G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)


  • 2017 '16

    @mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

    @SS-GEN said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

    What ever you feel is historic. Basically you looking for correct hit status based on Divisions or corps like you mentioned. Ground is a different animal a bit.

    hmmmm I am not sure about naval hitpoints. I mean, I keep going backwards and forwards and sometimes I step dangerously close to a CRT… Because I just find the overall attrition rate too high. Star Wars Rebellion does this with the hit markers under each ship but I also find that not very elegant. For instance, things like the sinking of the Bismark or the Hood were not that common and results like the battle of Riverplate were more common, I want there to be a chance of back and forwards and a single battle not being a monumental victory or defeat like game most of the time represents them (kind of because you then get the insane rebuilding economy). What I am trying to achieve (naval for now, land for later) is a sense of strategic warfare like A&A sometimes gives us but other times fails to do.

    Anyway, I am sure I will reach a solution… Not sure it will be as simple as I want it to be.

    IMO, Axis and Allies is much more pleasant as a tabletop game because of eye candies it provides with all these little sculpts. Especially warships and aircraft on carriers.

    On land, I usually use chips for Infantry, MechInf, Artys, but not Tank, when there is enough room in the TT. However, in SZ and Naval, I will never use chips. Just the sculpts.

    My personal taste would be to rather increase the number of units but not going into damaged units besides aircraft or Battleship.

    US and IJN have a limited numbers of Carriers and Battleships, per se.
    These number might provide a level of individual unit which remain manageable.

    At Pearl Harbor Raid time, there was no more than 8 US Carrier with various aircraft capacity (before Essex was launched) . I noticed that Light Carriers or Escort Carriers were able to carry around 30 aircraft while Fleet was around 90.
    So about one third. For me, this provided the ratio: 1 aircraft on light Carrier, then 3 aircraft sculpt on a US Fleet Carrier.

    So, all sturdier aircraft carriers might just hold two. It works on the table top. The only issue is about TcB scultp. 3 does not hold on a Carrier, but 2 TcB and 1 Fg can be put on a Carrier sculpt.

    If this can be your starting point, then think about 1 aircraft Carrier unit figures for about 4 or 5 Carriers. Take a look at how many Fleet Carriers were available for Japan.

    For instance, 2 US Carriers (for 8 to 10), if IJN gets 5 Carrier sculpt then would signify around 20 to 25 Carriers.

    This might come handy if you want to set an adequate numbers for each sculpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II



  • @baron-Münchhausen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

    IMO, Axis and Allies is much more pleasant as a tabletop game because of eye candies it provides with all these little sculpts. Especially warships and aircraft on carriers.
    On land, I usually use chips for Infantry, MechInf, Artys, but not Tank, when there is enough room in the TT. However, in SZ and Naval, I will never use chips. Just the sculpts.
    My personal taste would be to rather increase the number of units but not going into damaged units besides aircraft or Battleship.
    US and IJN have a limited numbers of Carriers and Battleships, per se.
    These number might provide a level of individual unit which remain manageable.
    At Pearl Harbor Raid time, there was no more than 8 US Carrier with various aircraft capacity (before Essex was launched) . I noticed that Light Carriers or Escort Carriers were able to carry around 30 aircraft while Fleet was around 90.
    So about one third. For me, this provided the ratio: 1 aircraft on light Carrier, then 3 aircraft sculpt on a US Fleet Carrier.
    So, all sturdier aircraft carriers might just hold two. It works on the table top. The only issue is about TcB scultp. 3 does not hold on a Carrier, but 2 TcB and 1 Fg can be put on a Carrier sculpt.
    If this can be your starting point, then think about 1 aircraft Carrier unit figures for about 4 or 5 Carriers. Take a look at how many Fleet Carriers were available for Japan.
    For instance, 2 US Carriers (for 8 to 10), if IJN gets 5 Carrier sculpt then would signify around 20 to 25 Carriers.
    This might come handy if you want to set an adequate numbers for each sculpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II

    A certain level of abstraction is needed of course but I went with a 2:1 ratio (fleet carriers to light carriers) for flexibility. I am not considering escort carriers as they were not used in fleet to fleet action. Although some could carry 30 aircraft others could carry a lot less and they were not suitable to military operations.

    Pearl Harbour is the next scenario I am intending on “gaming” and it would include 3 Japanese carriers with 6 fighters on top vs 4 American BBs and 2 Cruisers (with a similar conversion of 2 Light cruisers to a single heavy cruiser and DDs abstracted).

    This will be a great balancing scenario I believe as regular Axis and Allies would not be able to give you historical results regardless of what you did (4 BBs would take 8 hits to destroy and would defend on a 4 so fighters would go down faster than anything).

    Regarding damage, a simple solution could be allowing units to retreat battle to absorb hits. So after a round of combat and damage assignment, if there were no hits left to assign and units had their HP depleted, they could chose to abandon the Sea Zone instead of being destroyed. Units in bases would be the exception.


  • 2017 '16

    @mAIOR
    Assumed there was 8 BB and 8 Cruiser at Pearl Harbour.
    You want to do a 2:1 ratio with these so
    4 BB A4 D4 and 4 Cruiser A3 D3.

    There was 6 IJN Carrier, means 3 units.
    If each were 3 Fg on each, it means:
    9 Fg A3 D4
    6 Carriers
    21 hits total
    Vs
    12 hits.

    If you give a special preemptive shot or an additional opening fire round to these 9 Fg, , for initiating an unprovoked act of war.
    You might get 4-5 hits.
    And you may specify that once a Battleship is damaged, the next hit has to be allocated to the damaged one, or sink a Cruiser.

    Just my two cents at how I would deal with it.



  • @baron-Münchhausen The other reason to represent ships on a 2:1 ratio is that that was basically what a Battleship or Carrier division was. So you get ar,y corps on land and fleet divisions on sea. Heavy cruiser divisions were also 2 or 3 heavy cruisers and light cruiser divisions were 4 light cruisers. At Pearl Harbour there were 6 light cruisers and 2 heavy cruisers so that is roughly 2 cruiser fleets (since two of the cruisers were lead ships of DD flotillas) and if I don’t abstract the DDs, 2 DD flotillas… That might be a good scale) for the American side and 6 fleet carriers for the Japanese (3 carrier figures).

    the math would be:

    8 BBs on a A:4D:4 2 HP
    2 Cruisers A3D3
    2DDs A2D2
    (and an air wing AND AA defense but I won’t even deal with that for now)

    vs

    6 fighters A3D4
    (9 fighters at 3 per carrier division)

    So that makes it on average:
    3 hits or 4.3 hits for the japanese and six or nine hitpoints

    6.3 or 7 hits for the Americans and 8 or 10 hitpoints of which 4 are “free”.

    This means that on average, you would not destroy a single ship while you would get swated from the skies.

    If you allowed air wings to take two hits, the combat would go a second round but you would never get the results obtained historically.

    The idea of a -1 bonus to die rolls for surprise attacks is a cool one and I might play around with it.

    With my changes so far, what you would have on average for the combat however:
    American Fleet:
    4 BB Divisions each rolling 2 D6s for air defense (hit on a 1)
    2 cruisers rolling 1D6 for AA
    optional (though I do like the representation of DD flotillas at this scale) 2 DD flotillas rolling 1D6 for AA

    you would get 1.6 to 2 hits from AA

    6 fighters rolling on a 2 would be 2 hits. 9 fighters would be 3.6 hits.

    This still feels a bit low so a bonus from carrier based planes against naval targets could be an option.

    It would still not be enough to get an historical result but it is getting there. I can either lower the AA value of BBs to one D6 ,which would remove 0.6 hits so it would make the American fleet get one hit or 1.3 hits Depending on DDs being there or not.

    This would make it so that planes would suffer one hit on the AA barrage, and damage 2 to 4 BBs… Second round of combat could see the naval forces destroy another plane and suffer another 2 or 3 hits… This would make that you could destroy one BB division (2 BBs) possibly but of course, a savy player would allocate hits to cruisers or DDs. So the Japanese would damage BBs and destroy a single ship on two rounds But lose as much as half their striking force (2 or 3 planes) and now things would continue to worsen.

    The removal of the extra defensive die would also make other fleets more vulnerable to air attack but again, I need to revise OOB on the other theaters which I didn’t get around to yet so I will have to do a bit more work I guess.
    This would get us closer to the result.

    Anyway, if planes had the ability to soak some hits as well (becoming disrupted and attrition) this would be different and probably a lot closed to the historical result. The Japanese are unlikely to suffer any losses until round 4 or 5 and even with six fighters rolling on a 2, you would get 8 hits in four rounds. That would make the enemy fleets lose a lot of ships. But now the Japanese are a bit too strong as That would wipe out basically all cruisers and DDs and leave the BBs with one health. For no immediate losses or maybe one aircraft loss (and we still need to add the aircraft and the base AA to the result).

    If we had objectives to an attack (like, the Battleship moorings were an actual objective for the Japanese fleet), we could say that the Japanese player has one hit choice or two hit choices or something.

    I will game this out
    but it looks like it is on the right track imho. Then we can play around with surprise attack rules (like enemy units do not get a defensive shot in the first round of combat) and see how it goes.

    But that is basically the reasoning behind my proposed changes.


  • 2017 '16

    @mAIOR
    To simulate Pearl Harbour, you will need a special procedure because A&A is working under the assumption of Powers at war and fleet fully operational at sea.

    In that case, you can go for a full combat round without retaliation, followed by Surprised strike type of roll for Fighter.
    This Pearl raid is a very special case, similar to Taranto.

    Or, if you want to go historical. Pearl harbor was not the most efficient raid and IJN were not willing to throw a third waves against all Fuel facilities and Submarines.
    Which makes all the attack a strategic failure…



  • @baron-Münchhausen I won’t go into a discussion about why the Japanese didn’t attack the fuel facilities and the submarines but it was not in their immediate strategic goals for a reason.

    Even if you go a full combat round without retaliation in A&A you will still not achieve the immediate result.

    A&As scale a fleet being in port on in the adjacent sea are doesn’t really matter. There are other battles we can use to fine tune naval combat like Coral Sea or Midway even but each has their own particularities. The role of Naval intelligence was huge (hence this all began for me with adding a roll to see if you even find a ship or not).

    But even in a pitched Sea Battle, a Battleship ability to swat an air wing out of the sky was certainly not as high as it is represented in this game. Neither should strat bombers attack on a 4.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 312
  • 14
  • 4
  • 1
  • 9
  • 1
  • 24
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts