Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.
Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.
I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.
Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0
Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.
And does it change something about it if Strategic bomber are cheap as 5 IPCs and can bomb for D6 damage only?
I’ve updated the download to contain another map with that. It has a few annoying features like prompting you for an attack and even when you say bomb, you still get a warning about “units will die”. Defense is zero too. Not sure if that’s what you want.
I’m not convinced of that idea but it’s good enough for playtesting.
Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.
Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?
Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.
Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?
Does canadian can bring some help in UK or too poor to early add relevant Infantry or Canadian Fg for G3 SL?
About StB A0 D0 M6-7 C5 D6 damage, it is because it is THIS unit which is at the total overhaul of redesign combined with Triple A package options.
It is the origins of all that is happening that fast.
If there is no fear to maxed out on first bombing raid, would you still require that minor IC and base rise to 8 or 9 damage?
Simon, somewhere around page 70, we analyzed 2/1/6 bombers that deal 1d6 damage to factories and agreed that they would be used as naval spam (if cheap) or not used against factories (if expensive) or overpowered (if they still bomb at the full 1d6+2). There doesn’t seem to be any price point that would balance them.
If you can think of a way to balance them, I’d love to hear it. Please include proposed stats for fighters, bombers, destroyers, transports, aa guns, and factories.
Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.
2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.
Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.
Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.
2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.
Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.
At high cost like 12 IPCs, using StBs on SBR when near maxing out bases or ICs is not an optimized choice.
Playing with StBs A0 D0 C5 D6 is so cheap that you can risk bombers on almost maxed out bases or IC.
No more an issue and no risk for Naval units anymore. Dark Sky strategy is no more possible with this bomber. TacBombers with only M4-5 moves are used in a different ways than StBs but can act like StBs on Bases. This create a much more realistic projection of power for bombers in regular combat and naval combat. StBs have a dedicated role “strategic bombing” but it allows to see TcBs being use according to their name “tactical” revealing their own potential strategy when you cannot reach fleet 3 SZs away from air bases.
C5 bomber discussion kicked off on page 43.
I’m not opposed to including more bomber options beyond what we have already in there, though I still think anything with a combat and hitpoint value at m6-7 is going to remain primarily combat focused, rather than SBR focused. 0/0 C5 represents the extreme, purely SBR oriented.
I don’t know if people want to try alternative intermediates you could always have separate toggle or upGun.
Almost back from this San Diego bachelor party haha. Catch you guys in a few
Can’t say I like the C5 bomber. Totally historically inaccurate! Those things were real expensive. I also don’t like the attackless bomber much. If there is a change, I would say 2/1/6 C10 would be fine. Probably also change TTs to A0 D1 but still taken last as casualties.
What is the need for change though? They are hardly a huge problem as is unless you are referring to the dark skies strategy.
Can’t say I like the C5 bomber. Totally historically inaccurate! Those things were real expensive. I also don’t like the attackless bomber much. If there is a change, I would say 2/1/6 C10 would be fine. Probably also change TTs to A0 D1 but still taken last as casualties.
What is the need for change though? They are hardly a huge problem as is unless you are referring to the dark skies strategy.
One issue is about depicting their historical activity and accuracy against moving targets, including an incredible attack factor A4 vs Fg D4, and an impossible projection of power for the era. Even in naval combat they were not the radical flying weapon which the OOB describes. It is a remnant of the classic game which is now put on its due place because TcB was introduced. It gives the room to make StB specifically for SBR. It is simpler to play with them that way. No ambiguous role. Now it is TcB which can do both regular combat and bombing raid, but at a more reasonable range and which keep the dilemma of this dual function. This is also historically accurate about TcB.
Cost comparative between real historical weapon and game unit is always a stretched because you can never really say how many individuals each game unit represents. You may say that 1 C5 StB is a squadron of them while fighter unit may be 10 squadrons. Or each StB is 50 while 1 Fg is 250. There is a wide space to stretch in one direction or the other.
What remain true is how there is a similarity between how you use them now in play and what was there main function in WWII. There is still some distortions but for sake of simplicity, it increases so radically the game experience that you can hardly overlook them.
On Transport, a toggle to try a kind of TP A0 D1 C8, carrying 1 Inf + any 1 ground has been added.
So, it can be players enforced to take as last casualty or to play with owner choose its own casualty order of loss with TP.
So, all variants on TP can be playtest.
C5 bomber discussion kicked off on page 43.
I’m not opposed to including more bomber options beyond what we have already in there, though I still think anything with a combat and hitpoint value at m6-7 is going to remain primarily combat focused, rather than SBR focused. 0/0 C5 represents the extreme, purely SBR oriented.
I don’t know if people want to try alternative intermediates you could always have separate toggle or upGun.
Almost back from this San Diego bachelor party haha. Catch you guys in a few
Also, there is many toggle to try various SBR dogfight values between StB, TcB and Fg.
There one I believe is better but other might reveal more interesting to play with.
StB A0 vs Fg A1 D1, vs Fg A2 D2, vs Fg A1 D2
StB A1 vs Fg A1 D2
TcB A1 D0 or A1 D1
I suggested A0 vs Fg A2 D2 and TcB A1 D1, but maybe Fg A1 D2 with StB A1 may reveal more challenging to play even if it is stronger from attacker POV.
Nothing is decided, you will have all the options to test and make your opinion on the specifics of dogfight.
I can’t speak to historical accuracy but adding two Canadian infantry to London would mitigate at least a little the UK’s diminished first turn purchasing power for a Sea Lion defense. Unlike France, Canada could put those infantry to use later on with no need for an Allied transport piggyback.
Adding a Canadian fighter in the proposed Newfoundland air base would help mop up German subs (if the destroyer survived) and make it’s way to London.
A Newfoundland airbase! Why, that would never be used in the whole game. Did you mean a Quebec airbase?
I’m not terribly invested in the specific base suggestions. Each was for novelty primarily and an attempt to give otherwise underserved (or in the case of a place like Newfoundland, entirely useless) territory tiles more of a reason to exist. In any case, it would be purely a manual edit at this point, since the change is too easy to execute in the current edit mode to justify a separate toggle. Quebec is a more obvious choice from a gameplay advantage standpoint, I just tossed out Newfoundland for historical significance, since it was the main point of departure for short range aircraft headed from North America to England along the North Atlantic route (the one that included Greenland, Iceland etc). By the end of the war the busiest airport in the entire world was located there, so just sort of a nod.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II
That route did not fully come into its own until America entered the war, and if the purchasing incentive was greater, I think you could make a case for allowing players to “build it”, but the game being what it is, no one will invest in ABs for these places if given the choice, motivated purely for historical fascination vs limited gameplay function. Really the only reason for entertaining them as add-on starting units in my view (since otherwise they would of course be terrible buys.)
I agree for an AB in Newfoundland, it’s gameplay usefulness would not be major. There were certainly bases in Ontario and Quebec as well, if not quite as signicant in scale or total traffic. Quebec is fairly well represented, probably outsized, but then you have all these extra low value tiles around it that serve no purpose other than window dressing for geographical “accuracy.” Just looking for some minor way to distinguish the TT that otherwise probably should have just been folded into a neighbor haha.
The C5 bomber was a suggestion for a fairy radical approach to that Strat Bomber unit entirely for SBR. But I wouldn’t think that everyone would instantly hop on board. Many many not like losing the Strat B, as the A&A queen of the skies (using the chess analogy.) I’m all for more options there. I just think the combat unit at m6 will always be gamey, even with a reduced attack value. Tried to explain my thinking there back when I first floated the idea. But if others are more interested in trying an c12 or c8 stratB with a significantly nerfed attack value that is another viable approach. For a modular package it’s worth having something in the middle.
Ps. One more thought on bases. It’s been mentioned many times already, how it would be nice if the US could build bases for the UK/Anzac (which would certainly fit the history.) I still like that rule. Though I don’t know if we ever articulated what the possible restrictions there might be. Like perhaps the Americans must have a unit stationed in the TT before they are allowed to build there?
Can’t say I like the C5 bomber. Totally historically inaccurate! Those things were real expensive. I also don’t like the attackless bomber much. If there is a change, I would say 2/1/6 C10 would be fine. Probably also change TTs to A0 D1 but still taken last as casualties.
What is the need for change though? They are hardly a huge problem as is unless you are referring to the dark skies strategy.
If wanting to try an intermediate StB from OOB and C5, I may suggest something in between which might be a step to add with Fg A2 D2 C7 and a TcB A2-3 D2 C8
StB A1 D0 M6-7 C8 damage D6+2
That way, both Fg and StB would keep same regular combat and dogfight values.
I should also clarify again that a bunch of the material floated in this thread in the past is not necessarily integrated, or all intended to fit together perfectly at this point. It’s more like nuts and bolts, laid out in piles.
:-D
So when I suggested a Newfoundland AB, initially the thought was for a base that would be used primarily by US air units, not Canadian national air units produced at the minor in Quebec. Nobody is going to move a fighter 1 space, to get a bonus +1 on the subsequent turn for a total of 6, if it could have moved 8 spaces already in the same amount of time. I think that is Simon’s point.
I liked Newfoundland mainly for historical reasons, because it is 5 moves to Scotland, so you’d have the proper historical terminus for a US fighter moving along this route.
Adding Canada as a player nation throws on a new spin on things though. If going through the effort to add a new player nation though, I think it would be understood that some set-up adjustments would be required. So you could get your extra RCAF fighter, infantry in London or whatever, add a base, plug in another NO etc. You could give them a starting AB in Newfoundland and a starting fighter to mess around with, on the assumption that if they ever actually purchase an AB it’s clearly going to go in Quebec, since that gets them straight to England in one move.
As for the bombers, I feel like we have heard a number of possible approaches. Just include as many of these as seem feasible I’d say. Some people may not care at all about the OOB StratB unit, other’s think it’s the most broken unit in the game (well after maybe the transport haha), so I’d just want to give people options here. Personally I find the mental gymnastics a lot easier when I make a clean break (no combat, pure SBR only), rather going with half-measures and trying to ease into it. So the C5 suggestion is like jumping straight into the deep end, rather than wading out, because I don’t think the water is going to get warmer there haha. But that’s me, others might lean the way Simon is, and just want to try a reduced attack value before they go with anything more extreme.
To me the OOB combat bomber at m6 doesn’t suggest historical accuracy or realism in any way whatsoever, regardless of the cost or the attack value. It’s just an abstract long distance “super-unit” the way it’s presented OOB, or at least that’s how it plays.
It’s also the unit most responsible for undermining the technology system in A&A going back several editions to Classic (with Heavies or LRA) even before it was made cheaper at 12 ipcs. Hence the desire to tweak it into something that feels a bit more like what the name suggests as a"Strategic Bomber" and more narrowly focused in that role. Anything that helps push it in that direction will be better than the status quo in my view.
:-)
Adding a Canadian fighter in the proposed Newfoundland air base would help mop up German subs (if the destroyer survived) and make it’s way to London.
The Destroyer wouldn’t have survived if there are any subs to mop up.
Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.
Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.
I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.
Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0
Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.
A similar idea was brought then :
@barney:
Sorry to spam out here but if you haven’t tried it, these bombers are a lot of fun. This is the closest I’ve seen a A&A game come to as far as representing SBR. Having them cheaper means you use them more. It’s no big deal if one gets shot down (except to the poor bastards in it), interceptors are protected, unless there are escorts, and the UK has been taking a heck of a lot more damage than usual :)
I could see the US actually being able to bomb Germany to effect. I wonder if we should give minors, AB and NB max damage 8 ? Make bombers a little more powerful. I left Tacs with SBR ability. Was that desired ? Seems ok to me if it was.
Anyway, give it a spin. Haven’t messed with naval M3 too much yet. Don’t want my brain to go into Fukushima mode : )
You can follow the post link title and get around discussion about C5 bomber combat values, regular and dogfight.
I will also add:
- Reverse the German objectives for Novgorod and Volgograd (Rationale: the tank factories benefited the USSR, not Germany, and the USSR needs some love)
- SZ5 being a convoy zone - Rationale: Kamchatka still has no roads in and Vladivostock is a major port. Should get some hate with blockades
- Canada as a separate power or separate economy, haven’t completely decided which, with only the Atlantic clear of subs as the NO from BM. I prefer the separate power really.
- Perhaps trim a couple of UK inf from London to help out sea lion.
- Airbase on Malta. Reason: Historical accuracy. Was an important air station.
- UK Original ownership of Sierra Leone. Reason: Historical accuracy
- USSR DOW on Japan will nullify Mongolia. Reason: Logic
- Increase max damage on airbases, naval bases and minor industrial complexes to 9. Rationale: Increase pressure on defenders to provide interceptors and reduce the effect that you don’t want to trade a territory with significant damage on a major IC because you repair their damage. Also makes it more worthwhile to bomb the bases.
Now, I think these changes have a small chance of balancing the game. Would require a fair bit of play testing. There is also the chance of a breakthrough in play making balance somewhat different.
I think that is all I’ve been thinking about.
EDIT: I’ve also been thinking about having a scramble of one unit from every land territory which can’t be revoked by bombing. If you have an airbase, you’d have 4 units potentially to scramble.
Just wanted to keep sight of these.
Specifically regarding Canada, I would definitely rather go full player nation than separate economy if only because I think that’s a bigger draw. But I’ll admit my motivation there is almost entirely tripleA focused. Because the map change would look cooler with those TTs in red.
:-D
Separate economy would be more convenient FtF, since it doesn’t require new pieces, just roundels for income tracking. But the whole ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something I’ve never much liked OOB. It strikes me as a holdover from the 2 separate games = 1 bigger game design approach. I think it would also make ANZAC feel even more out of place, as the only Commonwealth territories to get a full representation.
For a similar turn order you could put Canada with Anzac to close out the round, so that slot is more meaningful. But I actually really dislike the OOB turn order. I think it is highly awkward given the way A&A is usually played, and is unnecessarily drawn out. So I see no reason we can’t try something new here.
If fully redesigning the sequence, I’d try to block the turns so it’s more entertaining live, or more streamlined in the pbem exchange. I believe a new turn order requires a full xml mod with separate file (not something you can just toggle with a tech add right now). But I still like the idea of Canadian materials in the standard package, to make that a little easier. I’d consider breaking up the Anglo-American turn, which is currently the most involved. I think a sequence with the following blocks would be ideal…
GER
RUS, FRA, USA, CHN
JPN
UKE, CAN, UKP, ANZ
ITA
That would take you from 6 pbem exchanges down to just 4, in a given round.
After the opener it’s basically 2 Axis turns and 2 Allied turns, since Italy would piggy back onto Germany after the first round. By changing the US position you give the Allies a can opener rather than just Axis (Italy), at least once the Americans are at war. I think it’s a better distribution for live play as well, since it puts the game into 4 larger blocks, mirroring the old Classic dynamic for both live and remote play.
After the first round the PBF/PBEM exchange breakdown might look like this…
1. Italy/Germany (save)
2. Soviets+France/USA+China (save)
3. Japan (save)
4. UKE+Canada/UKP+ANZAC (save)
Less exchanges overall, less total scramble clarifications in a given round etc, to speed things along. In live play you have a pretty easy way to break it apart into 3 player, 4 player, 5 player, and 6 player groupings.
For example…
3 man could be 1 Axis player vs 2 Allied players (Russia/US player block and UK player block.)
4 man could be 2 Axis players vs 2 Allied players.
5 man could be 3 Axis players vs 2 Allied players.
6 man and up, you just start breaking down the Allied blocks.
Ps. You obviously don’t need Canada to achieve this, it would work with the standard nations too, but Canada would provide a good oppertunity. You would have to make a turn order adjustment regardless, if adding a new player nation, so might as well try to clean everything up in the process so its smoother round to round.
I really think a new turn order is the most interesting idea we could explore. I brought it up on the first page of this thread, even if it’s been on the back burner lately. Would people be agreeable if we had two standard gamefiles in the HR package? Like one with OOB G40 turn order sequence, and one with a new 4 block turn order sequence (that includes Canada)?
Separate economy would be more convenient FtF, since it doesn’t require new pieces, just roundels for income tracking. But the whole ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something I’ve never much liked OOB. It strikes me as a holdover from the 2 separate games = 1 bigger game design approach. I think it would also make ANZAC feel even more out of place, as the only Commonwealth territories to get a full representation.
For a similar turn order you could put Canada with Anzac to close out the round, so that slot is more meaningful. But I actually really dislike the OOB turn order. I think it is highly awkward given the way A&A is usually played, and is unnecessarily drawn out. So I see no reason to we can’t try something new here.
If fully redesigning the sequence, I’d try to block the turns so it’s more entertaining live, or more streamlined in the pbem exchange. I believe a new turn order requires a full xml mod with separate file (not something you can just toggle with a tech add right now). But I still like the idea of Canadian materials in the standard package, to make that a little easier. I’d consider breaking up the Anglo-American turn, which is currently the most involved. I think a sequence with the following blocks would be ideal…
GER
RUS, FRA, USA, CHN
JPN
UKE, CAN, UKP, ANZ
ITA
Here’s a thought. If the ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something you dislike about the OOB rules, and if you’re thinking about detaching Canada from the UK player-wise and putting it close to ANZAC in the play order, have you considered the alternate possibility of bundling Canada, ANZAC (which itself represents a combination of two different countries, Australia and New Zealand) and possibly South Africa into a single player power, the Commonwealth Dominions? Newfoundland could even be added to this composite power, and a further extension of the idea might be to include Eire if this pro-Allies country gets pulled into the war. All six of these entities had Dominion status within the British Commonwealth (though technically Newfoundland wasn’t self-governing, since it had given up that status at its own request during the Depression).
