G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[baron Münchhausen]

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1
If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.
If the sub submerges ad there is at least 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes
A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

I wonder if giving 2 attack value and 1 way to attack planes and not the other will not come to complex situation like this one:

6 Subs vs 1 CV+ 2 Fg + 1 DD
On first round: 4 A2D1 (submerge) + 2 (on surface) A1D1 (if that is possible to split the subs group?)
Let’s suppose the DD and CV are sunk but 2 Fgs weren’t hit (and there is an island to land the surviving planes).
Does the 4 Subs can go on surface to finish the jobs against Fgs?
Since their was a DD, does the owner can choose the submerge subs instead of the 2 others as casualties from planes?

If the 4 subs are stuck submerge, the question will rise: why they cannot be part of the continuing battle vs Fgs. Subs are submersible, it is not a one way ticket.

I’m trying to find the devil in the details, as you can see.

Rules can be simple, but complex in their application.

It will also imply some markers to be sure of each Subs status (to avoid discussion about what was doing one subs unit which roll “1”): on surface, submerged, submerged and retreated.

[baron Münchhausen]

If I catched KionAAA maths (As far as I understand), I get this stats for Subs:

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

17/12= 1.42 Sub/DD  12/17= 0.71 DD/Sub

1 DD A2 = 1.42 SS  D1  or  .71 DD A2 = 1SS D1

8 IPCs  vs  (1.42 SS/DD * 7 IPCs/SS) 9.94 IPCs/DD,  8 IPCs too low for DDs on offense vs Subs.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

---

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

However, It seems that the 6 IPCs OOB cost of Subs vs DDs was correct for Subs on defence.

Since you are rising them to 7 IPCs, Subs on defence need a little something to be competitive vs DDs.
Battle calc have taken into account that DDs are ASW, so Sub loose all first strike.

It can make sense to give them a better evasive capacity when defending.

[baron Münchhausen]

If I used correctly Btlcalc and KionAAA maths:

It seems that 1 Subs A2 First strike = 1 CA D3, 50% vs 50%
So a 7 IPCs vs 10 IPCs is clearly in favor of Subs.

Better way to see it, at 70 IPCs: 10 Subs vs 7 Cruiser = 94% vs 6%.

---

12 CAs A3 = 18 SS D1 = 50% vs 50%

18 SS/12 CAs= 1.5 SS/CA      12 CAs/18 SS = .67 CA/SS

1.5 SS/CA * 7 IPC/SS = 10.5 IPCs/CA very near the 10 IPCs G40e cost of Cruiser (and clearly not unbalance if we look above, when subs is the attacker.)

.67 CA/SS * 10 IPCs/CA = 6.7 IPCs/SS rounding up and it gives 7 IPCs, same G40e cost.

We can concludes that 10 IPCs Cruiser in itself is no problem vs 7 IPCs Subs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
The method was really the only thing even debated other than carriers (15 or 16).

To, at least, add another argument to prove that a 10 IPCs cruiser is at the right cost vs DD:

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

[baron Münchhausen]

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

**0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs**

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

That’s the cold math.

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

---

For my part, I prefer even numbers: 8, 10, 16, 18.

And that the most expensive unit can be at an economic match with the more versatile DD+CA.

And, from an historical accuracy view, Battleship have the big guns and the big armor and no smaller warship was a real match against one.
So the combat stats can give her a little humph against smaller warships for the massive IPCs investment it takes in a game.

And maybe vs 16 IPCs Carrier, the maths could say that it is balance at 18 IPCs (I won’t do again what KionAAA did on the other thread).

So, it could be only against Cruiser that Battleship is under price from 1 IPCs (in fact .6 IPC)

---

Sorry if it appears as numerous boring maths posts but once I catch how do the KionAAA trick, I was curious to know the results.

Hope, this mathematical “demonstration” can also convince any skeptical about the due place of all warships units for a wargame simulation of WWII.

So it can gain a large consensus amongst member to endorse the G40e units price change from OOB.

[Derek]

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

---

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

Yes its a conundrum because subs have a different attack on offense and defense.
Maybe with the other cost changes subs will be less powerful anyhow, and leaving them at 6 is the best option

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs
Posted on: December 12, 2013, 11:43:40 pm Posted by: Baron Munchhausen

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  shocked  tongue  rolleyes

That’s the cold math.

Great post.
I wish more people could understand this.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks!  :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Yes its a conundrum because subs have a different attack on offense and defense.
Maybe with the other cost changes subs will be less powerful anyhow, and leaving them at 6 is the best option.
Great post.
I wish more people could understand this. Me too.

Maybe it need to be playtested because the other warships units will be a bit more attractive for various other stategies.

However, the 6 IPCs and Subs OOB rules still open the case of Subs acting as cheap cannon fodder.
And there is still the case of numerous planes and 1 or 2 DDs destroying a whole bunch of Subs but loosing only DD and other “hit” from the defending Subs being lost because of the no hit vs air.

Subs rules bother me as I posted much earlier in my own thread of newSub HR Naval Warefare.
It goes too far for most people.

But OOB Subs still need a real revision and Enhancement.

[Derek]

@Uncrustable:

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1

If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.

If the sub submerges and there is atleast 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes

A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

Well this is where im at right now as far as subs, if they cost 7 that is…

Maybe could give subs a 3rd convoy dice aswell to further boost them…

[baron Münchhausen]

Sorry for this long post everybody.

You can only read the first part to know my conclusion and past over the calculation.
Second part is to give proof of my assumptions.

I made it because I was pretty amazed by all the results.
I thought everyone interested in G40e cost calculation/structure should know.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

I have done other calculation of Battleships vs Carrier with 2 Fgs and 1 Fg+ 1 TcB.
At my own surprise, the results give something different than KionAAA maths.
And it shows that my intuition was right when I said, to keep overall balance between warships:
lowering by 2 IPCs cruiser & BB cost imply a -1 IPC to carrier also.

In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.

The maths follow below:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x18= 38.77 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x36= 16.7 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x36=20.84 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x18=31.09 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (38.77+31.09)/2= 34.93 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (16.7+20.84)/2 = 18.77 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x19= 40.93 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x37= 17.17 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x37=21.42 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x19=32.81 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (40.93+32.81)/2= 36.87 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (17.17+21.42)/2 = 19.3 IPCs

---

Vs Cv+ 1 Fg & 1 TcB

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x18= 33.43 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x36= 19.37 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x36=17.54 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x18=36.95 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (33.43+36.95)/2= 35.2 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.37+17.54)/2 = 18.46 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x19= 35.28 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x37= 19.91 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x37=18.02 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x19=39.01 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (35.28+39.01)/2= 37.14 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.91+18.02)/2 = 18.97 IPCs

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Baron:

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.

From a game statistic, it seems to me now that a 18 IPCs Battleship is clearly favoured in combat vs 10 IPCs Cruiser and a 16 IPCs Carrier. I think, base on the math, is real balance place should be at 19 IPCs.

Cruiser keep very good balance rank at 10 IPCs.
A Carrier at 16 IPCs will still have a statistical advantage over BB with TcB reduced at 10 IPCs.
There can be many reasons (game and historical accuracy) for this little “humph”.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31933.msg1213260#msg1213260

I think now that the “go around the garden” of pure math and battle calc is done for these warships.

Only subs remains…

[Derek]

Why I think the best costs are:

Just change cruiser to 10, leave the rest OOB
Also much easier to implement.
BB would be slightly weaker, but not much when you consider they are purchased for their 2 hits with OOB prices, only unit to go down is the cruiser.

[toblerone77]

May I suggest something?

There weren’t a lot of battleships produced in WWII they were quickly outmoded by the carrier. Germany, Japan and the US built some new ones and perhaps some other examples exist. Without going into a largely historical debate. How about eliminating new BBs altogether?  What I mean is all original BBs would remain but no further BBs could be built.

You could even place some more of them in the OOB set up to compensate if a group really wanted them. You guys have put a huge amount of work into what you’ve already accomplished.

I dunno just a suggestion.

[gamerman01]

I’ve had similar thoughts while playing even earlier versions of A&A, toblerone
Good thought

[baron Münchhausen]

At 20 vs 10 IPCs this relative cost will give you virtually this result. CA will be too much interesting at all level.
What about TcB?
Is it back to 11 IPCs?

Actually, I think Uncrustable you should open a philosophic discussion about the intent of G40e.
The meaning of this enormous work may help to see about cost and the rest.
Looking for wide agreement?
More stats balance?
More historical accuracy?
Simply more fun at home according  to your preferences?
More options and more complexity?
Forum endorsment?
Etc.

[baron Münchhausen]

I forgot the simple pleasure of exchanging about various HR and throwing spagghetti on the wall?
Your answer can help finding a direction for argumentation on what should be the  best cost.

[CWO Marc]

@toblerone77:

There weren’t a lot of battleships produced in WWII they were quickly outmoded by the carrier. Germany, Japan and the US built some new ones and perhaps some other examples exist. Without going into a largely historical debate. How about eliminating new BBs altogether?  What I mean is all original BBs would remain but no further BBs could be built.

There were basically three groups of battleships n WWII: those that already existed when the war started; those whose planning and construction had started prior to the war and which were completed during the war; and those which were left uncompleted on the shipyard stocks (or which remained on the drawing boards) when it became clear that the BB had had its day.  Most of WWII’s modern fast BBs fell into the second group.  Very few new BBs got started during the war, but quite a few already-started ones got completed during the war.  Missouri and Wisconsin, for example, were quite late arrivals; I think they first went on active duty in 1944.  Fast battleships which could keep up with carrier task forces, by the way, did get put to good use by the US Navy as anti-aircraft escorts for the carriers, while older BBs did valuable work as shore-bombardment vessels in support of amphibious landings.  This still meant that they would have little place in the carrier-dominated postwar navy, but they were nevertheless able to earn their keep during WWII (even while playing second fiddle to the carriers).

[toblerone77]

I think you’re spot on Marc in your post. I suggested the no new BB idea with that in mind given the scale of forces represented in the game. I also thought it might provide simplicity in resolving some of the cost structure issues involved with naval units in this house rule project.

On a side note the fact that the Missouri was used in the Gulf War shows that it never hurts to have a ship with big a** guns in your arsenal!

[CWO Marc]

@rjpeters70:

In short, I’m for Battleships sailing the seas, because I like the size of the platforms, but I think their munitions are useless.  Hence, change the weapons packages, put modern C4 systems on board, and put the New Jersey, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin back into service.

I think that in the late 40s or early 50s the USN considered completing the unfinished USS Kentucky as a missile ship. The four completed Iowas were brought back into service by Ronald Reagan as part of his drive to create a 600-ship Navy.  They were given new electronics suites, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and CIWS point-defense systems.  They each served about ten years in this revised configuration, but one of their big drawbacks is that each ship’s complement was very large; from memory, I think each full BB crew equalled something like 5% of the US Navy’s entire 1980s-era personnel roster, or some such outrageous figure. Big carriers have even larger crews, of course, but they have different capabilities.

I love battleships and I have a particular soft spot for the four Iowas, but unfortunately the kind of conversion you mention would probably be prohibitively expensive.  Even the relatively conservative refit they underwent in the 1980s to give them Tomahawks and Harpoons proved to be costly, despite the fact that the most drastic thing they had to do was removing four of the 5-inch gun turrets as weight compensation for the missiles and (I think) cutting into the armour plating at a few points to accommodate the power and control cables for the missile launchers.  Any retrofitting that would involve cracking the armoured citadel on a substantial scale would take a lot of time and a lot of dollars.

Interestingly enough, one of the arguments that was made back in the 80s in favour of their reactivation was the fact that their very obsolescence worked in their favour.  Because there were virtually no armoured ships left in the world, armour-piercing naval weapons had likewise become rarities, which meant that contemporary anti-ship missiles designed to kill soft-skinned vessels would have a much tougher time dealing with a heavily-armoured battleship.  (Weapons intended to destroy heavy fortifications on land might perhaps be a solution in such a case.)