We have corrected a flaw in the text (number) of Soviet Infantry units in Novgorod.
The total number of Soviet Infantry units in Novgorod is 17.
Please refer to the Global 1939 Expansion rulebook at the top of this thread.
Global War 1940 2nd ed.
-
@Baron:
Here is my shot at Fgs:
Naval Fighter (Can land anywhere)
A5
D7
M4 (5 with AB)
C10Fighter (Cannot land on carriers but islands allowed.)
A6
D7
M5 (6 with AB)
C11Ok Im good with these. Ill try in game now.
Thank you
-
Hope you will like them.
From my POV, there are more similar to a few comparative capacities.
I think that land-based Fgs can load a bit more armaments or payloads and have an higher range because carrier-based Fgs are smaller so have less room for fuel and rockets and small bombs.Hence, I rise attack to 6 and range to 5 for land-based Fgs.
The 11 IPCs cost is from a game POV, it is easier to pay an higher cost with a more specialized aircraft which cannot land everywhere.
It is up to you to decide if a few or all aircrafts on TTs are considered land-based.
IMO, a few setup Fgs should remain naval (even on TTs) to keep versatile play on round 1 and 2.I like these too:
Med. Bomber
A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1against ground only
Dog Fight @1
SBR 1d8 +1 damage
AA gun D@2
C10H. Bomber
A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
Dog Fight @2
SBR 1d10 +1 damage
AA gun D@1
C12 -
Ok. Will see. Ty
Just trying to get to historical to a certain point. -
@SS:
Ok. Will see. Ty
Just trying to get to historical to a certain point.Yes. But with D12s and more units clearly improve the possibilities to be more historical.
-
What do you think about this little change on Move:
Med. Bomber
A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
Move 6 (7 with AB)
Dog Fight @1
SBR 1d8 +1 damage
AA gun D@2
C10H. Bomber
A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
Move 7 (8 with AB)
Dog Fight @2
SBR 1d10 +1 damage
AA gun D@1
C12 -
@Baron:
What do you think about this little change on Move:
Med. Bomber
A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
Move 6 (7 with AB)
Dog Fight @1
SBR 1d8 +1 damage
AA gun D@2
C10H. Bomber
A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
Move 7 (8 with AB)
Dog Fight @2
SBR 1d10 +1 damage
AA gun D@1
C12They already M 6 and 7. Just didn’t post it.
-
Destroyer blocking always bothered me. Ever since I started playing games. I thought of that you cant block period. So I was thinking if u want to at least make a fleet attack and if u left 2-3 destroyers blocking and now the moving attacking fleet could just attack the 2-3 destroyers and then if they win battle can go and do there normal combat move.
Then I talked to Leatherneck and asked him what his destroyer blocking rule was in his 38 game he is designing now and said he is using destroyer screening. Same idea as mine but if u have 3 destroyers screening {blocking} a fleet you have to assign from fleet what ships are going to attack the 3 destroyers only. If you kill the 3 destroyers then whats was left of the fleet can make a normal combat move. If you lose battle against destroyers then you cant move your fleet through that sz.
I like this rule better because a fleet just cant walk over you. Planes can scramble from airbases if in same sz.
-
I believe the main principle to follow is that a given unit cannot attack twice in different zones.
Black Elk and I talked about giving Cruiser a special ability to get ride of blockers.
You can commit any units against blocker and if at least one Cruiser is part of the attack, you can assume that another fleet with at least one Cruiser can CM 1 SZ pass over the blocker SZ. If all blockers are sunk, then you can resolve the other naval combat. Otherwise all ships remains in blocker’s SZ. -
@Baron:
I believe the main principle to follow is that a given unit cannot attack twice in different zones.
Black Elk and I talked about giving Cruiser a special ability to get ride of blockers.
You can commit any units against blocker and if at least one Cruiser is part of the attack, you can assume that another fleet with at least one Cruiser can CM 1 SZ pass over the blocker SZ. If all blockers are sunk, then you can resolve the other naval combat. Otherwise all ships remains in blocker’s SZ.I am going with what surviving ships from attacking blockers cannot move after they win the battle but rest of fleet can move through that sz +1 more move in combat.
-
@CWO:
If I understand correctly what YG is seeking, the requirements are for a special cruiser bonus that a) applies only to cruisers and to no other ship type; b) that does not involve a combined-arms pairing between a cruiser and another unit; c) that is historically accurate, both in terms of the technical features of WWII cruisers and their actual use in that war; and d) which does not involve an IPC price adjustment.
Frankly, I can’t think of any historically accurate things about cruisers that would fit all those requirements. At best, there might be things that could be bent or stretched to partially fulfil what’s being looked for. One idea I’ve already mentioned is the concept of giving cruisers some kind of equivalent to the OOB blitzing ability of tanks, to reflect the combination of speed and long range which cruisers offered.As always, instructive and interesting dive into World War II in depth history.
Thanks for both posts.The single ability specific to Cruiser and not too unbalancing seems to be linked to his extended range.
1914 opens a window for an A&A M3 Cruiser.
Giving a basic 3 Moves, but what kind of effect does +1M Naval Base bonus, is yet to determine.
No bonus,
NCM bonus only,
both CM and NCM ,
so Cruiser gets M4 in such last two situations when leaving a NB.
I don’t know if any player ever play them that way.A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.
-
@SS:
@SS:
@SS:
@SS:
Med. Bomber
A 4d12s @2 ground only every round
A 4d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
M6
C10
Dog Fight @1
SBR 1d8 +1 damage
AA gun D@2H. Bomber
A 3d12s @3 ground only every round
A 3d12s @1 naval only every round
D 2d12s @1
M7
C12
Dog Fight @2
SBR 1d10 +1 damage
AA Gun D@1Tac Bomber : Cannot land on Carriers.
A7 Can pick target with a return shot. Ground only.
D5 Can pick target with a return shot. Ground only.
M5
C11
Dog Fight @1
SBR 1d8 damage (Air - Naval ports, Train Stations and Oil Derricks)
AA Gun D@1Naval Dive Bomber : Can land on Carriers and ground.
A7 Roll 4 or less can pick target with a return shot
D5
M4
C10
SBR 1d8 damage ( Air - Naval ports, Oil Derricks)
AA Gun D@1Naval Fighter : Can land anywhere.
A5
D7
M4
C10
Dog Fight @3
AA Gun @2Fighter
A6
D7
M5
C11
Dog Fight@3
AA Gun D@2Japan doesnt receive H. Bombers.
This has been updated. March 26 2018
-
@Baron:
@CWO:
If I understand correctly what YG is seeking, the requirements are for a special cruiser bonus that a) applies only to cruisers and to no other ship type; b) that does not involve a combined-arms pairing between a cruiser and another unit; c) that is historically accurate, both in terms of the technical features of WWII cruisers and their actual use in that war; and d) which does not involve an IPC price adjustment.
Frankly, I can’t think of any historically accurate things about cruisers that would fit all those requirements. At best, there might be things that could be bent or stretched to partially fulfil what’s being looked for. One idea I’ve already mentioned is the concept of giving cruisers some kind of equivalent to the OOB blitzing ability of tanks, to reflect the combination of speed and long range which cruisers offered.As always, instructive and interesting dive into World War II in depth history.
Thanks for both posts.The single ability specific to Cruiser and not too unbalancing seems to be linked to his extended range.
1914 opens a window for an A&A M3 Cruiser.
Giving a basic 3 Moves, but what kind of effect does +1M Naval Base bonus, is yet to determine.
No bonus,
NCM bonus only,
both CM and NCM ,
so Cruiser gets M4 in such last two situations when leaving a NB.
I don’t know if any player ever play them that way.A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.
This is very interesting too. We have made the Cruiser more buyable in game.
Cruiser
A7
D7
M3
C9
I may be missing another option for Cruiser… Id have to go look.If you made the Cruiser M3 +1 from base M4 this would give you 2 options in game for taking out blockers. But in my game you can only move +1 from a naval base to a naval base in non combat. So I would give Cruisers a M3 and with a move of 4 in non combat N. Base to N. Base that cruiser still could get around. Anzac could finally do something away from home land.
-
Cruiser
A7
D7
M3
C9What is DD combat values?
I hope Cruiser is purchased in your game?
She is stronger and much cheaper compared to G40 OOB:
Cruiser
A6
D6
M2
C12 -
@Baron:
Cruiser
A7
D7
M3
C9What is DD combat values?
A3
D3
M2
C6I hope Cruiser is purchased in your game?
It should be now with the new M3 and taking out blockers. We will see in game now. I do see maybe a bit of less destroyer buying but will see.
We crunched these DD Cr numbers awhile back Baron.She is stronger and much cheaper compared to G40 OOB:
Cruiser
A6
D6
M2
C12Maybe this will make the boring Pacific get a jolt !!!
Gettin tired of the Normal KGF but thats history. But the changes maybe enough where now Allies can keep Axis from winning on the Pacific side for not holding there VC points and Allies steal one or two. -
I crunched these numbers with Enigma formula, Cruiser is just a bit stronger than DD.
It might be interesting with M3, people will get more for the money.Reading my HR with Cruiser against blockers, it said: Cruiser have to survive blocker’s defense so Cruiser gain control of SZ. Then, main fleet can cross this newly controlled SZ to launch an attack on SZ behind blocker.
Probably one issue will be about slow TP not able to follow Cruiser, but introducing Cruiser as a way to make naval blitz might be interesting to analyze how PTO is changed.
Keep us posted on this one, it is a major change to help cruiser compete with DD and is within Redesigned playground.
Here is the post which includes a few conditions to follow so to blitz into a second SZ:
@Baron:It might be worth separating the two ideas and pursuing them in isolation. On land I think the blitz concept works as outlined. At sea the idea is more aspirational, we wanted to see if a similar blitz move might be activated by cruisers, but how exactly to work that, I’m not as confident.
In both cases the idea was to provided a special attack that makes blocking/stalling more challenging for the defender. So instead of covering with 1 infantry unit, or 1 dd to stall a massive force, here you’d have to manage the defense with the blitz factored in.
I like it on land with the armor mech and tacs, possibly fighters. Naval blitz, if it could be worked out, would probably look a bit different and might have a separate system.
In Pacific Naval Combat, the usual twin powers can-opener is often made by German’s StratBs against Destroyer blocker.
After it’s done, Japan will move a lot of warships through the empty SZ to get into another SZ for combat.What is the real difference, if it is Japan which have to use a few of his units to wipe the Destroyer unit, then reach with his main fleet the second SZ?
All that I see is a better coordination of units by Japan but less units available for the main Naval Combat beyond the blocker.There is still a gain to use 1 or 2 blockers tactics (same as dividing attacking troops amongst 2 combat zones: odds always worse) but blocker tactics is not as strong as OOB when German’s StratBombers are not in Japan.
If you want to keep a similar blocker impact, but not an absolute one, I suggested 2 ways:
first, it should be mandatory to control the first SZ (hence, it is different from the German’s StBs can-opener in which the SZ is uncontrolled).
second, it could be a condition to destroy all blockers in a single combat round, to proceed to a Naval blitz.
So, Japan would need to use more units to be sure to get the hit. And, if not, in some unlucky times, the Destroyer will still block the Naval forces in the first SZ.Do you see how the attacking forces will be less powerful than under the twin powers can-opener?
So, is their other conditions to think about which can imply Cruiser, so you can have both world?
Thinking out loud:
Cruiser could be the naval unit required to perform such destruction of the blocker (rationalized as doing an advance scouting mission to open the way to the main fleet)?
To perform a Naval Blitz, 1 Cruiser unit must controlled a given SZ in which pass through all the other Naval units.So, in a sense, Cruiser, same as Tank, is needed to perform the breakthrough. Tank help MechInf to reach the second territory.
Cruiser help the whole fleet to reach the second SZ, but it must stay behind, in the first SZ.And, for instance, if there is 2 US Destroyers blockers, probably Japan must at least wipe them with 1 Cruiser and other units, such as Subs and Destroyers or even planes.
Of course, the cheaper the better (Subs), and if Japan is unable to gain control of this SZ with her Cruiser unit (for example, all units were destroyed), then it can only move all his Naval unit into this SZ.
In some unlucky cases, such a Naval blitz move would be costlier for Japan than just controlling cautiously the blocked SZ by moving all his Naval Units in the first SZ only.So, probably blocking with 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine (14 IPCs) can become an interesting mix (and be much more historically accurate).
Because, the attacker wouldn’t be able to protect the Cruiser (with a few planes) without also bringing a Sub or a Destroyer, in case the the defending Subs get a hit or a surprise strike hit.What do you think of this?
-
@Baron:
I crunched these numbers with Enigma formula, Cruiser is just a bit stronger than DD.
It might be interesting with M3, people will get more for the money.Reading my HR with Cruiser against blockers, it said: Cruiser have to survive blocker’s defense so Cruiser gain control of SZ. Then, main fleet can cross this newly controlled SZ to launch an attack on SZ behind blocker.
Probably one issue will be about slow TP not able to follow Cruiser, but introducing Cruiser as a way to make naval blitz might be interesting to analyze how PTO is changed.
Keep us posted on this one, it is a major change to help cruiser compete with DD and is within Redesigned playground.
Here is the post which includes a few conditions to follow so to blitz into a second SZ:
@Baron:It might be worth separating the two ideas and pursuing them in isolation. On land I think the blitz concept works as outlined. At sea the idea is more aspirational, we wanted to see if a similar blitz move might be activated by cruisers, but how exactly to work that, I’m not as confident.
In both cases the idea was to provided a special attack that makes blocking/stalling more challenging for the defender. So instead of covering with 1 infantry unit, or 1 dd to stall a massive force, here you’d have to manage the defense with the blitz factored in.
I like it on land with the armor mech and tacs, possibly fighters. Naval blitz, if it could be worked out, would probably look a bit different and might have a separate system.
In Pacific Naval Combat, the usual twin powers can-opener is often made by German’s StratBs against Destroyer blocker.
After it’s done, Japan will move a lot of warships through the empty SZ to get into another SZ for combat.What is the real difference, if it is Japan which have to use a few of his units to wipe the Destroyer unit, then reach with his main fleet the second SZ?
All that I see is a better coordination of units by Japan but less units available for the main Naval Combat beyond the blocker.There is still a gain to use 1 or 2 blockers tactics (same as dividing attacking troops amongst 2 combat zones: odds always worse) but blocker tactics is not as strong as OOB when German’s StratBombers are not in Japan.
If you want to keep a similar blocker impact, but not an absolute one, I suggested 2 ways:
first, it should be mandatory to control the first SZ (hence, it is different from the German’s StBs can-opener in which the SZ is uncontrolled).
second, it could be a condition to destroy all blockers in a single combat round, to proceed to a Naval blitz.
So, Japan would need to use more units to be sure to get the hit. And, if not, in some unlucky times, the Destroyer will still block the Naval forces in the first SZ.Do you see how the attacking forces will be less powerful than under the twin powers can-opener?
So, is their other conditions to think about which can imply Cruiser, so you can have both world?
Thinking out loud:
Cruiser could be the naval unit required to perform such destruction of the blocker (rationalized as doing an advance scouting mission to open the way to the main fleet)?
To perform a Naval Blitz, 1 Cruiser unit must controlled a given SZ in which pass through all the other Naval units.So, in a sense, Cruiser, same as Tank, is needed to perform the breakthrough. Tank help MechInf to reach the second territory.
Cruiser help the whole fleet to reach the second SZ, but it must stay behind, in the first SZ.And, for instance, if there is 2 US Destroyers blockers, probably Japan must at least wipe them with 1 Cruiser and other units, such as Subs and Destroyers or even planes.
Of course, the cheaper the better (Subs), and if Japan is unable to gain control of this SZ with her Cruiser unit (for example, all units were destroyed), then it can only move all his Naval unit into this SZ.
In some unlucky cases, such a Naval blitz move would be costlier for Japan than just controlling cautiously the blocked SZ by moving all his Naval Units in the first SZ only.So, probably blocking with 1 Destroyer and 1 Submarine (14 IPCs) can become an interesting mix (and be much more historically accurate).
Because, the attacker wouldn’t be able to protect the Cruiser (with a few planes) without also bringing a Sub or a Destroyer, in case the the defending Subs get a hit or a surprise strike hit.What do you think of this?
Sorry I didnt see this the rest of this post.
Yes I like it a lot.
In my game remember you cant buy naval or air bases. Whats on map is what you get.
So tactical non combat moves are important. Also you can only move 3 spaces in naval non combat base to base only. Otherwise a normal 2 move only in combat. But now the Cruiser being M3 it still can M3 in combat and 4 in non combat base to base. So here is most moves a cruiser can do in non combat naval base to naval base.
Dont forget the land figs now M5 - M6 from airbase for support of Cruisers M3. So you still need to make tactical moves for planes just from certain airbases.
Toyko - Hawaii
Toyko - Carolina islands
SF. - Carolina islands
SF. - New Britain
Hawaii - Philliphines both sides of island
Sydney - Java
S. AF - Australia
S. AF - Morocco
S. AF - Cairo Med sz
Washington - Gibr
Midway - Carolina islands
Midway - Philliphines
London - Gibr inside Med sz.I may have missed one.
Now Japan could cutoff that UK AC built in S.AF T1 for Anzac.I may just buy Rat Patrol Cruisers ! lol
Anyway this maybe the fix for the Pacific side ( Cruisers M3 - M4 Naval base to naval base non combat only ) where now the US and Anzac keep the axis from winning by just going Pacific ? Can they get the Dutch Islands back faster ? Will this force Japan to go all out in Asia just to get money they need badly after losing the Dutch Islands ? Will japan now abandon the Dutch Islands and just do a Calcutta-Asia crush ? Also Italy now being so strong in my game maybe forced to buy more navy just to counter a US -UK fleet moving to the Med with support from S. AF fleet ? This would take Pressure off Russia from Italy supporting Germany through Turkey.
Will this make the Allies to strong in the Pacific now ? Denying Japan the money they need badly ?
You would think at least this gives Anzac that little help they need in game for islands if Japan-US even out in the Pacific still.In other games where you have more air-naval bases in setup than my game and being able to buy them also in other games will the Cruiser M3 and TAC M5 M6-AB Fig M5 M6-AB be to unbalancing on Europe or Pacific side ?
This would spice up the Europe side. And the main goal for change is to get the Allies something to do in the Pacific finally and give the US like 4 options on Europe side tactics or at least now Maybe 3 options on Pacific side.
Stay tuned. Same channel. Same time.
-
A suggestion….Cruiser when paired with a battleship…2 hits to destroy
-
Ok. Will look into it.
-
It’s Sireblood’s idea….tested it a few times…it’s brilliant
-
It’s Sireblood’s idea….tested it a few times…it’s brilliant
With OOB BBs A8 D8 C20 and Cruiser A6 D6 C12. It is like having twice 2hits warships at 16 IPCs (D12s) with Att7 Def7.
A kind of Heavy Cruiser, clearly make this unit more dangerous than Battleships only for cost.Enigma Formula:
2hits warships at 16 IPCs (D12s) with Att7 Def7
Combined fleet purchase of 1 BB+1CA, 4 hits:
(367/16^2)1.618034= **1.593 powerhit**
vs
Battleship
(368/20^2)1.618034= **1.165 powerhit**compared to OOB 1 hit Destroyer (D12s) A4 D4 C8:
364/8^2= **2.25 powerhit**Ok, so this is not too much OP.
Just that BBs fleet is much weaker.SS Cruiser A7 D7 M3 C9
36*7/81 = 3.11Cruiser A7 D6 M3 Cost 10
Offence: 36*7/100 = 2.52
Defence: 36*6/100 = 2.16SS 1 hit Destroyer A3 D3 M2 C6
36*3/36 = 3.00SS Submarine A4 D2 M2 C7
Offence: 36*4/49 = 2.94 Surprise strike: 4.41
Defense:36*2/49 = 1.47 Surprise strike: 1.951 hit Destroyer A3 D3 M2 C5
36*3/25 = 4.32Submarine A4 D2 M2 C6
Offence: 36*4/36 = 4.00 Surprise strike: 6.00
Defense: 36*2/36 = 2.00 Surprise strike: 2.67
Suggested Topics
