2 Turn Ship Construction



  • Option: You may build certain naval units over multiple turns.  You must pay the indicated cost on 2 different turns in order to complete the ship.  After paying the cost the first time, place the ship on the land region.  It is automatically destroyed if the territory is captured.

    Battleship: 9 IPCs (8 with improved Shipyards)
    Carrier: 6 IPCs (5 with improved Shipyards)
    Cruiser: 5 IPCs

    In short, at the cost of time and vulnerability, you can build ships at a cheaper cost, and allow you to buy expensive ships in small individual payments.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yea thats from AARHE developed like 6 years ago. We thru it out eventually because it was not very playable because the number of pieces on naval are too few and when you build them you usually buy them because of a crisis and the reaction of 2 turns could mean the difference of victory and defeat. AARHE has other ideas of great merit so keep reading it and post ideas from it.



  • @Imperious:

    Yea thats from AARHE developed like 6 years ago. We thru it out eventually because it was not very playable because the number of pieces on naval are too few and when you build them you usually buy them because of a crisis and the reaction of 2 turns could mean the difference of victory and defeat. AARHE has other ideas of great merit so keep reading it and post ideas from it.

    This was an extension of stuff discussed back in boardgamegeek forums.  However, I believe that AA50 has a different dynamic, with a slower, more strategic game, and the presence of Italy, who has difficulty buying Battleships/Carriers.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I can see it helps the cash poor nations, but your writing it as a mandate and NO BATTLESHIP OR CARRIER CAN BE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE TWO TURNS.

    I suggest it be an option for players to buy an expensive unit . That is you can build a CV or BB or perhaps a bomber over a turn turn period, but its not a requirement. Thats way it wont screw up the game like it did when playing revised and you needed the damm carrier right away.

    Besides if you look at it its not needed because you just:

    1. save up 50% of the money on the first turn
    2. spend the full amount of the purchase and buy the unit

    Its not like your “half Battleship” can be used on the first turn, so you dont need such a rule. Thats what we discovered in AARHE and the reason why it was dropped.

    I saw the post on BGG. I may have even posted in that thread that he was reading an old version of AARHE



  • @Imperious:

    I can see it helps the cash poor nations, but your writing it as a mandate and NO BATTLESHIP OR CARRIER CAN BE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE TWO TURNS.

    I suggest it be an option for players to buy an expensive unit . That is you can build a CV or BB or perhaps a bomber over a turn turn period, but its not a requirement. Thats way it wont screw up the game like it did when playing revised and you needed the damm carrier right away.

    Besides if you look at it its not needed because you just:

    1. save up 50% of the money on the first turn
    2. spend the full amount of the purchase and buy the unit

    Its not like your “half Battleship” can be used on the first turn, so you dont need such a rule. Thats what we discovered in AARHE and the reason why it was dropped.

    I saw the post on BGG. I may have even posted in that thread that he was reading an old version of AARHE

    @wodan46:

    Option: You may build certain naval units over multiple turns.

    The advantage of building it over the two turns is that you get money off the cost.  You are rewarded for patience.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Perhaps give the player the option to build at full price in one turn or reduced price in two turns?

    Battleship: 20 IPC in 1 turn, 12 IPC in 2 turns
    Cruiser: 12 IPC in 1 turn, 8 IPC in 2 turns
    Carrier: 14 IPC in 1 turn, 10 IPC in 2 turns

    Destroyers, transports and Submarines no change.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The advantage of building it over the two turns is that you get money off the cost.  You are rewarded for patience.

    That makes no sence. Why is it cheaper to build something over a longer period of time?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Imperious:

    The advantage of building it over the two turns is that you get money off the cost.  You are rewarded for patience.

    That makes no sence. Why is it cheaper to build something over a longer period of time?

    Bear in mind I once held the position of Project Manager (one of MANY) for a major construction company (PirTano Construction).  With that experience in mind, I can tell you that the cost of completing a project in half the time is usually more than double the cost.

    Here’s why:

    1)  You have to pay overtime usually
    2)  You have to pay for rush orders from your suppliers
    3)  You have to increase your labor force
    4)  You’ll have to reimburse the unions to keep them happy

    Generally speaking, I would say this rule should be written in similar wording as follows:

    It takes two rounds to build a battleship, carrier or cruiser.  However, if you decide, you may pay an extra 5 IPC per ship to decrease the build time and build it in one round instead of two.

    That extra IPC would account for people being pulled in after hours, extra workers called in, extra cost on materials, extra management (since it is a lot harder to keep your Critical Path lined up) etc.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    In both cases i think your assuming the games build time are always “rushed orders” I assume they are not. I assume further that to increase the build time over twice the actual time it takes to build X would cost MORE because your tying up the equipment for twice the time, employing the same people for a contract to build for twice the length of time, adding inflation of war materials and rising costs.

    Building ships like the liberty ships which took a week to construct was the most economical way to go because it was so well organized. If you had a huge ship half built and decided to take twice as long the costs most likely go up. Think housing construction.

    The longer a product takes the more it costs the company because they don’t make money on producing something else.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I guess an easy way to think of it would be material cost alone:

    You can chose to pay ground freight or overnight airmail.  Obviously shipping concrete and steel parts airmail is going to be prohibitively more expensive than freight.  But you are paying for the speed through the extra costs.  There’s a story of a man hired to build a bridge out in California.  He was told he would get some insanely large bonus if he finished ahead of schedule and passed all the inspections.  He hired helicopter crews to air haul huge sections of pre-assembled bridge sections cross country at exorbitant rates to finish for the maximum bonus (it was prorated.)

    He still made a profit, but the costs were crazy.


    Also, keep in mind that one crane is usually shared for many jobs as are specific crews, and managers etc.  If you are doubling the speed of production on one job, that detracts from their abilities to do their other jobs (because they are spending more than twice the time on the rush job.)

    For instance, once the sections of a boat are laid in place by the crane, you really don’t need that crane any more until that section is anchored, wired, plumbed, welded and riveted in place so that crane can go to the next boat and the next.  But at double time pace, that crane’s going to have less time to make the rounds which means you would need another crane to pick up the slack.

    In the biz we have something called float time.  The maximum time we expect a section of the critical path (that would be the series of events that if delayed, delay the entire project and if sped up can speed up the entire project) and the minimum time we expect a section of the project to be completed.  During the “float” (or the difference between the two) we schedule those workers not immediately being used for that part of the project to other projects so we can maximize their efficiency.

    By rushing the order you are taking out all the float time from the critical path (this usually results in the creation of new paths or additional critical paths) and you are taking those resources away from other projects which could also create more critical paths or new critical paths there.



  • That’s pretty much how I perceived it.  Rushing the construction of things costs money.  While things like Liberty Ships might make sense to mass produce very fast, something like a Battleship is not.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    You can chose to pay ground freight or overnight airmail.

    Why are you assuming this is an airmail?

    I am assuming its normal ground freight = normal build schedule.

    So i’m my mind the proper analogy is: I send the thing my normal shipping and you want to have a guy psychically walk to new york to drop it off.

    If your building homes you want them build during the normal state of construction. That way they can be on the market to sell. If you want to waste wages you employ the guys twice as long and goof around building the home and make less money.

    The normal method is build time = 1 turn and both of you keep calling it a “Rush job” and that has not been established.

    Still i have no idea why you just don’t save the money on turn 1 and buy the thing on turn 2. That does the same thing, but if you want to make the naval units even cheaper by a 2 turn build thing, then it must balance with the other naval because AA50 already dropped the prices on naval and to make the BB even cheaper you have already made the most powerful unit even cheaper.

    If you compare the prices the BB is top ship. The CA CV and DD have no contentions to the BB by cost/value.

    plug in 20 CA vs. 12 BB in any battle sim.



  • @Imperious:

    If you compare the prices the BB is top ship. The CA CV and DD have no contentions to the BB by cost/value.

    Carrier groups will beat Battleships if they are defending.  Destroyer groups will always beat Battleships.  Cruisers suck against everything always.  They lose when attacking Subs and a Destroyer is present.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Carrier groups will beat Battleships if they are defending.  Destroyer groups will always beat Battleships.  Cruisers suck against everything always.  They lose when attacking Subs and a Destroyer is present.

    no they don’t. I have done dozens of sims with equal purchases of BB to CV + fighters or BB vs DD or BB vs CA and also done the same with some or all of the other ships thrown in and the BB wins anytime.

    In fact the cruiser is a really poor buy and its cost should be 11 IPC



  • @Imperious:

    no they don’t. I have done dozens of sims with equal purchases of BB to CV + fighters or BB vs DD or BB vs CA and also done the same with some or all of the other ships thrown in and the BB wins anytime.

    Prove it.  DDs and CV+Fighters consistently beat BBs, and I’ve never seen evidence to the contrary.

    Since I can’t find a good calculator for AA50 stats, lets Take 800 Battleships versus 2000 Destroyers, enough to eliminate variance.

    Round 0: 800 Battleships, 2000 Destroyers
    Round 1 end: 800 Battleships (133 blocks left), 1467 Destroyers
    Round 2 end: 444 Battleships, 934 Destroyers
    Round 3 end: 133 Battleships, 638 Destroyers
    Round 4 end: 0 Battleships, 549 Destroyers


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    OK fine:

    12 BB vs. 20 CA Battleships win 85.056%

    3 CV + 6 fighters (102 IPC) vs 5 BB  the BB wins 72.071%

    If you take the same thing and add 5 CA and 5 DD to each side the side with the Battleships win  72.485%

    If you got 6 BB attacking w/ 1 DESTROYER  (128 IPC) vs. 21 SS  (126) the Battleships win 48.237%

    also 6 DD attacking 8 SS win 59.612% of the time, but subs win if they are attacking.



  • @Imperious:

    12 BB vs. 20 CA Battleships win 85.056%

    Duh.  Cruisers suck even more stat-wise than Battleships do.

    @Imperious:

    3 CV + 6 fighters (102 IPC) vs 5 BB  the BB wins 72.071%

    Are the CV+Fighters attacking?

    @Imperious:

    If you take the same thing and add 5 CA and 5 DD to each side the side with the Battleships win  72.485%

    @Imperious:

    If you got 6 BB attacking w/ 1 DESTROYER  (128 IPC) vs. 21 SS  (126) the Battleships win 48.237%

    Yes, BB beat Subs when attacking, as do Destroyers.

    However, so far, you presume that Carrier Groups attack and Sub groups defend, each time putting them in a weaker position.  If you don’t make such presumptions, the Carrier Groups and Subs will win.

    Destroyers, on the other hand, always beat Battleships.

    @Imperious:

    also 6 DD attacking 8 SS win 59.612% of the time, but subs win if they are attacking.

    Which shows how strong Subs are.  They barely lose even when being attacked by their nemesis, the Destroyer.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    3 CV + 6 fighters (102 IPC) vs 5 BB (100 IPC) the BB wins 72.071%
    (Are the CV+Fighters attacking?)

    yes but>>>

    lets say you got:

    3 CV, 6 Fighters, 5 DD and 5 CA defending against

    6 BB, 5 DD and 5 CA attacking  (both at 220 IPC)

    the attackers win 46.125%, but reversed the difference is 71.517% for the BB

    The “JUICE” as they call it in the casino shows over all that when the BB mixed in with other ships and compared with
    the CV and fighters mixed in with other ships , that the BB reigns supreme. Plus if you add in the idea of hit and run tactics, the BB can soak off 6 hits while cleaning up the defenders because they cant take ‘free hits’

    The subs are greater on offense, but horrible on defense…so they are only to be used for attacking

    The DD and CA are just soakers, while the CV and fighters can be used multipurpose.

    The BB is king at 20 IPC

    If you want to make the cruisers more competitive the price should be at 11 IPC, but still they fair poor vs the BB but marginally.



  • @Imperious:

    the attackers win 46.125%, but reversed the difference is 71.517% for the BB

    That is because Carrier Groups are weak on offense

    @Imperious:

    The “JUICE” as they call it in the casino shows over all that when the BB mixed in with other ships and compared with
    the CV and fighters mixed in with other ships , that the BB reigns supreme. Plus if you add in the idea of hit and run tactics, the BB can soak off 6 hits while cleaning up the defenders because they cant take ‘free hits’

    And that is why Battleships are a good unit.  However, they will NOT defeat an equally costed fleet of Destroyers in a fight to the death.

    @Imperious:

    The subs are greater on offense, but horrible on defense…so they are only to be used for attacking

    Horrible on defense?

    20 Subs have 20 Defense, 20 HP
    6 Battleships have 24 Defense, 12 HP
    10 Cruisers have 30 Defense, 10 HP
    15 Destroyers have 30 Defense, 15 HP

    Yes, they have weak attacks, but they have a superior ability to absorb hits.

    @Imperious:

    The DD and CA are just soakers, while the CV and fighters can be used multipurpose.

    DD and CA both have superior Attack/Defense per IPC than Battleships, while DD also have more HP per IPC, though they lose Attack/Defense faster when damaged than BBs.

    @Imperious:

    If you want to make the cruisers more competitive the price should be at 11 IPC, but still they fair poor vs the BB but marginally.

    Why not 10 IPCs?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    the attackers win 46.125%, but reversed the difference is 71.517% for the BB
    That is because Carrier Groups are weak on offense

    That makes the choice poorer to buy also.

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:17:21 pm
    The “JUICE” as they call it in the casino shows over all that when the BB mixed in with other ships and compared with
    the CV and fighters mixed in with other ships , that the BB reigns supreme. Plus if you add in the idea of hit and run tactics, the BB can soak off 6 hits while cleaning up the defenders because they cant take ‘free hits’
    And that is why Battleships are a good unit.  However, they will NOT defeat an equally costed fleet of Destroyers in a fight to the death.

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:17:21 pm
    The subs are greater on offense, but horrible on defense…so they are only to be used for attacking
    Horrible on defense?

    20 Subs have 20 Defense, 20 HP
    6 Battleships have 24 Defense, 12 HP
    10 Cruisers have 30 Defense, 10 HP
    15 Destroyers have 30 Defense, 15 HP

    Yes, they have weak attacks, but they have a superior ability to absorb hits.

    but in combat thats all that is concerned, and it proves one is inferior to the other. Nothing else matters except the results of combat.

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:17:21 pm
    The DD and CA are just soakers, while the CV and fighters can be used multipurpose.
    DD and CA both have superior Attack/Defense per IPC than Battleships, while DD also have more HP per IPC, though they lose Attack/Defense faster when damaged than BBs.

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:17:21 pm
    If you want to make the cruisers more competitive the price should be at 11 IPC, but still they fair poor vs the BB but marginally.
    Why not 10 IPCs?

    The sims show that the balance changes huge in favor of cruisers at 10, but 11 is close to 50% Thats what you want namely for all the units to be basically close on a cost value basis, and THEN have some unique ability that you use them for a specific function, ASW, Shore shot, etc…



  • @Imperious:

    the attackers win 46.125%, but reversed the difference is 71.517% for the BB
    That is because Carrier Groups are weak on offense

    That makes the choice poorer to buy also.

    That is because Carrier Groups have the best ground attack capacities.

    @Imperious:

    but in combat thats all that is concerned, and it proves one is inferior to the other. Nothing else matters except the results of combat.

    Which is that Subs win?

    Take 180 Battleships versus 600 Subs (assumed that Destroyer is always present)
    Round1: 180 Battleships (80 blocks left) vs. 480 Subs
    Round2: 180 Battleships (0 blocks left) vs. 360 Subs
    Round3: 120 Battleships vs. 240 Subs
    Round4: 80 Battleships vs. 160 Subs
    Round5: 60 Battleships vs. 107 Subs
    Round6: 42 Battleships vs. 67 Subs
    Round7: 31 Battleships vs. 39 Subs
    Round8: 25 Battleships vs. 18 Subs
    Round9: 22 Battleships vs. 2 Subs
    Round10: 21 Battleships vs. 0 Subs
    Net losses=3180 for Battleships, 3600 for Subs

    In short, even when Battleships attack Subs that have been deprived of first strike, they still only barely win.  If the Subs DO have first strike or are attacking, it isn’t even a contest.

    Also, you still haven’t acknowledged that Destroyers beat their weight in Battleships, even after I specifically showed a round by round battle between arbitrarily large numbers of them.

    The sims show that the balance changes huge in favor of cruisers at 10, but 11 is close to 50% Thats what you want namely for all the units to be basically close on a cost value basis, and THEN have some unique ability that you use them for a specific function, ASW, Shore shot, etc…

    10 Destroyers will still beat 8 Cruisers, which cost equal if Cruisers cost 10
    10 Cost Cruisers beat 20 Cost Battleships, but that’s why you lower the cost of Battleships to 18.

    And if that is unbalanced, that is what the 2 turn ship construction rule is for.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Quote
    the attackers win 46.125%, but reversed the difference is 71.517% for the BB
    That is because Carrier Groups are weak on offense

    That makes the choice poorer to buy also.
    That is because Carrier Groups have the best ground attack capacities.

    Yes but poorer naval units…

    Quote from: Imperious Leader on February 08, 2009, 09:22:05 pm
    but in combat thats all that is concerned, and it proves one is inferior to the other. Nothing else matters except the results of combat.
    Which is that Subs win?

    Subs are only the best on attack, on defense they suck. The best all around for both is the BB according to the sims, but others could be built for their own reasons under most conditions the BB is the best by according to the sims.

    In short, even when Battleships attack Subs that have been deprived of first strike, they still only barely win.  If the Subs DO have first strike or are attacking, it isn’t even a contest.

    Also, you still haven’t acknowledged that Destroyers beat their weight in Battleships, even after I specifically showed a round by round battle between arbitrarily large numbers of them.

    Its true that the DD beats the BB, But the BB beats the CA and the BB beats the CV with fighters, and in mixed battles with the BB on one side with CA and DD and the CV with fighters plus DD and CA the BB group wins.

    Quote
    The sims show that the balance changes huge in favor of cruisers at 10, but 11 is close to 50% Thats what you want namely for all the units to be basically close on a cost value basis, and THEN have some unique ability that you use them for a specific function, ASW, Shore shot, etc…
    10 Destroyers will still beat 8 Cruisers, which cost equal if Cruisers cost 10
    10 Cost Cruisers beat 20 Cost Battleships, but that’s why you lower the cost of Battleships to 18.

    Yes cruisers at 10 bring it to 46%

    If the CA at 10 and BB at 18 the BB wins  60.5%

    If the CA at 11 and the BB at 20 the BB wins 57.7%

    If you got CA at 10 and the BB at 19 the CA wins at  56.5%

    I prefer CA at 11 rather than 10, because lowering both the CA and BB will upset the other naval.

    And if that is unbalanced, that is what the 2 turn ship construction rule is for.

    2 turn construction is not a viable solution for combat sim results. Thats makes no sence. If it did then the subs should take 2 turns to construct because they are better on attack.

    If you want to give a discount on naval for wasting double the time to construct the unit, its not realistic and i don’t think it will do anything except mess up the game like it did when we had it in our AARHE rules for a few years and playing it messed up strategy because you would build something to cover a hole and it was too late to solve the problem or something else happened and you needed the funds for another crisis.

    How would you like to wait 2 turns for Infantry?  Its the same problems only once your naval is gone its gone if your the axis. The 2 turn thing hurts the non-naval powers too much.



  • regarding costs
    paying for overtime or express freight is to me below the level of abstraction
    and may not make complete sense in war (total war)


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    The thing is Battleships are like Submarines.  You don’t want ONLY those units in your fleet.  However, if you have 3 battleships and your opponent has no battleships, you can strafe him all day long with the knowledge that three of his hits will not count and all of yours will.

    I use this fact routinely in combats. (Probably why I have the title I do.)

    For instance:

    I want to attack you and I have 3 battleships you have none.

    I can look at your fleet and say your 4 defending fighters and destroyer are nullified in round 1 and look at the punch I have vs the punch you have to determine my casualties.  Sure, you COULD get 5 hits, but you probably won’t, you’ll probably get 3 hits with all that.  But since you have no battleships, I know that I can count on 1 hit for every 6 punch my fleet does have.

    More often than not, this will work out in my favor.

    To compare Destroyers to Battleships (submarines have sneak shots, so not good comparison, also destroyers and battleships both defend and attack at the same values so it won’t matter what side you are on, technically) you might say in a battle to the death, the destroyers are the better deal.  But who says you are fighting to the death???

    40 Battleships vs 100 Destroyers (800 IPC each)

    First Round:
    Attacker scores (probably) 27 Hits
    Defender scores (probably) 33 Hits

    Attacker has 33 Damaged Battleships, 7 Undamaged Battleships.  Defender has 73 Destroyers

    Attacker retreats.

    Cost to the Attacker = 0 IPC
    Cost to the Defender = 216 IPC

    If the defender then turns around to attack the battleships it’s:

    Attacker: 24 Hits in Round 1
    Defender: 27 Hits in Round 1

    Defending Battleships STILL are not all damaged, but yet another third of the attacking destroyers have been eliminated.

    And that, gentlemen, is the utility of the battleship.  You don’t necessarily use it to crush the enemy into artificial reefs, you use it to hit and run with the enemy to your advantage.



  • Damnit, I keep forgetting that battles aren’t to the death anymore, and that units can retreat.  Such makes the Battleship vastly superior.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 7
  • 32
  • 5
  • 19
  • 1
  • 1
  • 18
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts