[Global 1940] 10 sides dice

• Scale on D10:

| **Unit
type  ** |     | **D10 com.
values  ** | **OOB odds
offense  ** | **OOB odds
defense  ** | OOB values |

| Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Mechanized
Infantry
| A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Artillery | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Anti-Aircraft
Artillery
| A0 D1 | 0% | 17% |             | A0 D1 |
| Tank | A5 D5 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Fighter | A5 D7 | 50% | 67% |             | A3 D4 |
| Tactical
Bomber
| A6-7 D5 | 50-67% | 50% |             | A3-4 D3 |
| Strategic
Bomber
| A6 D2 | 67% | 17% |             | A4 D1 |
| Submarine | A3 D2 | 33% | 17% |             | A2 D1 |
| Destroyer | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Cruiser | A6 D6 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Carrier | A0 D3 | 0% | 33% |             | A0 D2 |
| Battleship | A7 D7 | 67% | 67% |             | A4 D4 |

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser     strength: .60
144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

Even such cost structure would not solve the warships DD vs Cruiser vs BB issue.
D8 allows it, because it goes from DD@2 25%, CA@5 62.5%, BB@6 75%:
Destroyer    A2 D2 (0.563 / 0.563)
Destroyer    A3 D3 (0.844 / 0.844)
Cruiser        A5 D5  (0.625 / 0.625)
Battleship    A6 D6   (0.707 / 0.707)

So, buying cheap you get weaker unit but costlier it becomes stronger, as it is suppose to be.

Is it what you will use?

I would probably ponder about AAA, StB and Sub defense values.
Maybe the weak odds are more realistic @1 out of 10 instead of rising them to 20%.

I might go this way:
AAA A0 D1 vs up to 3 planes but lower cost to 3 IPCs each.
OOB you get near 50% when 3 planes targeted for 5 IPCs: 10% per IPC.
Here you keep same ratio: 30% for 3 IPCs: 10% per IPC.

StB A7 D1

Sub A3 D2
Because Subs on defense are usually trapped by planes and 1 DD.
The game mechanic make Subs too much vulnerable. Defense @2 is a small compensation.

I would prefer TcB A6-7 D5, that way combined arms simply gives +1A to Inf, MI and TcB.
Fg A5 D7 vs TcB A6 D5 seems a nice way to make both planes different.

• Haven’t followed this too closely, but how many play ftf with an electronic dice roller ? Always enjoyed rolling dice but the larger battles, mostly late game, can become a bit tedious.

Baron makes a good case for D8. First saw it on YGs thread. Sounded interesting. Anyway, large naval battles can have such a major swing with large tuv involved, especially if one rolls poorly the first rd, if the D8 wouldn’t provide a better system combined with a smaller deviation from the D6

• @Baron:

Scale on D10:

| **Unit
type  ** |     | **D10 com.
values  ** | **OOB odds
offense  ** | **OOB odds
defense  ** | OOB values |

| Infantry | A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Mechanized
Infantry
| A2-3 D3 | 17-33% | 33% |             | A1-2 D2 |
| Artillery | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Anti-Aircraft
Artillery
| A0 D1 | 0% | 17% |             | A0 D1 |
| Tank | A5 D5 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Fighter | A5 D7 | 50% | 67% |             | A3 D4 |
| Tactical
Bomber
| A6-7 D5 | 50-67% | 50% |             | A3-4 D3 |
| Strategic
Bomber
| A6 D2 | 67% | 17% |             | A4 D1 |
| Submarine | A3 D2 | 33% | 17% |             | A2 D1 |
| Destroyer | A3 D3 | 33% | 33% |             | A2 D2 |
| Cruiser | A6 D6 | 50% | 50% |             | A3 D3 |
| Carrier | A0 D3 | 0% | 33% |             | A0 D2 |
| Battleship | A7 D7 | 67% | 67% |             | A4 D4 |

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser     strength: .60
144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

Even such cost structure would not solve the warships DD vs Cruiser vs BB issue.
D8 allows it, because it goes from DD@2 25%, CA@5 62.5%, BB@6 75%:
Destroyer    A2 D2 (0.563 / 0.563)
Destroyer    A3 D3 (0.844 / 0.844)
Cruiser        A5 D5  (0.625 / 0.625)
Battleship    A6 D6   (0.707 / 0.707)

So, buying cheap you get weaker unit but costlier it becomes stronger, as it is suppose to be.

I like your D10 numbers with the exception of the TB with attack of 6/7. I would change that to A5/A6. With that change the strategic bomber in comparison to the tactical bomber will be a bit weak at A6 and overall too powerful at A7. I am not an AAG40 expert but I believe people are complaining that strategic bombers are too powerful at 67% odds of attack, imagine that at 70%. In any case strategic bombers need a bit of rule nerfing. I like what they did for Global War.

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60
144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

What do the numbers mean? My Friday afternoon brain cannot figure it out.

• Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)
(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.667
31 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60
144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)

9

188

3

4

8

3

6

4