Revised Tech & NAs


  • Customizer

    @theduke:

    weren’t real kamikazes used for offense too (pearl harbor was definitely not defensive but had kamikazes)? also, why is there an artifical limit to the number to kamikazes? if japan can build ‘x’ fighters they should be able to make ‘x’ kamikazes. this rule is fundamentally too unrealistic for my taste. some day i’ll have to post my kamikaze rules and get people’s opinions on them.

    No kamikazes in pearl harbor! Do your homework! They were striclty a defensive weapon used first when the US threatened Japanese home waters. I dont have time right now to explain in detail. The restriction of 2 sea zones is realistic in that sence. If one were able to use any number of kamikazes one can easy understand that this rule would stop even one million BBs whithin 2 sea zones from Japan. And finaly the restriction of six such attacks is play tested and as you said your self it is all about simplicity and playability. This rule examplifies your talk about thinking in more creative terms, instead of using a D12. A smart guy like you should know that. By the way kamikazes were not built, but simply airplanes converted into flying bombs. Therefore there was actually a restriction in how many kamikazes that could be used! Lets say a maximum number that is restricted by the number of Japanese airplanes on the game board. However such an approach would not be easy to use, due to many reasons.

    One more thing I dont know if you have catched so far, is that a Kamikaze can be used during an allied combat phase!!! That is quite special for these attacks. This implies that kamikazes can prevent or at least slow down any allied assault on Japanese homeland. It is of great strategic value in the game, you should try it!



  • you’re right about none in pearl harbor, but here are two passages from wikipedia’s article on kamikazes and my conclusions from said articles:

    The peak came on April 6, 1945 during the Battle of Okinawa, when waves of planes made hundreds of attacks, in Operation Kikusai (“floating chrysanthemums”). At Okinawa, kamikaze attacks focused at first on Allied destroyers on “picket duty”, and then on the carriers in the middle of the fleet. These attacks, which expended 1,465 planes, created havoc: accounts of losses vary, but by the end of the battle, at least 21 US ships had been sunk by kamikazes, along with some from other Allied navies, and dozens more had been damaged.

    Striking ships on picket duty? That sounds awfully offensive to me, even if it is close to the Japanese homeland.

    Purpose-built kamikaze planes, as opposed to converted fighters and dive-bombers, had no landing gear at all. A specially-designed propellor plane, the Nakajima Ki-115 Tsurugi, was a simple, easy-to-build plane, intended to use up existing stocks of engines, in a wooden airframe. The undercarriage was non-retractable, was jettisoned shortly after take-off for a suicide mission, and then re-used on other planes.

    These people say some kamikazes were built. built for the special purpose of being kamikazes and not ‘converted’ from planes. I’ll agree with you that some kamikazes were converted from planes, but you said no kamikazes were built which I think is wrong.

    You seem to have the habit of misunderstanding half the things I say. I’ve seen it in many posts other than in this topic. Maybe that’s my fault for not being clearer, but let me comment on some stuff you said in your last post…

    If one were able to use any number of kamikazes one can easy understand that this rule would stop even one million BBs whithin 2 sea zones from Japan.

    I never argued that you should keep the kamikaze rule as it is but just take away the 6 limit. That would be way too powerful as you said. If you alter the 6 limit, you would have to alter other apsects of kamikazes as well. I was saying I don’t like the artificial 6 limit because Japan should be able to build as many kamikazes as they wish. Japan was only limited by bare plane parts, enough fuel just to reach their target and the number of suicidal pilots that were available. Since none of these were that limiting, I don’t like the 6 limit in terms of realism. There is probably a better way to more accurately represent them. For example, maybe have it so every time a kamikaze is used that Japanese player gets 2-3 IPCs back (cause kamikakes cheaper to make). Obviously you would have to make kamikazes less powerful than regular fighters since they cost less then them. This is just one idea I just came up with on the spot so it might suck but even if it does there are plenty other better ideas than this and certainly better than the one using the 6 limit.

    This rule examplifies your talk about thinking in more creative terms, instead of using a D12. A smart guy like you should know that.

    It is more creative but that doesn’t mean we have to accept it. If we accepted every creative idea then we’d have 1000’s of rules for kamikazes and that would be silly and complicated. Very few creative rules allow for simplicity, realism, and cost effectiveness (not too weak or powerful for the cost put in). Your aap kamikaze rule is simple and cost effective but not as realistic as it could be without sacrificing the other attributes IMHO.

    aw shucks…. smart guy, really? you made me blush :oops:


  • Customizer

    A few kamikazes were designed flying bombs called ohka, these were not converted. However the most of all kamikazes were conversions of airplanes. Get it since I really dont have time to do your homework every time. I like the rule of mine (A&AP) and think it is easy and realistic. You care about realism and historical relevance here and that is not what I have herd from you in other forums.

    However your idea about a cost of 2 IPCs (not 3 IPCs) would do, but then you will have a new unit to represent it and nope its not ok. A solution would be that when a fighter made a kamikaze, thar fighter is considered converted. A kamikaze would give the Japanese player 6 IPCs back for each kamikaze converted fighter, tat should be declared in the combat movement. A kamikaze fighter then attack on a 4 and may chose target, but may not be used as a casualty. What about that, will it taste better???



  • By the way kamikazes were not built, but simply airplanes converted into flying bombs.

    so you’re saying kamikazes were not built….

    A few kamikazes were designed flying bombs called ohka, these were not converted. However the most of all kamikazes were conversions of airplanes. Get it since I really dont have time to do your homework every time.

    so now a few kamikazes were built? few is different from none. you are contradicting yourself and my last post corrected your mistake. In fact, nothing you said in your last post disagrees with anything I said in my last post. Read what I said carefully for a change. I said some kamikazes were built and you said it was a few. few and some are not mutually exclusive.

    If you never ended up correcting anything I said in my last post, what is this doing homework for me thing?

    By the way, the math regarding many of your house rules is severely lacking. I’ve already brought several instances to your attention but unfortunately ‘I don’t have the time’ to do your stats homework for you anymore. I guess I won’t be able to work with you on fixing those deficient house rules. I suggest you go read a statistics book. Works both ways.

    ‘People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’ - George Herbert (1593-1632)


  • Customizer

    @theduke:

    By the way, the math regarding many of your house rules is severely lacking. I’ve already brought several instances to your attention but unfortunately ‘I don’t have the time’ to do your stats homework for you anymore. I guess I won’t be able to work with you on fixing those deficient house rules. I suggest you go read a statistics book. Works both ways.

    You cannot take a simple discusson. If you have anything to say about the math and any of my house rules then do it, dont just complain about them! I said kamikazes were converted, since basically all were converted. Your thing about being realistic and historical relevance is not what you have wrote about in all other posts, were you talk about play ability. Duke I try to be humble here, so should you. Don’t throw any more pies, please! Be constructive in your criticism and try to lern from others. Even if one is smart there is always somthing to lern from others. Not only knowledge and facts but also way of thinking. Keep up with interesting questions and we both will lern to create a better A&A game! 😉



  • @theduke:

    … i am only as reasonable as the numbers allow me to be. after that, all bets are off 😉

    Have you looked at Mr. Andersons Optional Naval Rules under the forum for house rules? You should, the math is wonderful. I know since that is my job to know such things. By the way your argument about the 3 attack artillery is not really true as you said your self. One always has to consider the number of units as well as the combined attack value. The infantry would still dominate an artillery (attacking art vs defending inf), but the odds are much more even now. See below:

    4 Inf

    Cost: 12 IPCs
    Def: 2*4 = 8
    No Units: 4

    3 Art

    Cost: 12 IPCs
    Att: 3*3 = 9
    No Units: 3

    1st Combat Cycle

    Art scores: 9/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2,5 inf left
    Inf scores: 8/6 = 1,33 hits -> 1,67 art left

    2nd Combat Cycle

    Art scores: 1,673/6 = 0,84 hits -> 1,67 inf left
    Inf scores: 2,5
    2/6 = 0,84 hits -> 0,84 art left

    3rd Combat Cycle

    Art scores: 0,843/6 = 0,42 hits -> 1,25 inf left
    Inf scores: 1,67
    2/6 = 0,56 hits -> 0,28 art left

    4th Combat Cycle

    Art scores: 0,283/6 = 0,14 hits -> 1,11 inf left
    Inf scores: 1,25
    2/6 = 0,42 hits -> no art left



  • It becomes more even if one combine matching infantry units to each attacking artillery. But still any force of defending infantry units only, will dominate any force of heavy artillery (attack on 3) with matching infantry. See the statistics below:

    7 Inf

    Cost: 21 IPCs
    Def: 7*2 = 14
    No Units: 7

    3 Inf + 3 Art

    Cost: 21 IPCs
    Att: 33 + 32 = 15
    No Units: 6

    1st Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 15/6 = 2,5 hits -> 4,5 inf left
    Inf scores: 14/6 = 2,33 hits -> 3 art and 0,67 inf left

    2nd Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 33/6 + 0,672/6 = 1,72 hits -> 2,78 inf left
    Inf scores: 4,5*2/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2,17 art left

    3rd Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 2,173/6 = 1,08 hits -> 1,69 inf left
    Inf scores: 2,78
    2/6 = 0,93 hits -> 1,24 art left

    4th Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 1,243/6 = 0,62 hits -> 1,07 inf left
    Inf scores: 1,69
    2/6 = 0,56 hits -> 0,68 art left

    5th Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 0,683/6 = 0,34 hits -> 0,74 inf left
    Inf scores: 1,07
    2/6 = 0,36 hits -> 0,32 art left

    6th Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 0,323/6 = 0,16 hits -> 0,58 inf left
    Inf scores: 0,74
    2/6 = 0,25 hits -> 0,07 art left

    7th Combat Cycle

    Art combo scores: 0,073/6 = 0,04 hits -> 0,54 inf left
    Inf scores: 0,58
    2/6 = 0,19 hits -> no art left



  • @theduke:

    …I was saying I don’t like the artificial 6 limit because Japan should be able to build as many kamikazes as they wish. Japan was only limited by bare plane parts, enough fuel just to reach their target and the number of suicidal pilots that were available. Since none of these were that limiting, I don’t like the 6 limit in terms of realism…

    … Your aap kamikaze rule is simple and cost effective but not as realistic as it could be without sacrificing the other attributes IMHO…

    Hello Duke,

    Since you like the kamikaze rule except for the realism in it I do have a suggestion.

    Japanese Kamikaze:

    The Kamikaze is the same as described by Mr. Anderson but with one addition. The Japanese player may exchange any fighter based in Japan for an additional kamikaze unit. Kamikazes may only be launched from Japan.The Japanese player use dice to keep track on how many Kamikazes that remain to be used.



  • Kamikazes should have a much higher attack value, like 5. There has to be some compensation for the fact that your fighter gets destroyed in the process.

    And personally, I would not replace Combined Bombardment with Heavy Artillery, either.


  • Customizer

    @AgentOrange:

    Kamikazes should have a much higher attack value, like 5. There has to be some compensation for the fact that your fighter gets destroyed in the process.

    And personally, I would not replace Combined Bombardment with Heavy Artillery, either.

    AgentOrange, you have obviously not red my variant of kamikazes. They are free! Or what are do you mean with attack on a 5? Are you talking about Dreads suggestion of converting fighters to kamikazes? Why 5 then?

    About Heavy Arillery, I would like to know why you would prefer Combined Bombardment, since the math really talks i favour of heavy artillery And Heavy Artillery as a Tech is balanced! Anyone who disagrees can take look on what have been said about this subject before.

    What did you think about the rest of this article?



  • Well, as far as the kamikazes, you’re right; I was talking more about the old-school version where you have to designate one of your existing fighters, and roll a successful attack with it. In THAT case, yes, the kamikaze should have a higher attack rating, because as it stands now, I think the Kamikazes NA sucks!

    As for the Heavy Artillery, well, I don’t really have anything against it; it’s just that I see no need to get rid of combined bombard, because personally, I enjoy it! 😄


  • Customizer

    @AgentOrange:

    Well, as far as the kamikazes, you’re right; I was talking more about the old-school version where you have to designate one of your existing fighters, and roll a successful attack with it…

    As for the Heavy Artillery, well, I don’t really have anything against it; it’s just that I see no need to get rid of combined bombard, because personally, I enjoy it! 😄

    Well you should try my version of kamikazes, it is awesome and game balanced!

    About the Heavy artillery, I must say it is a batter tech than combined bombardment, since it will favor all nations. And it will also be of big importance in amphibious assaults as well. One will get an improved attack of 2 for every transport loaded with two artillery units. Simply this new tech is more versatile and historical correct than Combined Bombardment. My suggestion is that you try it. Both Heavy Artillery and the kamikaze rule in my NA-list!


  • Customizer

    Anyone who think this version of U-Boat Interdiction is a better one then the original one?

    1.  U-Boat Interdiction (revised)
    Determined to undermine the Allies’ supply chain, Germany eventually endorsed a program of shipbuilding. As a result a fleet of U-boats were built in an attempt to starve Britain.
    The U.K and U.S. palyers are susceptible to suply line interdiction by German submarines. This rule imply that your submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K and U.S. palyers collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

    1.  U-Boat Interdiction
    The Untersee boats swarmed Allied shipping lanes, sinking ships regardless of their cargo. Some “cargo” was noncombatants.
    During the collect income phase of the U.K. and U.S. turns, subtract 1 IPC from the collecting power’s income for each of your submarines on the game board.


  • Customizer

    @B.:

    Anyone who think this version of U-Boat Interdiction is a better one then the original one…

    Anyone???


  • Customizer

    @djensen:

    Hey B, did you already submit this one to the website?

    I have a backlog of a bunch of your house rules, etc. I’ll slowly get to them all.

    No, not really. But I would be greatful if you replaced the old ones with these. Thanks in advance of your respons!

    /B. Andersson



  • In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.


  • Customizer

    @3d6:

    In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

    I think the 3 in defense for infantry is better than your idea. Why do you think the opposite?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

28
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts