G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
    Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs
    Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
    I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
    Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12

    I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
    OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
    Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
    Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
    Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
    It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.

    I agree with you on all this.

    Maybe just add for Marines NA of USA that it is only for PTO (to keep it historical as much as possible)?
    I suggest to read this thread on Marines, it can help having a bigger picture:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg748607#msg748607

    This NA is good for Japan on defense.
    But weird for USA on offence because the first round is the landing phase, the most difficult when no Inf is at his best when reaching the beach.

    But it is simpler for game mechanics at a strategical level.


  • I think a better way for the 2 NAs

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

    All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
    So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
    Does not stack with artillery bonus

    Mech are not considered infantry

  • '17 '16

    Hi, we agree.
    I think I tried to answer to an older version of your post.
    Isn’t?

    I come to the same conclusion:

    @Uncrustable:

    I think a better way for the 2 NAs

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

    All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
    So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle

    Does not stack with artillery bonus

    Mech are not considered infantry

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
    Except for Japan?

    USA will usually lost infantry on the first round.
    Often, the second units on a TT is a Art, already A2.

    So this US NA is not even vs Japan.

    Basically, any surviving Inf paired with Art, already get A2.
    It is only the remaining and unpaired Inf which will get this bonus.
    On the first round (the more important) they attack @1.

    What do you think of this slightly modified US’s NA:
    US Marines: all Inf attacking an island in PTO except Japan and Australia get
    Attack @2 after first round of an amphibious assault.

    So if any US player want some ground punch on the first round, he will anyway put some Art unit on the transport.


  • First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island, secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

    Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
    This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

    What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?

  • '17 '16

    First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island,

    good.

    Secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

    Historically, probably true.
    The cons I see, is:
    Are your sure it will be balance, because Japan can become an island fortress?
    To limit this in another way:
    Maybe, just allowed the Japanese NA for just one time (as the Kamikaze token) per island (including Japan)

    Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
    This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

    You mean by letting Inf A2 after first round on Japan, US player will not buy much Art in PTO?
    Otherwise (if Japan not include), US player will still have to buy Art.
    Do I understood what you mean?

    What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?

    I don’t see this as a major unbalancing problem.
    I played classic with additionnal cruiser and battleship bombarding even after naval combat.
    This is a one time shot anyway.

    The only impact is that Destroyer loose one aspect of their blocking effect, since 1 single DD can forbid many CA and BB to bombard an island/shore.

    Just how far players are ready to let go this chess like feature, I don’t know?

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
    I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…
    That is: When a submarine is not submerged, there are no special rules regarding aircraft vs subs. When a submarine is or is not submerged does not change from OOB. However a sub still can never act as a blocker.
    While not submerged, or at the surface, a sub does not have a first strike ‘sneak attack’
    While at the surface it can hit enemy air units, and enemy air units do not need a destroyer to hit the sub.
    Once a sub submerges it can no longer hit aircraft, aircraft then need a destroyer to hit the sub.
    A submerged sub retains it’s first strike ‘sneak attack’ as long as there are no enemy destroyers present.
    Also a submarine may submerge and retreat the battle, without leaving the SZ. So long as there are no enemy destroyers in the battle.

    According to the rules (if I’m not mistaken) a submarine is considered ‘at the surface’ or ‘not submerged’ until it’s owner decides whether or not to submerge it. Once submerged it remains that way until the end of the battle, where it then resurfaces.

    Basically a sub has 3 options:
    Stay at the surface (acting as a normal A2D1 unit)
    Submerge (use current OOB rules)
    Submerge and retreat from the battle (remaining in the SZ)

    In OOB rules a destroyer effectively blocks enemy submarines from submerging.
    With these rules a submarine could still submerge, but an enemy destroyer blocks both the sneak attack and submerge and retreat while allowing friendly aircraft to target enemy subs.

    This would give subs a little more power.
    However considering there is only 1 IPC difference in cost from a destroyer, and submarines cannot block, I think there will be good reason to have some of both.

    Is this too powerful for subs?
    With this they can now act as proper escorts for transports. Albeit at a very low defensive roll (1)
    This would certainly change some of the core dynamics of the game.

    What do you think ?

    On Subs, here is a different way to improve planes vs subs battle.
    1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.
    b) All sunken subs can retaliate @1 (against successful planes only) but not undamaged subs.
    c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

    2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
    b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
    But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
    c) As above, all sunken subs can retaliate @1 (vs successful planes) but not undamaged subs.
    d) After the first round all subs can still submerge (as OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

    3a) When planes and other warships except DD attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
    b) All subs rolls as OOB a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
    c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

    4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.


    Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
    But when there is only defending planes, subs can be chose as casualties (contrary to OOB).


  • That is pretty complex

    I think with cruisers at 10, OOB subs are best

  • '17 '16

    I still think Subs vs planes should be improve, here is a less radical way.

    Planes should be able to hit subs anytime they don’t submerge.

    Subs on defence should be able to escape destroyers (in an other way than sinking all attacking DDs).

    Subs should be used anytime (even when no DD is present) as sea-fodder casualties against planes to protect more important vessels.

    If I kept the more important aspects of my last post:

    1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.

    c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

    2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
    b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
    But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
    c)
    d) After the first round, all subs can still submerge (as in OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

    3a) When planes and other warships (without DD) attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
    b) All subs rolls, as OOB, a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
    c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

    4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.


    Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
    But when there is only defending planes (against subs+ warships/planes), subs can be chosen as casualties (contrary to OOB).

  • '17 '16

    I think it is also possible to consider subs vs planes in the opposite way:

    Planes cannot hit any subs (even when DD is on their side) if their is any other elligible casualties. (Said otherwise, Subs are chosen last by planes.)

    So, in any battle of planes (+ other type of units) vs subs+warships, the presence/absence of destroyer will not change the way the subs casualties can be picked against owner’s unit.
    Planes will be mostly against surface vessels,
    surface vessels can hit both planes, warships and subs,
    and subs can hit any ships but no plane.

    Still as OOB, planes needs DD to attack subs.

    DD works as OOB for everything else except:

    Even when attacking DD is present, all defending Subs which survived can submerge after first round attack, and on any other round.

    It may includes this addendum: “… instead of having their defensive roll @1”

    Of course, all destroyed Subs have a defense roll @1.

  • '17 '16

    Uncrustable,
    why don’t use this game mechanics instead when attacking transports?

    @Baron:

    @Baron:

    @Uncrustable:

    Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
    -When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
    -Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

    This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

    It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

    When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one TT can escape.
    Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.
    Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

    The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

    Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule: a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

    Since I play-tested it,
    I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving TT than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

    I should add this detail:
    transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

    Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

    Which means, for instance, if their is 2 transports at the beginning of a round and 2 are hitten by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 2
  • 15
  • 20
  • 1.8k
  • 7
  • 1
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts