G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Hey Baron
There is no Global 1939 for triplea, not the one you’re talking about anyway. We’d probably all be playing that if there was. :) I did run across a thing called maxAArounds that determines the number of rounds the aagun fires. IDK if you can give a transport a aagun or not,you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work), but if you can you could come close to what you’re after. I’ll take a closer look at it.

Sadly I don’t think there’s anyway around the sub issue. I haven’t asked anyone but that’s how it looks to me. It does seem like there are a few more developers around these days and nerquen altered the code for his house rule so maybe somebody will take it on in the future.

@barney:

. . .you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work). . . .

Barney, not sure if you mean to say that a battleship can’t serve as a transport because it has an attack value, but it can. Here is how u do it:

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“battleship” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”></attatchment>

In this case, I changed regular transports to have 11 transportCapacity, and set the transport cost for the units as follows:

Marine: 4
Infantry: 5
All other land units: 6

This ensures that only a single marine can ‘fit’ onto a battleship (or cruiser), while the usual unit combinations will continue to fit onto a regular transport (which can also carry two marines).

Also, I’ve play tested the Marines with a number of good G40 players over the last couple of days, and it seems that the optimal cost for the unit is 5 PUs (you’re getting an artillery powered unit that doesn’t require a transport). No number restriction is necessary.

Also, we tried playing with your Militia unit (0 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement, 2 cost, no artillery support), confining it to china. It worked great. Again, no number restriction was required.

When we gonna do our 1 v. 1 playtest, Barney?    :P

Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree  you’d have to go 5.

Just finishing stuff up. That NAP is gonna work great now I think. I’ll see how things go and pop on tommorrow night. Unfortunately I’m having trouble trying to edit the Vichy map. It keeps freezing on me. I’ll give it another go tomorrow

@barney:

Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree  you’d have to go 5.

I agree, too.
Any unit going up to Attack or Defense 3 should be at 5 IPCs.

Once said, I wonder if you could be interested by Mechanized Artillery at 5 IPCs, or is it outstretched?
Looking at how you both make miracles and tripleA dreams come true with XML files, I’m sure there is some possibilities to start from MI with blitz pairing with Tank and upgrade a new unit to at least a A2 D2 M2 giving +1A to MI or Inf.
Black Elk opinion on that one is mandatory I believe.
How far this 5 IPCs ground unit is missing in the roster to really improve Eastern front German-Soviet war for people is not clear.

I know from Calc POV that any 11 IPCs paired units which gives A6 D6, 2 hits is a close even match to A4 D4, 2 hits at 9 IPCs.
9 A3 D3 vs 11 A2 D2 gives near 50% odds of survival.
And this explain why 2 AA50 Tanks were slightly OP at A6 D6 M2 C10 and Classic Tank A3 D2 C5 was on this spot (A6 D4 C10, 2 hits) when averaging offense and defense.
So, a unit A3 D3 C5.5 is even matched to a unit A2 D2 C4.5.
Said otherwise, A2.5 D2.5 C5 is a balanced match too.

To summarize for same ability to Move 2, here is balanced numbers between them:
A7 D7, 2 hits, 12 IPCs or A3.5 D3.5 Cost 6
A6 D6, 2 hits, 11 IPCs or A3 D3 Cost 5.5
A5 D5, 2 hits, 10 IPCs or A2.5 D2.5 Cost 5
A4 D4, 2 hits, 9 IPCs or A2 D2 Cost 4.5
A3 D3, 2 hits, 8 IPCs or A1.5 D1.5 Cost 4
A2 D2, 2 hits, 7 IPCs or A1 D1 Cost 3.5
A1 D1, 2 hits, 6 IPCs or A.5 D.5 Cost 3

That is why I gave to my MechArt +1 A/D pairing bonus with Tank.
Alone MA A2 D2 M2 C5 cost higher than 4.5 IPCs, hence slightly underpowered.
With MI, this gives A4 D4 M2, 2 hits for 9 IPCs, just on the line.
With Tank, it gets A6 D6 M2, 2 hits for 11 IPCs, right on the same line.
Finally, MA+MI+Tk could reach A8 D8 M2, 3 hits, 15 IPCs,
for an avg/unit: A2.67 D2.67 for 5 IPCs.
However, this 1:1:1 combined arms is slightly above the line.
And this can be a balance issue for M2 units.

An Elite A2 D2 M1-2 C4 + MI A1-2 D2 M2 C4 is not OP on offense because you get A3 D4 M2, 2 hits, C8, avg/unit A1.5 D2 for 4 IPCs.
This is still on the line at 1.5 for 4 IPCs.
This table also reveal that its defense factor D2 would be slightly above the 1.5 line.
This can be acceptable since Elite Infantry is not always a M2 unit and is not better than Inf or Art or MI on defense.

Balanced MA at 5 IPCs should not be higher than stats below (example of too high values: A2 D3 M2 C5, +1 to Inf or MI), otherwise it would be better than Tank (in the last example, clearly better on defense, for 1 IPC less, and a bit better on attack, too, when pairing with MI):

Mechanized Artillery
Attack 2-3
Defense 2-3
Move 2
Cost 5
Can either be paired 1:1 with MI/Inf or Tank, not both.
Gives +1A to Inf or MI
Gets +1A or +1D when paired to Tank
Can blitz when paired to Tank or with Tank+MI.

Another reason to keep it paired 1:1 with either MI or Tank is because of the Tech:
Improved Mechanized Infantry which gives to all MI A2 D2 M2, blitz alone.
If 1:1:1 combined arms is allowed, then this Tech will not make any difference or could rise to a high A9 this combos (A3 avg for each unit seems too high).
1:1:1 is A1+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A8 for 15 IPCs, 3 hits : A2.67/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise to A2+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A9

1:1 only is A1+A2+1A+A3= A7, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : A2.33/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise A2+ A2+1A+A3= A8

In both case, same defense: D2+D2+1D+D3=D8, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : D2.67/hit/5 IPCs.
So my Mech Art suggestion combos creates an average per unit A2.33 D2.67 M2 C5, and averaging offense and defense makes for 2.5 A/D for 5 IPCs, right on the line! See table above.

Here’s another update:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/00bksz

There are 4 maps.
Td no armor or mech builds at new or captured minors.
TdMECH You can build armor and mechs
TdMECHSHIPYARD same as above with shipyard prices
TdMECHVICHY same as MECH with regularkid’s Vichy rules

All maps have updated game notes.The following is the same for all.

Russia/Japan NAP
Removed the 3 PU cost to declare war. Changed the Lend-Lease NO to SZ 5 and control of Amur. You get a extra buck if Japan declares on Russia but not if Russia declares on Japan. SZ 80 also gets a extra buck. SZ 5 has no convoy symbol for now.

The Strategic Islands NO for the US and Japn has been removed.

The All Island Conquest NO goes into effect for the Allies after Japan takes them and after turn 4 for Japan.

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Left the valueless island boost to 1 objective the same for now. If It’s a J1 it won’t matter anyway, otherwise it may influence Japan to consider her options.

Militia is the same. You probably wouldn’t have to worry about China spamming them if they were unlimited since they don’t have the dough. I wouldn’t want to see a pile of them in Moscow or Italy or anywhere else though. Thought about boosting UKPs build limit to 4 to counter the J1, but you can still get a Russian mech force there pretty quickly. Anyway they’re the same for now.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

@barney:

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

If Elite cost 5 and are boosted by Art +1A for A3, there is no difference with Marines A1 doing debarkment +1A with Art+1A = A3, except for 1 IPC lower.

To make a real play-test for Elite Infantry viability, it should be 4 IPCs and no Arty boost.
That was the core of my idea: no A3 footmen unit.
Otherwise, better keep Marines as they are.

yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out.

Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.

@barney:

yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out. Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.

It was intentional. Arty and Infantry stay the optimized buy.
That way, there is no Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs spam.
The first bonus is that Elite hit as hard as Arty but take the place of an Infantry in TP.
Hence, you  can hit harder A5 with Tank (A2+A3).  For a single TP, there is no other way to max out the ground attack. So, if a player want the highest punch for an amphibious assault, the best combos will be Inf and Art in many TPs plus Elite Infantry on every TP loaded with one Tank.

The second bonus is coming from being carried on a Battleship.
Even a Naval group with BB and TP, provides a way to bring 1 additional ground unit can be enough attractive to buy a 4 IPCs Elite Infantry to put on board BB.

These two features appear to me balanced, distinctive and have limit by itself.
Pacific Marines don’t have it because for 8 IPCs, Marines and Arty, you already get the stronger punch A5, there is no need for Tank with them, since Marines acts like Tank on Amphibious assault for 2 IPCs less. A real deal! That’s why an artificial limit is required to not spammed them.

On AA gun put on TP, it is a good news.  :-)
Don’t forget, it is not a preemptive AA @1 but a regular AA @1 defense.
IDK if it is possible to get it that way. I still hope so.
And TP should also worth 1 hit against warships but zero defense.
Probably easier to start from scratch with a regular unit and give it A0 D0, 1 hit, then built the AA code as its only defense. Then adding carrying capacity.
Thanks man for all your efforts and work.
It is a precious contribution to such a project, you have no idea.

It could be a real game changer which can increase the naval dynamics.

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.

A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.

@regularkid:

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.
A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.

If Marines are really A1 D2 M1, A2 during amphibious assault, no arty bonus?, they should cost 4 IPCs.
If they are too convenient on board Cruiser and Battleship, they shouldn’t rise to 5 IPCs.
Your diagnosis is right about it, but the cure I suggest is different.
The issue is that Cruiser should not get this carrying capacity at all.
That way, Germany effectively starts the game with only 1 conventional transport, and 1 capital ships (3 units: 2 Infs+ 1 other), and Japan starts the game with 3 conventional transports and 2 capital ships (8 units: 5 Infs+3 others).

The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463
On next play-test only use Battleship to carry 4 IPCs Marines, I believe it is far less OP.

I agree about not giving specific carrying TP bonus to US.
But it worth the try before changing MI features to all nations TPs.
If it is not that useful a change for USA strategy (in Africa and Europe), which should benefit the most, then keep OOB TP capacity.

Maybe Japan and Italy can use TP able to carry 2 MIs, too.
If it is more advantageous for these two Axis than USA, then it should stay OOB.
Axis seems well on top in this game.

Unless Black Elk wants a deeper Redesign, in which cheaper boats for Allies (SS5, DD6, TP7, CA9, CV12, BB15) can compete with a fast Axis expansion in Asia and Africa due to this TP able to carry 2 MIs or 1 MI+ 1 Tank.
So, maybe it worth a try if all nations get this TP capacity.

I agree that paratrooper can be a one way ticket without airbase.
But unloading Elite from BB in an island without NB and not allowing to reembarke seems weird.

I’m pretty sure that limiting Elite to Battleship transport is enough to self-limit their usefulness, even if they have similar value than Arty, A2 D2 M1 C4, but with no combined arms combat bonus.

1 Elite moving with big plane (StB), 1 with big warship (BB), seems an interesting theme.
Any other idea for moving them by land?
I can’t think about other thing than Mechanized Infantry pairing with 1 Elite somehow.

Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.

Maybe this should be tied to 1 Elite per major IC+base per turn, you get 2 Elites when you have both AB and NB in major IC TTy.
So, if minor IC can’t produce them, it is a way to show how it is home-made dedicated and highly trained unit.

@Black_Elk:

Well if the marines take the island, they can build a seabee Naval Base the following round. Subdue the oposition. Or wait for a normal transport to pick them up after.

Pairing elites to a mobile ground unit is interesting. This could be a cool way to give them a land role in addition to their role at sea and in the air. I would go armor rather than mech though. This would restore some functionality to the expensive 6 ipc tank.
If you wanted to create a cap restriction similar to the naval and air base restriction, then you could tie this ability to the minor/major factory unit.

If it goes with armor moving 2, then at 4 IPCs, it can hardly be A2, it will be better than MI.
And it gets less simpler with air and amphibious attack.

Or it could be A1 D2 C4 and like ordinary Inf, getting +1 with Artillery.
Only better mobility with Tank, Bomber, Battleship.
But at such lower basic combat value, I would allow +1M with Mech Inf too.
And Elite doesn’t need to be that restricted with BB.
Limiting production to 1 per turn per major IC plus base would be enough.

I’m maybe too negative.
If there is 1 Elite unit per base with major IC per turn,  this give only a few elite units.
This Elite unit can be simply
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Cost 4
Can load 1 on Battleship with NB or 1 on StBomber to airdrop with AB.
Can move 2 when paired 1:1 with Tank, and blitz along with Tank.
No bonus with Artillery.

This last Elite Infantry could work for Marines, paratroopers, Royal Marines and British commandoes, and SS troopers.

I suggest that there is none of them in set-up.
They will build slowly each game turn, from intensive training due to on war status.

Maybe a DOW could be needed to allow this unit purchase?

Yea I don’t really like the idea of a 3A infantry unit either. The marines aren’t too bad since they can only do it on amphib but…I don’t think I’d go with cruisers packing them around though. You’d have half the fleet capable then which doesn’t seem ideal.

An elite air/sea unit for 4 bucks. A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost, battleship can pack 1. Is also a paratrooper. Most games I’ve seen with paratroopers they’re dropped from bombers which is pretty powerful. Or you could stay with the current rule where they get dropped from the AB. I don’t really like that one.  You could drop them from an air transport with no attack value. I know some people do that and which is the way I’d probably go.

Having the Bases activate them might be a little tricky. Unlike the SBRs though I think you could do it.

Or you could stay with the current rule where they get dropped from the AB.

Is it a Tech or a basic feature on TripleA?
I thought it was a Tech.

For TripleA, using AB as paratrooper/elite infantry launcher can be ok as a basic feature.
The Tech could allow for still ordinary infantry to be airdropped.

It’s a tech. You could just give it to everybody though.

Black Elk:

Agree with everything you said, except on one point: With a purchase price of 5 PUs, and the stats I described earlier, no further restrictions are needed (and, as a general matter, the less “special” rules u put on a unit, the better). I can speak from experience cuz I’ve actually play tested the unit with several players over the last few days. The unit does not get spammed. It does, however, get used in its historic function. I think allowing air drop is good, as is renaming the unit “Elite Infantry” rather than “Marine.”

@Black_Elk:

My preference would be for no purchase limit, since that seems to me rather unprecedented for A&A, at least since the earliest rulesets of Classic.

The USMC may have had 6 divisions in the war, but I’d rather preserve these units as a generic “Elite” type, and not pigeon hole them into a specific description as marines etc. I think trying to create exact ratios for a unit sculpt to historical division numbers is always problematic. Better I think to leave the purchasing as normal, without limits, and leave it up to the players discretion to decide how many to buy.

If the 5 ipc cost is the sweet spot rather than 4, then perhaps just increase the functionality/ability of the unit so they can also serve as airborne? Another combat role beyond just the amphibious invasion. I think this would be the ideal solution, since it gives the US for example,  a way to have these units used in Europe without breaking with whole Marines only in the Pac thing.

Perhaps these units could have their abilities associated with units at bases rather than just with units. For example, Elite ‘marines’ can only embark on the battleship if it moves from an opperational naval base. Or similarly Elite ‘paratroopers’ can only hitch a ride on a bomber if it takes off from an airbase. Or something along those lines. This seems a bit easier to me than introducing a separate class of infantry for each nations potential elite infantry. Just make it into a catch all.

Basically I’d put the focus on the potential strategic movement advantage, rather than the attack/defense value for the cost. Even if they had the same value as a normal infantry unit in combat, the ability to move in ways that normal infantry can’t would be a pretty strong incentive to buy some, without unleashing a spam that might occur if the unit is significantly stronger than the inf artillery combo. We don’t want the elites to totally eclipse infantry as the go to ground purchase, especially for nations that have to move across the sea to reach the action.

Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.

An Elite at an NB is considered a Marine, an Elite at an AB is considered airborne.

This would encourage the building of naval bases in the Pacific to move Marines around on battleships. And if used as a paratrooper, tying the elites to the AirBase rather than the bomber would place some limits on their use, like Germany in the dark skies for example.

@regularkid:

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Is it what you have in mind Kid?
Marines/Paratrooper
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 5
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Gets +1A when airdropped, but cannot be supported by Artillery.
Can combine with +1A Artillery bonus in other situation.

If it is the case, I don’t see why this couldn’t be at 4 IPCs.
Here is a slightly different Elite unit:

Elite Infantry
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Cost 4
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Gets +1A when airdropped, but cannot be supported by Artillery.
Can get +1A Artillery bonus when paired 1:1, in all other situations.
Can move 2 when paired 1:1 with Tank, and can blitz along with Tank.

How this unit can be OP, I don’t see.