy off of Pearl Harbor (which will have at least 2 battleships). On Round 3, Russia gets to join. However, Germany gets to attack Russia in G2. I’m not sure whether to let America join in round 3 or 4. It depends on how much firepower Britain gets to wield in the Pacific and India initially, and how much they can maintain pressure on Japan.

Britain starts out with no cash to spend on B1 simply because they would have a mountain of cash from all the territories. Plus, the Axis need to have a chance to beat Britain back in the first few rounds. Germany and Japan will start out with 50 bucks (to represent their massive military buildup relative to the Allies.

Unit count in all Axis territories will basically double to give them much needed initial firepower. Germany’s navy will be beefed up, mainly in SZ5. There will be some extra navy in the Med just to make sure that they have a shot in Africa. To balance that, the subs off the coast of America will be removed, as well as the British navy off America as well (so Britain can’t storm Africa).

I already have some idea for the initial situation in Japan. They will start out with enough land units, navy, and transports to either gobble up Pacific islands or storm China, but not both. Plus, there is the Indian and Australian navies to deal with, not to mention the threat at Pearl Harbor.

My goal is to be semi-historically accurate, because some accuracy has to be sacrificed in order to make the game playable and fun, and also because the map wasn’t designed for historic realism.

One thing I’d like to do is to give Japan incentive to attack Pearl Harbor the turn that America begins to play, but I don’t know of a way to give Japan good incentive to. I think I might give Japan a reward for destroying the battleships in Pearl by giving them some money or units if they do.

I would appreciate and welcome suggestions for pretty much anything in here. I want to make this work and have it at least as balanced if not more balanced than 1942.2.

@Baron:

Only a few against computer AI.

::blink::

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

@Baron:

@CWO:

If I understand correctly what YG is seeking, the requirements are for a special cruiser bonus that a) applies only to cruisers and to no other ship type; b) that does not involve a combined-arms pairing between a cruiser and another unit; c) that is historically accurate, both in terms of the technical features of WWII cruisers and their actual use in that war; and d) which does not involve an IPC price adjustment.
Frankly, I can’t think of any historically accurate things about cruisers that would fit all those requirements. At best, there might be things that could be bent or stretched to partially fulfil what’s being looked for. One idea I’ve already mentioned is the concept of giving cruisers some kind of equivalent to the OOB blitzing ability of tanks, to reflect the combination of speed and long range which cruisers offered.

As always, instructive and interesting dive into World War II in depth history.
Thanks for both posts.

The single ability specific to Cruiser and not too unbalancing seems to be linked to his extended range.
1914 opens a window for an A&A M3 Cruiser.
Giving a basic 3 Moves, but what kind of effect does +1M Naval Base bonus, is yet to determine.
No bonus,
NCM bonus only,
both CM and NCM ,
so Cruiser gets M4 in such last two situations when leaving a NB.
I don’t know if any player ever play them that way.

A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988

This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.

About Cruiser maneuverability and possible Combined Arms, I also suggested this earlier:

@Baron:

1- Cruiser always moves at 3 CM and NCM.
2- Cruiser gives +1 CM & NCM to boost the moving range of any other surface vessel if paired 1:1 (BB, CV, DD and TP, only).
3- Cruiser with Battleship and Carrier get the Anti-Air capacity (same as AAA: @1 against up to 3 planes, preemptive).

However, to get a 3 move CM or NCM without Naval Base is costly for a Task Force Fleet: 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, needs 4 Cruisers.
The mandatory pairing 1:1 provides a very restrictive limit, since Cruisers are the worst Combat effective units of the Naval roster.
Speed and maneuverability is gained at the cost of optimized Att/Def values.

Can this be within historical accuracy, A&A system and a balance limit?

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

Here is a price list I came up with to use for casual face-to-face A&AR games. Basically it increases the price of land units and reduces the cost of naval units to make the overall purchases throughout each game more varied. It reduces stacking so the game plays quicker which is great if you want to finish a game in one evening.
What’s also great is that it changes the strategic options enough so you can’t really rely on following the standard strategies you find on the internet. There might be better options out there now, especially since it’s so cheap to build a navy.

Infantry: 5 ipc
Artillery: 6 ipc
Tank: 8 ipc
Fighter: 10 ipc
Bomber: 12 ipc

Submarine: 5 ipc
Destroyer: 8 ipc
Transport: 10 ipc
Aircraft Carrier: 14 ipc
Battleship: 16 ipc

AA-Gun      5 ipc
IC            10 ipc