Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.
The US and Germany used their submarines to destroy convoy and supply lines. The German submarine was actually a Swedish design they copied. They maximized patrol time and efficiency at the cost of crew comfort, and focused on primarily on convoy raiding. The US did the same but due to longer patrols and generally being able to provide US servicemen with more comfort across all branches, US submariners had an easier patrol. Both the German and US submarine services however had essentially the same goals.
The IJN was different as their submarine force was primarily focused on destroying large capital warships and toward the end of the war began designing “wonder weapons” such as submarines that could carry aircraft.
All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.
Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.
Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.
All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.
Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.
I agree with you.
I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.
I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.
It is the best I could do to :
model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.
Once I said it, it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.
On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515
@Baron:
Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.
All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.
Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.
I agree with you.
I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.
I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.It is the best I could do to :
model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.
Once I said it, Â it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.
On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515
Baron,
Please understand I did not mean my post to be offensive. Essentially this effort to create a G40enhanced is a worthwhile effort. However I have my own house project that I am working on which has nothing to do with this. My understanding is that this is a collaborative effort with hopes of becoming an officially endorsed variant. I have many disagreements with this variant, but I also understand that many of my views/opinions are in the minority and are not supported by those competing in league, online and TripleA.
With that said, I have some disagreement with what has already been semi-finalized in this thread. I also realize through consensus that there is relative agreement already established in this project. I agree with you on much of what you have posted in this project. However it is a “democratic” project and all who participate have some say. You could debate any issue or proposition of this project infinitely. Ultimately however it will depend upon those who choose to support this project and want to play it to come to some sort of agreement.
Honestly I like “chiming-in” on this project but I still will probably operate my games in the same way I always have. If I chose to play online, and should this project become an “official” rule set I may give it a go.
Lastly, I would love to see people like ImperiousLeader, CommanderJen, Gargantua, Wittmann, Gamerman, and any others who are active and wishing to enhance G40 to please contribute.
Hi Toblerone and Baron Munchausen.
I have been reading these posts and have some observations, but am happy to let you and those who have put in the work say their piece.
I suppose I am afraid of rocking the boat or offending those who have thought and worked hard at these projects.
I, like most here, have problems with Global, but do not play enough to try to change things. (I am not fortunate enough to have a regular play group.)
If I was to say anything, it would be that I think Fighters cannot be as cheap as 8.
My wife is filing her Tax Return, so must go!
I will read your posts again soon. As always, I commend you on the work and time you have all put in.
Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.
The US and Germany used their submarines to destroy convoy and supply lines. The German submarine was actually a Swedish design they copied. They maximized patrol time and efficiency at the cost of crew comfort, and focused on primarily on convoy raiding. The US did the same but due to longer patrols and generally being able to provide US servicemen with more comfort across all branches, US submariners had an easier patrol. Both the German and US submarine services however had essentially the same goals.
The IJN was different as their submarine force was primarily focused on destroying large capital warships and toward the end of the war began designing “wonder weapons” such as submarines that could carry aircraft.
All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.
Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.
Excellent post Toblorone, i feel much the same here
All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.
This is true during both offensive and defensive campaigns.
Whether defending a convoy or raiding one, a submarine is best while it remains undetected.
Both the attacking subs and defending subs would have the same advantages and disadvantages.
@wittmann:
Hi Toblerone and Baron Munchausen.
I have been reading these posts and have some observations, but am happy to let you and those who have put in the work say their piece.
I suppose I am afraid of rocking the boat or offending those who have thought and worked hard at these projects.
I, like most here, have problems with Global, but do not play enough to try to change things. (I am not fortunate enough to have a regular play group.)If I was to say anything, it would be that I think Fighters cannot be as cheap as 8.
My wife is filing her Tax Return, so must go!
I will read your posts again soon. As always, I commend you on the work and time you have all put in.
Dont be afraid to say your ‘piece’.
If I was to say anything, it would be that I think Fighters cannot be as cheap as 8.
Remember to take the price along with the -1 dice on both offense and defense.
However i have been thinking about this alot lately, and feel that maybe 10,12,14 is a better cost structure than 8,10,12
For starters at 8,10,12 (what we have now) strat bombers are still too strong (As they are OOB right now)
I fear it would be possible that planes would be spammed.
Possibly leave fighters as is (OOB), only reduce tacbombers cost to 10 (no other changes), and tweak stratbombers a little.
Maybe 10,10,13. Or 10,10,14.
@Uncrustable:
-The problem is not so much underused cruisers, and BBs. But overused destroyers and submarines. Carriers are perfect.
-All the changes so far addresses everything but submarine spam.
-Here is my proposal:
Increase cost of subs to 8, while increasing defense to 2. (no other OOB rule changes)
Nyet!
The problem is over used Submarines (per the argument presented) increasing their defense AND cost does not solve the problem. In another thread I mathematically proved the cost of warships to be equivalent to 2 IPC per attack/defense die and 2 IPC for each special ability. This gave a Submarine a value of 8 IPC with A2D1 + Submerge (which in turn allowed sneak shot, retreat, etc.)
To fix the destroyer issue, we just add shore bombardment at 1 to their abilities and they go to 10 IPC each. (A2D2+Shore Bombard) since their anti submarine ability is passive. It also satisfies those players who want destroyer bombardments back.
If you expand it out, you get:
Submarine - 8 IPC (A2D1 + Submerge)
Destroyer - 10 IPC (A2D2 + Shore Bombard)
Cruiser - 14 IPC (A3D3 + Shore Bombard)
Battleship - 20 IPC (A4D4 + 2 Hit + Shore Bombard)
Carrier - 10 IPC (A0D2 + 2 Cargo + 2 Hit)
Transport - 6 IPC (A0D0 + 2 Cargo)
If you give the cruiser AA Guns as a “passive” ability they become more cost effective.
Thanks Cmdr Jen
I gave up on submarines and just left them alone…
Thinking over your naval costs…
on the surface carriers seem too cheap, even at 16 (OOB price), they are purchased plenty and i feel just right.
and cruisers too expensive again, they increased equal to DD and SS while BB stayed the same
I also don’t think anyone wants prices to go up, (many argue they cost too much as is)
i think we have hit a pretty good price for all the boats so far
What do you think so far of everything else? (i update the OP daily)
Im really looking for thoughts on the 4 player variant (started a separate thread for it in g40)
Sorry to be a pessimist but I created a collaborative house rule thread once called Delta+1 and it didn’t work due to participants arguing (which I’m beginning to see here). Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible (never mind a whole set of rules). Official rules come from Larry Harris and he always rejects our ideas due to legalities, and if he ever did endorse a house rule that came from A&A.org (which has never happened)… he would just credit his own team for the modification. My suggestion to everyone is to draft an entire set of Global house rules on your own and compare them to others here. I’m not trying to kill Uncrustable’s thread… I’m just trying to help put it back on track, because from my experience with collaborative rule creation, it looks as though it might derail.
@Young:
Sorry to be a pessimist but I created a collaborative house rule thread once called Delta+1 and it didn’t work due to participants arguing (which I’m beginning to see here). Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible (never mind a whole set of rules). Official rules come from Larry Harris and he always rejects our ideas due to legalities, and if he ever did endorse a house rule that came from A&A.org (which has never happened)… he would just credit his own team for the modification. My suggestion to everyone is to draft an entire set of Global house rules on your own and compare them to others here. I’m not trying to kill Uncrustable’s thread… I’m just trying to help put it back on track, because from my experience with collaborative rule creation, it looks as though it might derail.
I was looking for more ‘endorsed (AA.org)’ than official.
Similar to both AARHE and AARe
What are your thoughts on what we have so far YG?
@Uncrustable:
@Young:
Sorry to be a pessimist but I created a collaborative house rule thread once called Delta+1 and it didn’t work due to participants arguing (which I’m beginning to see here). Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible (never mind a whole set of rules). Official rules come from Larry Harris and he always rejects our ideas due to legalities, and if he ever did endorse a house rule that came from A&A.org (which has never happened)… he would just credit his own team for the modification. My suggestion to everyone is to draft an entire set of Global house rules on your own and compare them to others here. I’m not trying to kill Uncrustable’s thread… I’m just trying to help put it back on track, because from my experience with collaborative rule creation, it looks as though it might derail.
I was looking for more ‘endorsed (AA.org)’ than official.
Similar to both AARHE and AAReWhat are your thoughts on what we have so far YG?
It’s hard to say… I absolutely love 1940 Global and think that the changes needed to fix it should be minor. That said, I do understand some peoples need to completely advance most of the game mechanics in order to create some kind of “super” Global edition. This is where I am of no use, as the changes I like to endorse should be small, simple, and subtle. I encourage you to continue your endeavor… as many of the ideas here only further the creative process of developing house rules.
Thanks YG.
On air units, i think it best to go back. And make smaller changes.
Fighters - No change from OOB
Tacs - Decrease price to 10 IPC (No other change from OOB)
Bomber - Increase price to 13 IPC (No other change from OOB)
This comes after discussion/thought over at Gamermans G40 league HR thread.
The new scramble rule does not change however (Scrambled fighters at D2 all attacking planes at D1)
This would also include changing aircraft carriers to 15 IPC (-1 from OOB), up from 14.
@Young:
Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible
AARe
AARhe
Would be two examples.
Also, with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
I like the idea of tacs at 10 IPC, but I’d leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
…with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
This.
…leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
They are a bit OP as of now, (spammed in alot of G40 games)
I don’t see why it would have to be such a drastic change (15 would be way too much)
Increasing to 13 is a small change, but it increases the cost disparity between fighters and tacs to 3. And requires more thinking when it comes to air purchases. But it wont completely wreck the bomber, nor does it require any other changes.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
Increasing subs and DD and cruisers by +2 cost, fixes nothing (and likely creates more problems)
Within the 3, cruisers would still be by far the weaker, and submarines the strongest.
One immediate problem is now Carriers and air are even stronger, why ever buy a cruiser at 14 when you can buy a fighter at 10 that rolls better dice and has more range, and can fight over land and water. Or a bomber for that matter.
destroyers would only be bought as blockers
submarines would become scarce
(for 2 IPC more you can buy a fighter that attacks +1 defends +2)
These changes would hurt USA the most, and would help out the Germans alot. (Noone would want this)
Would require a complete overhaul of everything else (I doubt very many would want to go here)
Reducing cruisers by 1 and BB by 2 is so much simpler, yes? And not to mention far less drastic.
It requires very little else changed OOB, (maybe carriers -1)
@Cmdr:
@Young:
Also… the idea of a single house rule becoming “official” is near impossible
AARe
AARhe
Would be two examples.Also, with a moderator willing to endorse a set of house rules, it might become officially sanctioned on these forums if nowhere else.
I’d still feel that increasing the DD cost to 10 IPC and giving the Cruiser AA Guns (per land based AA Gun rules) justifies the cost of 14 IPC. Especially for the Americans. Maybe drop the BB costs to 18, though 20 is fine really.
I like the idea of tacs at 10 IPC, but I’d leave Strats alone at 12 unless we bite the bullet and put them at 15 like they were in classic. If we do that, I’d increase the range to 7 or 8 with AB.
Not sure how you do things during online games, but an endorsement of house rules by an A&A.org mediator is hardly enough to convince my table top groups to play them. You guys must wield a power wand around here.
@Uncrustable:
Reducing cruisers by 1 and BB by 2 is so much simpler, yes? And not to mention far less drastic.
It requires very little else changed OOB, (maybe carriers -1)
@Uncrustable:
Thanks YG.
On air units, i think it best to go back. And make smaller changes.
Fighters - No change from OOB
Tacs - Decrease price to 10 IPC (No other change from OOB)
Bomber - Increase price to 13 IPC (No other change from OOB)This comes after discussion/thought over at Gamermans G40 league HR thread.
The new scramble rule does not change however (Scrambled fighters at D2 all attacking planes at D1)
This would also include changing aircraft carriers to 15 IPC (-1 from OOB), up from 14.
Since almost all units cost is discuss, here is my questions:
XXXXXXX A3D3M4C10, Bombard every round, sometimes @3 sometimes @4, can fight on land and on sea, what is it?
XXXXXXX A3D3M2C11, Bombard one single time @3 or @4, fight only on sea, what is it?
I just feel there is a taboo on discussing the price of the later inside the naval department.
I forgot this one, what is it?
XXXXXX A3D4M4C10, can fight on land and on sea, give a bonus +1A to another unit.
Just to be sure, I wish everyone read this OP which present my opinion, (in hope someone help me understand what is the fail in it):
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619
Some stats:
OOB BB (20 IPCs) vs OOB Cruiser (12 IPCs)
3BBs vs 5CAs = 66% vs 28%
BB (18 IPCs) vs Cruiser (11 IPCs)
11BBs vs 18 CAs = 88% vs 11% for the BBs .
Here we see that the too great number of units improve odds toward BBs.
So I divided by 2 the excessive numbers of 11 BBs to get a better statistical approximation:
5BBs (18 IPCs) + 1BB Dmgd vs 9 CAs (11 IPCs) = 82% vs 15% for the BBs.
BB (18 IPCs) vs Cruiser (10 IPCs)
5 BBs vs 9 CAs = 56% vs 41%
What I conclude is that on an IPCs basis the revised cost of (-2 IPCs) BB and (-1 IPC) CA:
increase the strength of BB vs CA, even compared with OOBs.
BBs odds of survival goes: Cruiser odds of survival are:
(18 vs 12 IPCs) = 66% 28%
(18 vs 11 IPCs) = 82% 15%
(18 vs 10 IPCs) = 56% 41%
BB vs CA
By lowering -2 BB/-1 CA, their relative strength is also detrimental toward the OOB even match of Cruiser + Destroyer vs 1 BB.
(OOB 12+8 vs 20 IPCs)
42% vs 39%
CA 11+DD 8= 19 vs 18.
On IPCs basis, the odds become:
CA+DD vs BB
27% vs 72% for BB
Married, only allowed to wield one wand from now on, sorry Grasshopper. :roll:
I think increasing submarines to 8 IPC and destroyers to 10 IPC will fix the naval balance a bit. 2 destroyers for the same cost of a battleship should change the statistics considerably, no?
5 Destroyers vs 2 Battleships (40 IPC per side) is currently:
A. survives: 60.4% D. survives: 34.8% No one survives: 4.8%
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red. If shown, the 1st and 2nd standard deviations about the mean are represented in blue and light blue.
Attacker results:
1.63% 5: 5 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
8.39% 4: 4 Des. 1 Des. : 8 IPCs
18.44% 3: 3 Des. 2 Des. : 16 IPCs
18.91% 2: 2 Des. 3 Des. : 24 IPCs
13.03% 1: 1 Des. 4 Des. : 32 IPCs
39.6% 0: no units. 5 Des. : 40 IPCs–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defender results:
19.4% 2: 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
15.38% 1: 1 Bat. 1 Bat. : 20 IPCs
65.22% 0: no units. 2 Bat. : 40 IPCsChanging that to 4 destroyers vs 2 battleships (40 IPC per side) makes it:
A. survives: 28.5% D. survives: 65.7% No one survives: 5.8%
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red. If shown, the 1st and 2nd standard deviations about the mean are represented in blue and light blue.
Attacker results:
0.72% 4: 4 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
4.89% 3: 3 Des. 1 Des. : 8 IPCs
10.57% 2: 2 Des. 2 Des. : 16 IPCs
12.33% 1: 1 Des. 3 Des. : 24 IPCs
71.49% 0: no units. 4 Des. : 32 IPCs
Defender results:
44.6% 2: 2 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
21.08% 1: 1 Bat. 1 Bat. : 20 IPCs
34.32% 0: no units. 2 Bat. : 40 IPCs
That’s a pretty significant shift. Even if we leave cruisers alone, that’s a pretty nice change in the fleet builds we’d see.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
I’d still increase the strategic bomber range to 7 (8 with air base) and that partially due to it costing 15 IPC now. (Still has your 3 ipc differential.) And yes, I do think a wing of strategic superfortresses should cost more than a trio of cruisers. My opinion, feel free to argue against it, just stating my personal opinions here and I have no preconceptions that I have the only right ideas.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
Hi Cmdr Jenn,
I think you have find a new can opener!!!
Since the beginning of A&A, there was many cost reduction on units from classic to Global.
For many reasons.
I can say that, as a player, I want to buy many different pieces and have a variety of type of units on the board. And for the sake of winning the game, it was heart breaking to choose cheaper units and let aside other costlier I would like to used in my strategies. Hard sacrifice when you don’t play more than three or four times a year, never got the chance to buy a StB for Russia and stuck to Inf and Inf and Inf :x!!!
And I was also glad to see an increase of IPCs national production charts for countries.
So I dislike any cost increase on units as someone was ripping off this pleasure of purchasing things and planning strategies according to them.
In fact, the problem with balancing stats and cost of units vs others may rely on the too little range we are in: between 3 to 20 IPCs.
Maybe Classic distribution:
8 IPCs Subs,
12 IPCs Fg vs
15 IPCs StB vs
18 IPCs Carrier vs
24 IPCs BB (2 hits) was the best, and have much room to integrate a
13 IPCs Cruiser,
10 IPCs DDs,
etc.
And need simply an increase in the incomes for each Power to have the same “purchase power” even with higher cost.
I can also add that a deca-decimal system (x10 IPCs) could easily give more room to fine tuning for relative balance between units.
Example: Inf cost 30 IPCs, Mech Inf costs (4 IPCs x10)= 40 IPCs, Armor instead of 60 IPCs could be put at 55 IPCs. Have an Artillery unit at 45 IPCs instead of 40 (4x10).
Even “0” Island could receive a small 5 IPCs in this system.
Unfortunately, it creates such a mess to fix everything…
After this done, the initial set-up probably need revision and play-testing.
@Cmdr:
Married, only allowed to wield one wand from now on, sorry Grasshopper. :roll:
I think increasing submarines to 8 IPC and destroyers to 10 IPC will fix the naval balance a bit. 2 destroyers for the same cost of a battleship should change the statistics considerably, no?
That’s a pretty significant shift. Even if we leave cruisers alone, that’s a pretty nice change in the fleet builds we’d see.
If we do that, increase fighter/tactical bomber costs to 12 IPC (leaving the attack and defense stats the same on both planes) and increase strategic bombers to 15 IPC we should be set, naval situation wise.
Why do I advocate increasing costs? Because there’s a LOT more IPC on the board than there was in classic, and the 12 IPC fighter, 15 IPC bomber was standard in classic. It’s not exactly too much to afford either, in my opinion. Also, making the tac the same as the fighter makes sense to me since they are the same unit really, just with inverted stats. (A3D4 vs A4D3) since odds are really good that tac has a tank or fighter paired with it most of the time anyway.
I’d still increase the strategic bomber range to 7 (8 with air base) and that partially due to it costing 15 IPC now. (Still has your 3 ipc differential.) And yes, I do think a wing of strategic superfortresses should cost more than a trio of cruisers. My opinion, feel free to argue against it, just stating my personal opinions here and I have no preconceptions that I have the only right ideas.
One of the consequence of a cost increase will have much more impact on Allies.
Allies need to purchase costlier units instead of Axis which can keep a steady flow of cheaper units to protect their numerous higher valued units.
What is your battlecalculator?
Have a link?
Thanks.
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
Regardless you want to increase costs of air and naval units across the board, while leaving land units alone.
This will create many new problems.
Would require a complete rebalancing of the game.
I’m not buying it.
You must adjust land units to match.
And it is so much simpler to jut fine tune them where they are (BB to 18 cruiser to 11)
Most would argue that if anything, air and naval should be reduced.
I feel the balance between the 3 is near perfect now, and fine tuning is what we need, not a complete overhaul .
And yes baron, many of your ideas/posts are quite messy lol
Sometimes I wonder how much you actually play the game.
“One of the consequence of a cost increase will have much more impact on Allies.
Allies need to purchase costlier units instead of Axis which can keep a steady flow of cheaper units to protect their numerous higher valued units.”
Great point Baron, this is true
@Uncrustable:
One wing of superfortresses should cost more than a fleet of cruisers?
For whatever this information might be worth:
During WWII, one B-29 Superfortress cost roughly the same as one US Navy destroyer.
Airplanes – even bombers as big and complex as the B-29 – can be mass-produced. Major warships – fleet carriers, battleships and cruisers – can’t be mass-produced in the conventional sense because of their sheer size and enormous complexity. The B-29 had an empty weight of 33.8 tonnes, while an Essex-class carrier (for example) had a standard displacement of 27,500 tons, which is almost three orders of magnitude larger than a B-29. It took 15 months to build the Essex, plus another five months to complete and commission her. By contrast, the US managed to produce an overall average of about 80 Superforts per month from 1943 to 1946, despite the difficulties of the building process for this highly advanced aircraft.
