G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[Derek]

I’d tie the German NO with Russia being at peace and bind it to Italy.  If Italy declares war on Russia then Germany loses the NO.  ATM, it feels like an exploit to allow Italy to spear head into Russia and have German units reinforce while still letting Germany collect the NO for being at peace with Russia.  Again, this is my opinion, feel free to argue me out of it.

Agree here, this is very cheesy.

I still really hate the whole US NO for the continental United States.  It’s too bloody hard to get it away from them and when you do, odds are almost certain you are going to win at that point.

This is one of the best NOs in my opinion, as it shows the USA economic boost when they went to war.
It also shows the real strength of the USA, its protected by a natural force barrier of hundreds of miles of ocean on either side.
Is it nearly impossible to take this NO away? Yes. As it was nearly impossible for the axis to do any real damage to USA economy in reality.
This NO is very historically realistic, and balances the game. Punishes the Axis for DOW early, and sets the tone for the game, RACE to equal economic footing for the axis once USA has entered.
Not to mention taking this away/changing it would likely hurt the Allies (it wouldnt help them!) and the game already requires a 9-12 allied bid.

Could do submarines with 0 defense but if there are only submarines in a sea zone under attack, you can only attack them for one round before they escape.  Still gives you the more realistic dive for cover, but lets you use them as meatshields for your surface fleet as well.

There would be probably as many reasons to dive as to not dive in many different situations, arguing this is completely pointless and irrelevant.
Realism aside, now you apply duct tape lol
And whether or not a submarine comes under attack by another warship, or it is doing the attacking, its still an underwater war machine loaded with armament enough to sink several ships double its size.

Think of the naval costs this way:
SS 7 IPC
DD 8 IPC (+1 combat value than SS)
CA 10 IPC (+2 combat value than DD)
BB 18 IPC (+2 combat value than CA, +1 hit to sink)

INF 3 IPC
ART 4 IPC (+1 combat value than INF)
TNK 6 IPC (+2 combat value than ART)

Carrier should be 15 IPC according to the cost structure. Slightly better OOB than both SS and DD, but CA and BB receive higher cost reductions.
This would leave the average naval unit cost reduced by slightly less than 1 IPC. And would actually improve the overall relative costs of all units.

Sealion survivor rate for Germans improves by about 3 units on average using low luck dice. (with 6 IPC transports)
Not sure this is game breaking.

Fleets have always been historically very expensive in these games, I think they are unrealistically cheap now as it is.

This statement doesn’t make anysense, and naval units have not changed since 50th except carriers (+2 IPC in G40).
Just because there is more money on the map doesn’t mean we should increase the cost of all units.
And increasing the cost of naval units while leaving land and air alone would upset the relative cost balance of units.

[Derek]

Russia Lend Lease NO should be expanded to Caucasus + NWPersia + Persia ; and Far East + SZ3
5 IPCs for each, leading to 15 total IPCs possible via lend lease for Russia

[General Veers]

The Persian Corridor lend lease is a very good idea.

Italy should have to work more for their Mediterranean NO, on top of no surface ships they should have to take all the islands and Gibraltar.

To your question on the Russian NO from earlier, the bonus for any territory with an IPC value is good, but I’d still exclude Libya and Ethiopia. That said it is a simpler way of tracking it.

[Derek]

Italy should have to work more for their Mediterranean NO, on top of no surface ships they should have to take all the islands and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is already tied to an NO, and this would make the Med bonus a little too difficult to obtain.

For the Russian communism NO (the cheesiest one), replace Axis territory to any European territory, including Turkey and Allied-friendly ones like Greece and Yugoslavia. Should also get a bonus for Korea.

A good fix for this one is revise it to any territory on the Europe board (outside of original Russian ofcourse) that is atleast worth 1 IPC.
So no more cheesy zero IPC territories making Russia rich.

[baron Münchhausen]

@KionAAA:

Hello friends

@Baron:

Submarines cost increased to 8 IPCs. Attack value increased to 3 or less.

I’m not so sure of this change.
Maybe just 7 IPCs A3, or just let them be as OOB.

There is at least 3 (TT, CA, BB), and even 4 (CV???), naval units at a lower cost, there will be more navy units buying because those units will be cheaper and more attractive vs other unchanged unit: DD & Subs?.

Example: OOB 2 SUBs (A4D2C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
now, 5 Subs (A10D5C30=15 pts) for 3 Cruisers (A9D9C30=18 pts),
or maybe 10 Subs (A30D7C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A21D21C70).
5 Subs (A15D5C40= 20 pts) for 4 Cruisers (A12D12C40= 24 pts) seems a too drastic change, IMO.

I’m sorry, but your calculation needs to be tweaked.
The sum of attack and defense damage is not a good measurement of the strength of a unit,
the product of damage and hitpoints is much better quantity.
If a unit has different values for attack and defense (as subs do),
it has to different values.

With this, your examples read as this:

OOB 2 SUBs (A8D4C12) vs 1 Cruiser (A3D3C12);
cheaper Cruiser: 5 Subs (A50D25C30) for 3 Cruisers (A27D27C30),
Subs at 7:�  10 Subs (A200D100C70) vs 7 Cruisers (A147D147C70).
Subs at A3C8: 5 Subs(A75D25C40) for 4 Cruisers (A48D48C40).

And for me, Subs at A3D1C8 still seem to be a good solution.

You should open a specific topic on this point.
According to what you described, a must take any number of hits multiply by itself (yXy) then multiply by the basic A/D to get the combat value of a group.

Ex.: 5 subs= 5 hits x 5 x A2D1 = A50D25.

My question is why multiply number of hits by itself?

Why not another factor? Like ½ (yXy), for instance ?
5 subs x 5= 25 /2= 12.5 xA2D1 = A25D12.5  
Or anything else which can take into account the number of hits?

It is still different from my conventional evaluation of units:
5 subs = A10D5

[Derek]

The ‘so far’ completed version of G40e.
Testing now.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32396.0

[Jennifer]

I understand your arguments for the US NO. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I’ll let it go since that NO’s been around since basically forever and Larry never got convinced by me to change it, so I guess it should stay - if for no other reason than to keep the game mostly intact.

---

In regards to fleets, I think there are two decent options:

1.  Restore Convoy Raids to Alpha 2 rules (Submarines only, each Submarine can do up to 2 CRD assuming the sea zone can support the dmg.) Â
2.  Give cruisers anti-aircraft guns per the same rules industrial complexes/air fields/naval bases use for them (they cannot be hit extra, get up to 3 shots in the first round of combat against attacking planes @1)
3.  Reduce aircraft carriers in price, but make them one hit surface ships. Notice I said surface ship, not warship.  So a lone carrier cannot negate the Italian Med Sea NO just like submarines cannot. Â
4.  Price Structure: TRN-6, SS-8, DD-10, AC-12, CA-14, BB-20

This should result in a decent spread of ships. Â

• SS at 8 should probably be attack 2, defense 2 units like in Anniversary, Revised and Classic. Â
• DD at 10 will bring them on par with Battleships.  2 Destroyers vs 1 Battleship results in the Battleship usually winning, but battleships cannot detect enemy submarines, so this should make the two equivalent.
• AC at 12 will result in more and more carriers on the battlefield.  Thing is, if we make them 1 hit, you will need more and more carriers if only so that the loss of one does not result in the loss of planes as well.  Since carriers were a primary target for Pacific warfare (historically) having more and more of them sink would be in line with history, no?
• CA at 14 makes sense if they have AA Guns.  The AA Guns alone will make warfare more expensive if only aircraft attack, which will encourage more surface ships to defend carriers on both sides.  (ATT 3, DEF 3, AA Gun @1 for up to 3 Attacking planes, may shore bombard @3.)
• BB at 20 as the only 2 hit warship on the map.

_EDIT:
Russian NOs lost if any allied unit enters a Russian or Russian controlled territory.  However, don’t just ban them from entering?  Gives the players the option to give up NOs or keep them.  If we add NAs then Russia loses those as well if any allied units are present?

Just an idea…don’t have a problem with banning them, just an alternative._

[Derek]

In regards to fleets, I think there are two decent options:

What about this option:
Less change, and better fits with other OOB units.

Unit changes:
Anti Aircraft Artillery: AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to Anti Aircraft rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains at 5.
-Price Changes
Naval/Air bases: 12 IPCs.
Submarines:      7 IPCs.
Destroyers:        8 IPCs.
Cruisers:          10 IPCs.
Battleships:      18 IPCs.
Carriers:          15 IPCs.
Transports:      6 IPCs.
-A transport, when empty, may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. Does not stack with naval base bonus.
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

Allies banned from entering Russia for balance purposes.
However, if you were not playing the 4 player variant, then yes Russia would simply lose its NOs if other Allied units entered its territories.

[Derek]

Removed 4 player variant from here.
Gonna take some time to balance, working on it sparingly.
Sticking to more basic changes here.

[Jennifer]

I don’t have anything against the pricing you are advocating, what I am really looking for is Anti-Aircraft defense for fleets.  Technically, AA guns fit best on Aircraft Carriers, but if we make carriers 2 hit warships that carry two fighters AND they have AA Guns I think we’d have to raise the price of each carrier to 24 IPC or risk almost nothing but fleets of carriers on the board!

However, we do have a piece that is under utilized for fleet warfare and that’s the cruiser.  So if we take AA Guns and move them to the cruiser (and leave the price alone on the cruiser) I think we’d have a piece more readily purchased that fleshes out the fleet.  Really it would only take 3 or 4 cruisers to defend a fleet from air only attacks, but then, you usually only have 2 or 3 battleships so that’s realistic in terms of game play.

As for the change to AA, it’s interesting, but I am not sure what impact it will have on the over all game.

(also, were we not talking about staged technology levels where you had trees and you built off lower echelons of technology before moving on to better things?  I have a partial list, just not happy enough with it to post it, but it’s got 6 trees of technologies and 3 levels within those trees so level 1 is a slight improvement, level 2 is significant and level 3 is 1960s level of technology - or so the thought went for level 3.)

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Cmdr Jen,
just to let you know about my weird HR on cruiser (it works very well when you don’t want that the cruisers in the initial set-up become too dangerous vs planes, since it was OOB design without any AA capacity):

@Baron:

6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers do not require a naval base to move 3 spaces in either combat or noncombat move. They cannot however, move 4 spaces under any circumstances.

I like it M3 is good for Global. Cruiser A3D3M3C12, offshore bombard 1@3
I’m just sad you didn’t add an AA capacity.
Just a small one like 1 preemptive @1 vs 1 plane?
You seems to develop much more aerial dogfight and AAA phase inside.
Could the cruiser be a part of this change?

The last version I played is:
A3D3M2C11, offshore bombard 1@3,
gives 1@1AA preemptive when paired with CV or BB,
gives 2@1AA preemptive when paired with both CV and BB.
But no AA when alone or with other CA.

Lower cost help but the real incentive is still the psychological impact of getting a naval AA gun.

@Cmdr:

I don’t have anything against the pricing you are advocating, what I am really looking for is Anti-Aircraft defense for fleets. Technically, AA guns fit best on Aircraft Carriers, but if we make carriers 2 hit warships that carry two fighters AND they have AA Guns I think we’d have to raise the price of each carrier to 24 IPC or risk almost nothing but fleets of carriers on the board!

However, we do have a piece that is under utilized for fleet warfare and that’s the cruiser.   So if we take AA Guns and move them to the cruiser (and leave the price alone on the cruiser) I think we’d have a piece more readily purchased that fleshes out the fleet.  Really it would only take 3 or 4 cruisers to defend a fleet from air only attacks, but then, you usually only have 2 or 3 battleships so that’s realistic in terms of game play.

As for the change to AA, it’s interesting, but I am not sure what impact it will have on the over all game.

I think that a basic cruiser A3D3M2, bombard @3 which cost 10 IPCs will be buy more often to protect any fleet with 1 better @3 for 10 IPCs than just DD @2 for 8 IPCs and it will be almost an even match vs planes scrambled from an AB: TcB @3 and Fg @4/ 10 IPCs. But it can move with other ship, planes cannot without an additional 16 IPCs carrier.

This basic cruiser is not as an interesting unit (tactically and strategically speaking) than a boosted
cruiser A3D3M3C11 which could fire 1 preemptive @1 AA and bombard @3,
but it will be a real competitive units (optimized purchase) amongst other warships.

[Derek]

what I am really looking for is Anti-Aircraft defense for fleets.

Just curious as to why you want this?
It doesnt seem to fit with a grand strategic game? (Would fit with a smaller/tactical level game?)

A good bit of the time air units die first in naval combat anyhow?

Boats cannot hide, thus all aircraft see and know exactly where they are at, and know how many there are. No surprise when the shooting starts.
However on land antiaircraft guns can be hidden god knows where, who even knows how many there are. When the planes fly over many get shot down without even knowing what hit them, however once the battle is underway, after some time the aircraft will know where the AA pockets are and better avoid them.
AA taking out planes on land before combat begins (1 round of AA) represents this factor very well, and it simply does not exist on sea.

Not to mention giving fleets AA could have the nasty consequence of planes very produced much less often.

[baron Münchhausen]

Naval & Aviation Technology (5 IPCs per token)
-Super Submarines: Defending submarines hit on a 2 or less.

Probably the Tech everyone will pray to don’t get.
“After all IPCs I invest in Naval &Aviation, I was full of hope and now, I missed those IPCs”

Subs are more an offensive weapon, even as a fodder for saving planes vs naval units.
Don’t you think?
The original OOB Tech isn’t Subs A3?

[Derek]

Heres the technology rules:

Technology rules:
-Each nation will receive tech tokens, based on their current production value at the beginning of their respective turns.
-Additional tokens may not be purchased.
-Only nations at war will receive tokens.
-National Objective income does not count towards tech rolls, neither does IPCs saved.
-China’s will never receive tokens.
0-24IPCs = 0 Rolls
25-49IPCs = 1 Roll
50-99IPCs = 2 Rolls
100+IPCs = 3 Rolls
Each turn each nation rolls for each token in all categories it has a token in. A 6 is a breakthrough, a 1 is a token lost. If a breakthrough is achieved roll to see what technology you receive. Once you get a breakthrough within a category, all other tokens within that category are removed. Other categories are not effected by success/failure in another categories. Unsuccessful tokens not lost, remain until that powers next turn.
Tech categories:
Army Doctrine
(1-2)Paratroopers: From Airbases. OOB, Consult Rulebook.
(3-4)Adv Artillery: Can pair 2 infantry units with 1 artillery.
(5-6)Improved Mech: Mech can blitz alone. Mech can pair with a tank for +1 attack (1:1) A Mech cannot pair with both a tank and an artillery.
Naval & Aviation Technology
(1-2)Super Submarines: Attacking submarines hit on a 3 or less.
(3-4)Rockets: Rockets from airbases. One rocket attack per airbase. Range 4. Damage 1D6. Airbase must be operational. Rockets are susceptible to AA.
(5-6)Radar: AA rolls hit on a 2 or less.
Infrastructure
(1-2)Increased Factory Production: Minor IC produces at 4, Major IC produces at 12. Repair 2 damage for each 1 IPC. Maximum damage not increase.
(3-4)Improved Shipyards: Shipyards may produce non capital naval units as a minor IC. Treat the base as both a naval base and a minor IC. It may produce transports, submarines, destroyers and cruisers only.
(5-6)War Bonds: Collect an additional 1D6 IPCs during the collect income phase.
Combat Aviation
(1-2)Jet Fighters: Attacking fighters defend on a 5 or less. Become a A3D5 unit. Jet fighters intercept SBR at a 2 or less.
(3-4)Long Range Aircraft: +1 to range of all aircraft. Stacks with airbase bonus to +3.
(5-6)Heavy Bombers: Strategic bombers roll 2 dice when attacking or strategic bombing. Select the best result (dice does not add). LL roll = 5. (LHTR)

[Jennifer]

Because aircraft played a huge part in naval warfare in World War II, and because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships, it feels like such an important function that just is not represented at all.

Also, it seems kind of silly to see a few dozen aircraft attack a fleet of ships, sink them leaving nothing but the submarines behind and limp home causing the enemy severe losses (typically something Japan does to the entire allied fleet.)  With one or two cruisers, with AA Guns on them, that might not be risked as often.

I do recognize that Baron has a good point.  Cruisers with AA Guns at the start of the game could be devastating to Germany and, to a lesser extent, England.  So why not tie it to Radar Technology?  AA Guns fire @2 on land, Cruisers gain AA Gun shots @1.

[Derek]

because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships

many planes were shot down all sorts of ways

If you send out an overwhelming force of air vs a small fleet of cruisers, and the cruisers are more than capable of hitting the enemy aircraft. You should win with minimal losses in this scenario.
The opponent is the one who took a risk, leaving his fleet vulnerable.

AAA guns on land represent a territory wide network of radar/AA
And unlike on water, they can be hidden where its virtually impossible to know where they are at untill they start shooting. Thus many aircraft are shot down before they even know whats going on.
But as the battle progresses, aircraft know where the heavy AA pockets are and can better avoid them.

This is simulated very well at the strategic level.
All units have AA ability, all units can shoot down aircraft, but AA simulates the above, the unknown.
You cant hide a fleet of cruisers on the open water, and it is silly to think that only cruisers would be outfitted with AA anyhow

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

because many planes were shot down by anti-aircraft gun fire by warships

many planes were shot down all sorts of ways

If you send out an overwhelming force of air vs a small fleet of cruisers, and the cruisers are more than capable of hitting the enemy aircraft. You should win with minimal losses in this scenario.
The opponent is the one who took a risk, leaving his fleet vulnerable.

AAA guns on land represent a territory wide network of radar/AA
And unlike on water, they can be hidden where its virtually impossible to know where they are at untill they start shooting. Thus many aircraft are shot down before they even know whats going on.
But as the battle progresses, aircraft know where the heavy AA pockets are and can better avoid them.

This is simulated very well at the strategic level.
All units have AA ability, all units can shoot down aircraft, but AA simulates the above, the unknown.
You cant hide a fleet of cruisers on the open water, and it is silly to think that only cruisers would be outfitted with AA anyhow

Your historical rationalization about ground AAA seems sound to me.
And why G40e need a naval AAA after all, since cruiser are at 10 IPCs?

Once said, all I can oppose to defend a naval kind of AA  is, first, a “strategical game perspective”: it adds another interesting variety of naval weaponry to counter directly a massive air fleet and bomber spam strategy.

It  also adds a “psychological protective effect” to your fleet when someone launch subs+TcB against it: it adds a bit more uncertainty about casualties. The enemy may still get costlier air casualties instead of only loosing cheaper subs.

And, last, there was an historical fleet formation (deploy by USA in PTO) which can provide a better protection against planes. You probably both read or view it, nonetheless here is the link, for any other viewer of this thread:

Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

That’s why I have this special HR:
for 1 Cruiser+ 1 BB or 1 CV get 1 first strike AA @1 and
for 1 CA+ 1 BB+ 1 CV get 2 first strike AA @1.

It adds a layer of complexity but it increase the thrill during the game when trying to put together the newly built cruiser to joint the remnants of an older fleet (of BB+CV) to get a better and maximized protection against Air attack and enemy’s carrier.

[baron Münchhausen]

Why don’t introduce a boosted transport as a naval technological development:
A kind of AKA, attacking cargo ship A1D1C8-9, same number of carried units?

Or at least can combat as the old transport A0D1C8, 1 hit.

[Derek]

@Baron:

Why don’t introduce a boosted transport as a naval technological development:
A kind of AKA, attacking cargo ship A1D1C8-9, same number of carried units?

Or at least can combat as the old transport A0D1C8, 1 hit.

Because then everyone spams them, like the old transport
would have to limit it to carry one unit,

but honestly this is not for G40e

[Jennifer]

@Baron:

Once said, all I can oppose to defend a naval kind of AA  is, first, a “strategical game perspective”: it adds another interesting variety of naval weaponry to counter directly a massive air fleet and bomber spam strategy.

It  also adds a “psychological protective effect” to your fleet when someone launch subs+TcB against it: it adds a bit more uncertainty about casualties. The enemy may still get costlier air casualties instead of only loosing cheaper subs.

I admit, I had not thought of that specific scenario, but I agree with it.

Also, I was advocating leaving the Cruisers at 12 IPC and giving them AA Guns.  10 IPC + AA Guns would be too powerful I think.

As for the transport, I’d rather have a technology make them even cheaper.  Say 4 IPC each with Improved Naval Facilities instead of any attack/defense ability.  Just call it better logistics perhaps?  (4 IPC is pretty cheap, but considering it can’t really do anything but transport units, it’s not too bad for a technology…better than war bonds, no where near as good as jet power currently.)

Still working on a tiered tech development tree.  3 Tiers, 6 Categories.  Will post later for review and comment.  I work retail now and we have Black Friday coming so my time’s kind of being monopolized at work…