Posts made by CrazyIvan

@SS-GEN Yep, once again using out of A&A naval terms.

CA = Heavy Cruiser {Used to be ‘Cruiser, Armoured’ hence CA}
CL = Light Cruiser {'Cruiser, Light}

Ok, that is probably the cleanest it’s going to get, now do me a favor, and tell me what that table is telling you, because I know what it means to me, and what it is supposed to mean to everyone else, but as you have seen, what I think it says to other, and what it actually does, may not be exactly the same.:relaxed:

Ok, so this is a start, but I need to do at least two more, so hold off for a second.

For the Naval Surface combatants, here is what I have in mind…

And now for the revised carriers…

*CAG = Carrier Air Group

Forgive me, I need a minute to get my ideas into a table, and as I have never done that before with this software, it going to take a second. I’m struggling to keep up, and also trying to get better organized, both at the same time, lol.

One minute…

You know, I should probably explain something, as this might be part of the problem.

Hits-to-kill is an expression of how much damage a unit can sustain before dying. It has nothing to do with how much/many attacks a unit has.

Sorry if I used terminology that was confusing, and not really much used in A&A (at least as far as I know it), without making clear what I had intended. Like I said, I’m infamous for that.:white_frowning_face:

Hopefully, That clears up part of the misunderstanding…

Here is your post, moved to this thread…

@SS-GEN said in [Classic/2nd edition] LL + Mutually Assured Destruction:

@CrazyIvan

Think I got most of it. Your getting away from KISS, But that’s how you want to play.
Got to remember here your playing a game that doesn’t have a lot of pieces on setup
and some pieces cost to much and the Battleship cost to much but this is all balanced into cost and setup pieces. You need battleships for punch and then your out of money.
If you want I can post a list of pieces C A D values that are close to each piece costing correctly to punch.

I would like that, but first, I may be misunderstanding what you said above this, so let me ask a clarifying question, are you talking about ships getting more than one attack per round? I’m not breaking that demographic in my proposals, every unit gets just the one roll/round, it’s just that the games ‘heavy hitters’ get a much deserved bonus to their damage, not in number of units hit, but in the damage that unit takes, so…

Non-naval units, which all have just a single hit to kill, are killed just like normal, but units with more than 1 hit to kill have more to fear from the BB/Bomber than lesser foes, whose attacks all do just a sing point of damage.

@SS-GEN Um, I think this post is in the wrong thread? Can you repost this in the Naval thread?

I’m unclear on what it is your saying here? Could you explain the above for me, because at first glance, I cannot tell what your message is trying to say?

OTOH, I had a moment to rethink the use on the surface combatant rules for extrapolating bigger carriers, and thought about this, instead.

Say carriers, what with their needs for open spaces and large flight decks, use a 9 IPC/PU standard, and get improvements in lock-step?

So standard;
CV costs 18, 2a/2d/2 htk/2 fighters, while;
CVL costs 9, 1a/1d/1 htk/1 fighters, while;

and then the ‘super carriers’;
CVA costs 27, 3a/3d/3htk/3 fighters. Would that be a better method for doing this, do you think? Otherwise, we would have a need for different playing pieces based upon player choices, for the same cost units, and that might just get a bit sticky…

Sorry, I didn’t make that as clear as I thought I did, lol. I’m infamous for thinking what I post is understood as intended, but then being shocked when I learn that I really didn’t do such a good job putting the thought out in a well explained, and clear manner.

Let me try to do a bit better job of this, then, and sorry for not getting it right the first time.

Ok, so the bomber, with an attack of 1-4 on a d6 flies out and makes a run on the lone transport, defending on a 1 on a d6. Low Luck takes this and does, essentially, nothing. LL+MAD takes a look at the remainder, in this case 1 v 4, and first checks that there is a difference between the remainders for both sides, and as the two sides in this example don’t have any ‘hits’, all we have left is their starting numbers. Next, in the case where one side has a better remainder than the other, MAD uses one die roll, against which both sides remainders are checked. So no separate rolls for each side, just the one for both.

So, the possible results of the single MAD roll on a d6:
1 = Both the Transport and the Bomber hit on a one, so both die.
2 = The Transport misses above a one, so only the Bomber hits.
3 = The Transport misses above a one, so only the Bomber hits.
4 = The Transport misses above a one, so only the Bomber hits.
5 = Neither the Transport nor the Bomber hit on a five, so both miss.
6 = Neither the Transport nor the Bomber hit on a six, so both miss.

What this proposed optional rule is supposed to do, is keep the unlikely combat result of bomber killed, transport lives to tell about it from happening, as the probability of such happening is in itself a 1:18 chance, but if the bomber dies and the transport lived, what happens to the game after this? Does the transport pull off a landing? Do the transports allies get to land fighters in the newly gained foothold? I’ve seen both, on more than a few occasions, and just this one 1:18 chance result can really screw up an otherwise good game.

I like more strategy in my strategy games, and not so much a fan of an endless series of “Lucky Shot, Sir!” moments, nor a game that goes wildly back and forth, based upon the gods of chance whim of the moment.

Hope I explained the process better.
I also hope I didn’t cause confusion with my prattling on about why I want this added as a house rule for folks that would like it.

FIrst off, let me start by saying that I have never even read the rules for any version of A&A other than classic/2nd edition, so keep that in mind for the following ideas.

Back in the day, my gaming guys and I noticed that there were some ship types missing from classic, but we never really did anything about it. Now I’m reading posts about destroyers and cruisers and such, and wanted to put forth some ideas for the communities consideration.

Here goes:
I like things logical and neat, so going by the costs of existing ships, I would make Subs and Transports remain as they are, as the base, while CV’s and BB’s costs would also remain at 18/24 respectively, there would be changes.

BB would cost 24 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-4/d6, but have 4 Hits To Kill (HTK)(rather than just two), and while they have just the one attack, against units that have more than a single HTK, it does two points of damage. The rational being, a BB isn’t going to break the game by killing multiple units a turn, but hits from very strong units (Bombers and Battleships), should do more damage than weaker units (everything else in the game), and so do more damage than other units. What effect this would have on units with just 1 HKT is unchanged, but for units with more than 1 HTK, this makes the BB a much more feared foe. Now for fleshing out the other surface combatants added into the game…

CA would cost 18 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-3/d6, and have 3 HTK. This makes the heavy cruiser more powerful and badass than the smaller ships, as well as making it more survivable, and thus possibly a better buy.

CL would cost 12 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-2/d6, and have 2 HTK. This makes the light cruisers more costly and powerful than all the lesser ships, while still being weaker than the heavier/more expensive and stronger ships. While an attacking BB or bomber could kill them with one hit (that does two damage), nothing else in the game could do that to them.

DD would cost 6 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1/d6, and have 1 HTK. The rational is that a destroyer doesn’t have to be able to carry troops/submerge, so cost less than transports and subs. The DD, as the weakest surface combatant, has just one HTK, but is cheap to produce.

Naval Bombardments. All four surface combatants would get normal one-shot-attacks just like BB do now, with the same restrictions.

Last but not least, the carriers.
CV would cost 18 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1-2/d6, carry 2 fighters, and have 2 HTK. The rationale for these stats is as follows, aircraft carriers are, by their very nature, large ships with vast spaces to accommodate their aircraft, and are thus not up to the same standards as more compact surface combatants, and so only have 2 hits to kill, and while in normal games, they have a 1a/3d, I don’t really see a carriers gun armament as something more effective on the defence than offense, and so use them as a 2a/2d unit.

CVL would cost 12 IPC’s/PU’s, attack and defend on a single roll of 1/d6, carry 1 fighter, and have 1 HTK.

For those interested in being able to extrapolate bigger and badder ships, using what I have attempted to outline above, let’s summarize.

Surface combatants, BB CA CL DD, cost in lots of 6 IPC’s/PU’s per point of ATT/DEF/HTK, while carriers cost 6 IPC’s/PU’s for aviation facilities, as well as their equivalent hull costs, so 6/12 for their hulls, and then 6 more for aircraft capacity. Keeping in mind that having large amounts of open spaces within/atop a ships hull requires specialization of the ships hull away from maximum damage resistance, and thus the ships are inherently weaker than their surface combatant contemporaries.

So say you wanted to contemplate building a ‘super carrier’, just use the other two surface combatant hulls, and add 6, so two heavier than normal carriers could be built, and the player would have to decide what exactly they were wanting for their money, more fighters, or more survivability? Say one guy wants a flattop with more fighters, and so pays 24 for his ship that can carry 3 fighters, rather than the standard 2. Great, he gets his wish, but this carrier still has just the same 2a/2d/2htk as the ship that costs 18. Want to go the other way, and keep 2 fighter capacity, but get a stronger ship, cost 24, 3a/3d/3htk? Go for it. Of course, we could have someone that wants both of these, and then we would be looking at a hypothetical ship costing 30, with 3 fighter capacity, and 3a/3d/3htk.

All of this is meant as food for thought, and is in no way based upon ANY level of playtesting, so perhaps something interesting? Or just a waste of time?

A couple more things, construction times, and R&D needs to unlock some of this stuff.

More later, for now, any thoughts?

@SS-GEN Ah, gotcha. When I first read that, I was like, “What does an A4 have to do with Classic?” Lol. Do other games in the franchise lower the bombers A4? I just got my second A&A game today, but will not open it till I have a place to set it up and shoot a YouTube video of it.

Anyway, back on topic for this thread, how do you feel about the proposed option, to further limit just what crazy dice rolls can do to a game, but having an optional rule that keeps low probability results from ruling the game, rather than strategy/experience?

Playing with real people, with real dice and game boards and such, I would most likely enjoy just regular dice rolls, as that’s a part of the in-person experience. OTOH, when it’s just me and the computer screen, I’d definitely want to know that all the over rolled 1’s and 2’s being generated all out of proportion to their probability curve, are going to be offset by MAD.

What are your thought on this?

@SS-GEN ???

Ok, so I posted this on the TripleA site, but just to get this idea out there to the largest number of players, here it is again.

Ok, to expound on this further…

LL is in place, and works to smooth out really wild random results, but it does nothing about the engine rolling exceptional numbers of 1’s and 2’s and throwing off the game quite a bit, by the sheer numbers of such rolls.

LL+MAD cannot address that happening, so all the annoying over rolling of 1’s and 2’s is still going to happen, and your still going to lose units that you really shouldn’t. That being said, the rationale for including {Mutually Assured Destruction} on top of LL, is to stop rolls of less that 1/6th probability from taking the game far away from where they ‘should be’ if probable result were the norm.

Take the example of the single bomber attacking the single transport. Transport hitting the bomber is a 1 in 6 chance, and that is fine and dandy. What isn’t fine and dandy, is where the attacking bomber misses the transport, because now we are talking about a 1:18 chance, and given such a situation, with a very low probability entering into the game, does not even address any further damage to the game that then occurs as a result of this low probability event.

As mentioned above, MAD cannot stop the overabundance of 1’s and 2’s being rolled, but what it can do is make the madness stop before it really gets out of hand. The mechanism for this is to apply LL, and then check for one forces remainder to be larger than the other. If both sides have the same remainder, then the disparity check fails, and MAD does not apply. If the disparity check succeeds, then MAD uses a single die, and this number is used for both sides.

In the above example, Bomber Vs Transport, we check for disparity of remainder after applying LL, and this confirms that MAD is in effect. On a roll of 5-6, both sides miss each other, on a 2-4, the bomber kills the transport and survives, and on a 1, they both kill each other! Thus, all the probable outcomes of at least 1:6 are not affected by this rule, rather, this rule prevents outcomes less likely than 1 in 6, and the game then become a step closer to strategy, and one step farther away from becoming a series of “Lucky Shots, Sir” moments.

Another example, a fighter and two infantry Vs one or two infantry, so 5:2(5:4) Without MAD, we could easily see the stronger force missing, while the weaker force ‘gets lucky’ and takes out part of the opposition. In the 5v2 battle, 1:6 chance the stronger force doesn’t get a kill, but reduce that by 50%, and we now have a 1:18 chance for the stronger force to be hit by the weaker force, while themselves not getting a hit of their own in. In the 5v4 battle, this comes in at 1:9 chance.

Looking at some real game, round one battles, Russia attacks Manchuria.
5@1 + 1@3 = 8
3@2 + 1@4 = 10

With LL, this is settled by a pair of dice rolls, 1-2 v 1-4, while MAD uses just one roll for both remainders, 1-2 both sides get second hit, 3-4 Japanese hit twice while the Russians hit just the once, and 5-6, both side miss their chance. Best case for the weaker force, is two mutual kills, as this leaves both sides evenly balanced, and with no remainder, so second round each side takes it’s third casualty, and in the third round, the Russian force is now the stronger force, and need not fear taking any greater casualties than they inflict.

Gosh! it’s late, bedtime for me…

@zawodowiec777 That is a very nice tech tree!

Could you answer me a question? Is G40 the main version folks here abouts are still playing? It seems like more than half of the ongoing games are BM3 games, so buying Europe and Pacific is a good investment?

I just purchased the “Anniversary Edition” tonight, and it should arrive Thursday.

G40 and A&A Global are one and the same thing? Or do I have that wrong?

Global war 1936?!?! Is that an actual A&A board game I don’t know about, or perhaps just what TripleA calls G40?

Which game version we talking? I have never owned any other version of A&A than classic/second edition, so…

Thank you, sir. I only did the Bronze level so far, but the year is still young, so you never know…:relaxed:

Here is an image, to help folks to make their lists.

So, for Russia, which tech would you rate as best? And which worst?