@wittmann:
I like the idea, but am kot haply with a stronger Sub, given the Convoy ability and Stealth they already have . Not for the price of 6.
Does Subs really get this opportunity for Stealth?
From what I heard, many complain that DD easily block Surprise strike. They rarely see it in game?
Does your games full of Subs?
Unless you are talking about Subs being invisible to planes, if no DD present?
Tactical bombers with combined arms are too strong.
Instead of a +1A bonus, why not allow Tank to give TcB a Tankbuster capacity?
Each time a Tank is present, all TcBs successful hits allows to pick any ground unit as casualty.
I don’t want to derail but it is still your comment that makes me think about it.
This man got an incredible records:
Tank Killers
Rudel was instrumental in developing the tactics of using cannon-armed aircraft in the anti-tank role. The exploits of his Stukas during the Battle of Kursk was the inspiration used by the United States Air Force in designing the A-10 Warthog tank-busting aircraft at the height of the Cold War, when there was a requirement to counter massed divisions of Soviet tanks in central Europe. This aircraft was built around a multi-barrelled cannon specifically to counter enemy tanks.
As a leader of warriors, Rudel was unsurpassed. He led from the front and set a pace that few could equal. In the course of 2530 missions, Rudel personally destroyed 517 Soviet tanks – the equivalent of five Soviet tank brigades. This was on top of a battleship, cruiser, 70 landing craft, 800 trucks, 150 artillery pieces, as well as numerous bunkers, bridges and supply dumps. He also managed to achieve nine confirmed air-to-air kills. Perhaps more striking was the fact that Rudel was shot down 30 times by ground fire, and wounded five times. On top of this, he successfully rescued six of his pilots who had been shot down behind enemy lines. This was the mark of the man, who ranked leading his men into battle as the highest duty of any soldier.
@Baron:
@wittmann:
I like the idea, but am kot haply with a stronger Sub, given the Convoy ability and Stealth they already have . Not for the price of 6.
Does Subs really get this opportunity for Stealth?
From what I heard, many complain that DD easily block Surprise strike. They rarely see it in game?
Does your games full of Subs?
Unless you are talking about Subs being invisible to planes, if no DD present?
It’s true, submarines may get a few “special ability” opportunities in the opening rounds, but with a single destroyer negating surprise attacks and the ability to submerge, not to mention their vulnerability to aircraft with a destroyer present… submarines become pretty useless pretty fast.
@Baron:
@wittmann:
I like the idea, but am kot haply with a stronger Sub, given the Convoy ability and Stealth they already have . Not for the price of 6.
I like the better values for DD and Cruiser. These would help fleets attacked by the massed Air attacks we are used to seeing (and which ruin the game).While changing dices,
Interesting facts: Subs convoy with 3 or less for IPCs damage will be weaker.It provides an opportunity to drop StB to A4 (50%), if 62.5% (A5) instead of 66.7% is not enough.
That’s right, an 8 sider does drop the odds of hitting during a convoy disruption, and even with 6 siders when a single sub gets 2 dice…. we have always fount the gambit a 50/50 mechanic.
@Baron:
Tactical bombers with combined arms are too strong.
Instead of a +1A bonus, why not allow Tank to give TcB a Tankbuster capacity?
Each time a Tank is present, all TcBs successful hits allows to pick any ground unit as casualty.
I don’t want to derail but it is still your comment that makes me think about it.This man got an incredible records:
Tank Killers
Rudel was instrumental in developing the tactics of using cannon-armed aircraft in the anti-tank role. The exploits of his Stukas during the Battle of Kursk was the inspiration used by the United States Air Force in designing the A-10 Warthog tank-busting aircraft at the height of the Cold War, when there was a requirement to counter massed divisions of Soviet tanks in central Europe. This aircraft was built around a multi-barrelled cannon specifically to counter enemy tanks.
As a leader of warriors, Rudel was unsurpassed. He led from the front and set a pace that few could equal. In the course of 2530 missions, Rudel personally destroyed 517 Soviet tanks � the equivalent of five Soviet tank brigades. This was on top of a battleship, cruiser, 70 landing craft, 800 trucks, 150 artillery pieces, as well as numerous bunkers, bridges and supply dumps. He also managed to achieve nine confirmed air-to-air kills. Perhaps more striking was the fact that Rudel was shot down 30 times by ground fire, and wounded five times. On top of this, he successfully rescued six of his pilots who had been shot down behind enemy lines. This was the mark of the man, who ranked leading his men into battle as the highest duty of any soldier.
The idea of an 8 sided system would be inspirational for tons of house rule idea including the one you mentioned above, however, this thread is an investigation on how unit profile odds in the oob system can be translated into an 8 sided system forcing many units into different percentages better suited for them. Do you think BM that you could list all of the percentages for each attacking and defending unit in the 8 sided system I wrote so that I could include them in the OP?
@Young:
I have found that many of the problems with G40 unit profile values can be solved by using an 8 Sided die.
Attacking unit dice odds
1/8 - White 12.5%
Infantry (-) 16.7%
Mech Infantry (-) 16.7%2/8 - Green 25%
Infantry w/Artillery (-) 33%
Mech Infantry w/Artillery (-) 33%3/8 - Purple 37.5%
Artillery (+) 33%
Submarine (+) 33%
Destroyer (+) 33%4/8 - Blue 50%
Tank (x) same
Fighter (x) same
Tactical Bomber (x) same5/8 - Red 62.5%
Strategic Bomber (-) 66.7%
Cruiser (+) 50%
Tactical Bomber w/Fighter or w/Tank (-) 66.7%6/8 - Black 75%
Battleship (+) 66.7%Defending unit dice odds
1/8 - White 12.5%
AA Guns (-) 16.7%2/8 - Green 25%
Submarine (+) 16.7%
Aircraft Carrier (-) 33%
Strategic Bomber (+) 16.7%3/8 - Purple 37.5%
Infantry (+) 33%
Mech Infantry (+) 33%
Artillery (+) 33%
Destroyer (+) 33%4/8 - Blue 50%
Tank (x) same
Tactical Bomber (x) same5/8 - Red 62.5%
Fighter (-) 66.7%
Cruiser (+) 50%6/8 - Black 75%
Battleship (+) 66.7%*Special thanks to Big Al “Mike Tyson” for contributing in this idea.
Done.
:-)
Thank you very much Baron, I have one question…
Isn’t the Battleship odds the same?.. I’m terrible at math, but if 3/6 and 4/8 are both 50%, than isn’t 4/6 and 6/8 both 75%?
@Young:
Thank you very much Baron, I have one question…
Isn’t the Battleship odds the same?.. I’m terrible at math, but if 3/6 and 4/8 are both 50%, than isn’t 4/6 and 6/8 both 75%?
4/6 =2/3 = 0.667
6/8=3/4= 0.750
@Baron:
@Young:
I have found that many of the problems with G40 unit profile values can be solved by using an 8 Sided die.
Attacking unit dice odds
1/8 - White 12.5%
Infantry (-) 16.7%
Mech Infantry (-) 16.7%2/8 - Green 25%
Infantry w/Artillery (-) 33%
Mech Infantry w/Artillery (-) 33%3/8 - Purple 37.5%
Artillery (+) 33%
Submarine (+) 33%
Destroyer (+) 33%4/8 - Blue 50%
Tank (x) same
Fighter (x) same
Tactical Bomber (x) same5/8 - Red 62.5%
Strategic Bomber (-) 66.7%
Cruiser (+) 50%
Tactical Bomber w/Fighter or w/Tank (-) 66.7%6/8 - Black 75%
Battleship (+) 66.7%Defending unit dice odds
1/8 - White 12.5%
AA Guns (-) 16.7%2/8 - Green 25%
Submarine (+) 16.7%
Aircraft Carrier (-) 33%
Strategic Bomber (+) 16.7%3/8 - Purple 37.5%
Infantry (+) 33%
Mech Infantry (+) 33%
Artillery (+) 33%
Destroyer (+) 33%4/8 - Blue 50%
Tank (x) same
Tactical Bomber (x) same5/8 - Red 62.5%
Fighter (-) 66.7%
Cruiser (+) 50%6/8 - Black 75%
Battleship (+) 66.7%*Special thanks to Big Al “Mike Tyson” for contributing in this idea.
Done.
:-)
YG,
I have no problems with your numbers. I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY to play under these circumstances. Also, I think the extra 2 sides makes important units like planes even more valuable for getting hits. Aircraft of all types were so important since WW2 that all militaries created a completely separate branch for it during and or right after the war.
I hope I understand this right, Artillery rolls @3, but it bumps up inf/mech inf to @2? If so, awesome, I think artillery in their own right deserve a little “bump” versus infantry in attack. During WW1 for instance, the first 6 months of the war produced more casualties than any other 6 months of the war (mainly due to not enough defensive cover). I researched this during an Army Course as part of a final exam project. Especially in the first two months, entire units would be destroyed as artillery would be redirected on them till they were X off the map.
I think the extra 2 sides makes important units like planes even more valuable for getting hits. Aircraft of all types were so important since WW2 that all militaries created a completely separate branch for it during and or right after the war.
Well there are a few balancing acts with aircraft in this 8 sided system, first: Strategic bombers and combined Tactical bombers don’t get that strong powerful 4/6 to attack anymore, instead it’s just slightly less for both… but they’re still better than attacking tanks and fighters. This should act as a set back to “Dark Skies” without nerfing the whole strategy, and I find that the combined Tactical bombers are the main reason players pull off Sealion without fear… but now, combined Tactical bombers are not semi-guaranteed those hits slicing into the British infantry like butter. Secondly: it just makes sense to allow defending Strategic bombers to defend better than 1/6, and scrambled fighters although helpful don’t wipe out fleets with the 4/6 oob, but rather a smidge less odds making the choice to scramble more difficult… And third: if you’re attacking with aircraft you don’t have to wince so hard facing AA Guns, they are slightly less odds with at 1/8… but shooting down aircraft is now more exciting and rewarding if you can actually hit on white.
I hope I understand this right, Artillery rolls @3, but it bumps up inf/mech inf to @2? If so, awesome, I think artillery in their own right deserve a little “bump” versus infantry in attack. During WW1 for instance, the first 6 months of the war produced more casualties than any other 6 months of the war (mainly due to not enough defensive cover). I researched this during an Army Course as part of a final exam project. Especially in the first two months, entire units would be destroyed as artillery would be redirected on them till they were X off the map.
Yep… I would definitely love to see artillery units bought and used strategically more often (great video by the way).
I don’t like d8 approach because it offers marginal #pips over D6.
If you had to move to something different you want d12. Not d10 or anything else
However, if you made a system like Fortress America with all the dice D6-12, or even using D4…then you might have something with each type of unit rolling different dice
D4 infantry
D6 air units
D8 naval units
D10?
D12?
you don’t need different color dice, different dice by unit type instead. Under this nations could have different values for units
@Imperious:
I don’t like d8 approach because it offers marginal #pips over D6.
If you had to move to something different you want d12. Not d10 or anything else
However, if you made a system like Fortress America with all the dice D6-12, or even using D4…then you might have something with each type of unit rolling different dice
D4 infantry
D6 air units
D8 naval units
D10?
D12?you don’t need different color dice, different dice by unit type instead. Under this nations could have different values for units
All that is entirely different from my original post… do you suggest I scrap the whole idea and go back to the draft board? Surely there is something here with the 8 sided system you might like.
IMO, the first benefit is to keep number pretty near those on D6.
So, you don’t have to much adaptation.
Example: Infantry attacking @1 both cases. AAA defending @1.
The only reason to use something different is to allow for something where units are not 1,2,3,4 in values, a D8 offers only 2 pips extra.
With D12 you have the maximum flexibility in assigning new combat values with room to allow new unit types. If you go higher to say D20 its just too much and you wait longer to roll dice because the die is too much like a round ball
@Imperious:
The only reason to use something different is to allow for something where units are not 1,2,3,4 in values, a D8 offers only 2 pips extra.
With D12 you have the maximum flexibility in assigning new combat values with room to allow new unit types. If you go higher to say D20 its just too much and you wait longer to roll dice because the die is too much like a round ball
True, but the motivation to use an 8 sided die in this discussion is to adjust the combat values of the units that already exist in G40… not to create a window of opportunity to add more units (which would be a totally different discussion). This is what I find with house rule threads, the original idea has discussion boundaries that always seem to get crossed, and when those boundaries get buried in the first few pages… the original idea gets mutated and becomes unrecognizable by around page 4.
So, to summarize the actual benefit in D8 sides:
AAA is more acceptable at this lower D1 vs up to 3 planes.
Is it enough to let them fire each round?
Because OOB at C5, it was not that popular purchase.
An increase gap between off/def Infantry A1-2 vs D3
Artillery A3 D3 on offence is better than Inf A1-2 D3
Tank A4 D4 is not different but better in offense compared to Inf A1-2
However, the gap between Tank D4 vs Artillery or Inf D3 is only 12.5%, OOB 16,7%.
And there is a 2 IPCs difference, usual ratio 11:9 (1.22),
11 D2 C4 (44 IPCs) = 9 D3 C6 (54 IPCs), but now 11:10 (1.10).
I see an issue here. OOB Tank was somehow correct as defense.
If, Tank A5 D5 (62.5% vs 37.5%), then ratio becomes near: 12:10 (1.18)
But now Infantry, MI and Artillery clearly too strong for the cost.
I might be tempted to increase Tank attack and defense factor to 5 (same as Cruiser A5 D5).
So it can keep its niche. I suggested to get ride of bonus to TcB to compensate.
Or revised the Blitzkrieg bonus to TcB to compensate for Tank weakness.
Rising Cruiser and Battleship attack and defense compared to OOB while choosing the lower value
Fg A4 D5, TcB A4-5 D4 StB A5 D2 instead of higher D6 or A6, might help reduce the Aircraft dominance: Dark Sky and al.
It would solve the BB and Cruiser issue.
Cruiser may be better than Battleship, as a cheaper unit is more cost effective.
But, it is not clear, probably near even in combat for same IPC basis.
So in plain terms Baron, what needs to be changed in your opinion?
@Young:
So in plain terms Baron, what needs to be changed in your opinion?
The main issue, is about Tank vs Artillery off/def or MI defense.
(Almost like C5 or C6 Tank, between AA50 and Global Edition)
This seems also similar to Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship progression.
D8s
Subs A3 D2 C6 Infantry A1-2 D3 C3, MI C4
DD A3 D3 C8 Artillery A3 D3 C4
CA A5 D5 C12 Tank A4? D4? C6 or A5 D5 C6 or A5 D4 C6?
BB A6 D6 C20, 2 hits
Fg A4 D5 C10
TcB A4-5 D4 C11
StB A5 D2 C12
Tank A5 D4, would make it a better offensive weapon than Artillery, but still weak on defense due to cost.
Art+Inf: A5 D6 C7
MI+Art: A5 D6 C8
Tank A5 +MI : A6 D7 C10
Tank A5 +Art: A8 D7 C10
2 Tanks A10 D8 C12, 18 pts
3 MIs A3 D12 C12
3 Arts A9 D9 C12, 18 pts
But how could I justify a tank attacking better than a fighter and/or tac bomber?
