Fixing Sea / Air Unit Issues (Strategic Bombers and Cruisers)

[baron Münchhausen]

Another possibility  is to play Pacific 40 or Europe only, and make some try

[Ichabod]

I think the fortified position/zone needs some work. Too long and complicated. Echoing Baron and Wild Bill, keep HR changes/ideas very simple.

I’d rather pay 12 IPCs for 4 Infantry that can fire back over 12 IPCs for 5 “free hits” of a fortified zone. I think you were on to something earlier with the idea of fortifications increasing defenders’ hit roll ability like infantry Defend @3.

[piscolar]

Yeah, I vacillate on it. I liked the simplicity of the other concept better, but increasing 5 infantry/mech/artillery to +3 would need to price it at 4IPCs. Some may find that fine, but since you can build them anywhere you control I’d expect them all over the map at that price and I don’t want that. When I think fortification I think the Rock of Gibraltar, the Siegfried Line, the Leningrad Fortified Zone… extensive, massive projects that were as living and breathing as the USS Yorktown and the Bismark. I want these places to matter in the gameplay; I want them to be tactically bombed as part of strategy. Maybe 10IPCs and 18IPCs - 20IPCs is better, but I’ll figure out something that works. It will 100% need testing.

Alternative idea would be my original one, just take away the cap: a generic Fortification where all infantry/mech/artillery get +3. Issue is just figuring out pricing, since that gets complicated based on the situation.

Open to suggestions.

[barney]

NWO uses a “bunker” unit. A0 D3 M0 C6 is two hit. May only place one bunker per TTy per turn.

Might not quite be what you’re looking for but NWO has been around a long time and it seems to work for them.

[piscolar]

Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.

[baron Münchhausen]

@piscolar:

Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.

One old idea to make AAA unit more interesting was this little tweak, which can represents fortified hardpoints, is to make it a 2 hits unit:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 0, 1 @1 preemptive, up to three planes, 1 per plane max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
In addition, if no combat unit is with it, then it is auto-destroy, per OOB rule.

For 15 IPCs, you get 3 regular hits, 3 buffer hits, and up to 9 preemptive strike @1 on aircraft.
With Infantry, it is 5 hits and 10 defense points, but you loose 3 units on first casualties.

An additional ability to figure Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line can be that when attacked, you may roll 1 defense @1 of preemptive fire on ground unit attacking per AAA unit.

Another possibility can be this:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery as Fortifications
Attack 0
Defense 1, up to three preemptive roll @1, against up to three units, ground or plane, 1 per attacking unit max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
The one time preemptive roll can simulate the fact that once fortifications are overwhelmed, they can no more use their defensive weapons.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

NWO uses a “bunker” unit. A0 D3 M0 C6 is two hit. May only place one bunker per TTy per turn.

Might not quite be what you’re looking for but NWO has been around a long time and it seems to work for them.

On a quick glance, it seems correct.
But looking closely, it is no way optimized and have nothing to beat Infantry.
2 Inf brings A2-4 D4 M1 2 hits for 6 IPCs.
It is always better to invest on Infantry.

A specialized defensive unit must be better than Inf on this point.
For example, a 6 IPCs needs to be at least
Attack 0
Defense 4
Move 0
2 hits, auto-repaired after combat.

But to gain something tactically it should be better like:
Attack 0
Defense 3
Move 0
Cost 4
1 hit

Or
Attack 0
Defense 3
Move 0
Cost 5
2 hits, auto-repaired after combat.

[barney]

@ Baron

yea I’d say overall inf would be the better buy. Going strictly defense though you get two 3 point hitters as opposed to two 2 pointers.

I haven’t played nwo in a long time and never that much (was pretty fun though). Don’t remember if bunkers auto repair or not. Don’t know how often they’re used either.

[piscolar]

Baron, love that you mentioned that idea. Thinking about what all of you said about the cost-value proposition this morning I thought to add something similar to my design: an “anti-ground” battery roll against attacking ground units before the first round. Fortified Positions would roll up to 3 die (hits at 1, 2 with advanced artillery) against attacking ground units. Fortified Zones would roll up to 6. I like it because bases usually have more than one ability and this makes fortifications a little more interesting.

Costs would be 12IPCs and 22IPCs respectively. Of course, to use this ability the bases would have to be operational (manned by at least 1 infantry/mech/artillery and above 50% damage-wise).

But using AAA in a more advanced capacity is a cool way to take elements of this while not adding new units/facilities.

[baron Münchhausen]

@piscolar:

Baron, love that you mentioned that idea. Thinking about what all of you said about the cost-value proposition this morning I thought to add something similar to my design: an “anti-ground” battery roll against attacking ground units before the first round. Fortified Positions would roll up to 3 die (hits at 1, 2 with advanced artillery) against attacking ground units. Fortified Zones would roll up to 6. I like it because bases usually have more than one ability and this makes fortifications a little more interesting.

Costs would be 12IPCs and 22IPCs respectively. Of course, to use this ability the bases would have to be operational (manned by at least 1 infantry/mech/artillery and above 50% damage-wise).

But using AAA in a more advanced capacity is a cool way to take elements of this while not adding new units/facilities.

About Fortified Position FP, IMO it is a high cost and a complex hits mechanics.
Since Fortified Zone FZ is only 10 hits for up to 20 IPCs to repair, I would do same for FP.
Same as NBs or ABs, 3 hits to make it unoperational, up to 6 hits damage.
Each hit done by TcBR, reduced hit absorbing capacity.

Fortified Position
Attack 0
Defense 1*, single preemptive @1, against up to three units, 1 roll per unit max.
Move 0
Hits 3, reduced by 1 for each damage point, 0 hits if unoperational (3 hits and more).
1 IPC per damage point to repair.
Need to be manned by at least 1 Inf, MI or Art.
Cost 8
Only 1 FP per TTy.

What do you think?

For comparison with 8 IPCs, you get 2.667 Inf Att 2.667 Def 5.333 Hits 2.667 Move 1.
So, in itself FP is no better than Inf, except if you can rebuilt a damaged one after an unsuccessful attack.

[piscolar]

When I think of a Fortification, I think of structure being able to withstand a lot of punishment - far more than a base, and depending on the size comparable to an Industrial Complex. Fortifications are, after all, designed to be bombarded… and survive it, at least for a long time. Since even a superficially damaged Industrial Complex has restricted production, I figured the same rules would simply apply for a Fortification and would be easy enough to follow for a player. A single Tactical Bomber having a 50% chance of destroying a Fortification and a 1/6th chance of totally pummeling it seems too low (would make sense, however, for a bunker, so this could just be our artistic conception).

Also, for me the cost is a feature not a bug. I really do not want these all over the map since they are facilities that can be placed anywhere you control and can’t be destroyed. Their benefit is 1) above-average defense per cost and 2) that they can be built at key strategic strongholds like Novgorod and Ukraine, and even in places where there are no industrial complexes nearby (like Egypt). If an attacker doesn’t have the means to break them down, they can really stall an offense, particularly a Fortified Zone. If he does have the means, however, it’s possible - just requires a change in tactics. One strategy I can see is using bombers/battleships/cruisers (I include the latter 2 with tactical bombardment in my rules) to target a Fortified Position even a turn prior to an assault if your forces are not ready. Bleeds the opponent, he will need to spend as many as 20IPCs if he wants to bring a Fortification up to full strength. Of course, the attacker risks AAA/battery and the defender can also send in planes to intercept the bombers… but that just adds to the fun of the new dynamics. For me at least  :wink:

Overall it should be a big commitment for a player to build any Fortification - especially since if he loses it, like Air Bases, Naval Bases, and Industrial Complexes it can be used against him later. Realistically all infantry on defense are somewhat dug-in already; Fortifications are the substantial structures that would be carefully considered by enemies when they planned if and how to attack a territory. IMO they should be reflected as such.

[barney]

Using BBs and CAs as bombers doing an SBR sounds pretty cool. I guess they would be impervious to interceptors though ? Maybe tacs could intercept ships only ?

Think it’s just a matter of finding the right numbers for your fortresses piscolar. You’ll just have to playtest it out. My concern would be that they’re not too powerful so they can’t be cracked. I like the idea of having a ground unit present to activate them.