G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

[Derek]

Yes 20 IPC BB is best.
No change from OOB.
Far more historical realism.
Still has a place in the game as a heavy hitter and with it’s staying power (2hit).

Your point about warships playing second fiddle to land units is both true and should be true IMO. I really fail to see what you are trying to say with regards to this.
What did naval do in the real war? What does control over water get you in reality? No direct income, but indirectly via convoy and troop transports. This is played out just as it should be in this game. I.e. Warships solely to protect transports and/or destroy them or to convoy raid/prevent enemy from convoy raiding.

Naval purchases are crucial, but a good player will punish you for overspending on it.
This is a very healthy game mechanic.

SS 6
DD 8
CA 10 *
CV 16
BB 20

Transports 6 or 7 ?
This is something that needs looked into a bit deeper…

[gamerman01]

Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

[Derek]

@Gamerman01:

Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

Yes ;) but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lol

I think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gamerman01:

Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

That is another criteria:  original  feature vs Larry OOB.
When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser.

About TT is there any other way than playtesting?
I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
My old Iron Blitz version could do it.

[gamerman01]

@Baron:

About TT is there any other way than playtesting?

Playtesting would be the way to go, yes.

I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
My old Iron Blitz version could do it.

Right.  I had Iron Blitz too.  :-)  Marines!

[gamerman01]

The Cold War scenario was cool!
UK+USA vs. USSR with all powers having all techs!

[baron Münchhausen]

@rjpeters70:

I thought Iron Blitz was a terrific game.  Never understood why Marines weren’t incorporated into the main game.

If I remember:
Marines A1D2M1C5, attack 3 in Amph Ass.
Can have 2 in TT
Seems a balance problem.

[gamerman01]

The only advantage marines have over tanks is transport efficiency.  Any marines that survive are just normal infantry, unless they embark on another amphibious assault.

In Classic, though, you could only transport 1 tank, or 2 infantry.  Take your pick.

With current rules of being able to transport 1 tank + 1 infantry, the added capability of marines is not as dramatic as it was in the old Hasbro CD game Iron Blitz

[Derek]

USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs

Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12

That is another criteria:  original  feature vs Larry OOB.
When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser

.

Not sure if this is just a statement or what…there has been loads of analysis on this subject, and 10IPC cruiser was proven to be the most logical, here and several other threads.

I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.

[gamerman01]

Uncrustable, in my incomplete knowledge of TripleA I do not know of a way to edit unit stats

You might want to contact Veqryn as you are getting to the point of wanting to try things out using Triple A

[baron Münchhausen]

To what extent does Larry H admit the 12 IPCs cruiser was broken?
G40 revised was an opportunity and he stays on OOB cost.

On the forum we know well all the analysis behind the 10 IPCs CA.
But someone new on it will think like Larry: 11 ok as HR, but 10 is too detrimental vs BB.

Usually we explains rules not all the reasoning behind.
At first glance on cost, not talking about all other interesting feature of G40E, no one could guess how much analysis there is in.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

@Gamerman01:

Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

Yes ;) but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lol

I think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA

Yep. 19 sucks. 18 & 20 are more easthetics numbers.  :-D

I think some players will have this kind of line of thinking once cruiser cost at 10 IPCs explained and understand:
@MrRoboto:

Yes I agree. 10 IPC cruisers are still weaker than everything else except 20 IPC battleships (which are the 2nd worst sea units right now).

I think the main point of cruisers and battleships being too weak is because they don’t really have a certain role to perform.

Subs: By far the best attacking unit. Still very strong on defense due to being cannon fodder cheap. Strong convoy. Requires the enemy to have destroyers.

Destroyers: Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blockers. Prevent first strike and submerge.

Carriers: Carries planes, which not only have a longer range than ships, but also are not blocked by destroyers.

Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.

But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).

Once said, based on that idea that a costlier unit should not be equal to a cheaper ones , so must be a bit more powerful than the cheaper ones to get some interest, I rather prefer where you stand when you posted this (but keep OOB Sub at 6):

@Uncrustable:

Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7  SS 6
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18

Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.

Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports) 11.6 IPCs

SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphibious support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hits.

The actual DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition.
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare as well.

These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron as well as myself.

But, ultimately, you choose your cost structure.
I will no more insist about CA or BB cost.
I’m open to discuss on Transports, but I think the real interest will be about the possibility to adjust prices on  AAA.

The question is which option is the more time-consuming for AAA developers: creating directly your version with a specific cost structure or a module which allow anyone to play with cost of any units.

I’m pretty sure this customizing function will interest many players.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs
Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12

I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.

I agree with you on all this.

Maybe just add for Marines NA of USA that it is only for PTO (to keep it historical as much as possible)?
I suggest to read this thread on Marines, it can help having a bigger picture:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg748607#msg748607

This NA is good for Japan on defense.
But weird for USA on offence because the first round is the landing phase, the most difficult when no Inf is at his best when reaching the beach.

But it is simpler for game mechanics at a strategical level.

[Derek]

I think a better way for the 2 NAs

All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
Does not stack with artillery bonus

Mech are not considered infantry

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi, we agree.
I think I tried to answer to an older version of your post.
Isn’t?

I come to the same conclusion:

@Uncrustable:

I think a better way for the 2 NAs

All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
Does not stack with artillery bonus

Mech are not considered infantry

All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
Except for Japan?

USA will usually lost infantry on the first round.
Often, the second units on a TT is a Art, already A2.

So this US NA is not even vs Japan.

Basically, any surviving Inf paired with Art, already get A2.
It is only the remaining and unpaired Inf which will get this bonus.
On the first round (the more important) they attack @1.

What do you think of this slightly modified US’s NA:
US Marines: all Inf attacking an island in PTO except Japan and Australia get
Attack @2 after first round of an amphibious assault.
So if any US player want some ground punch on the first round, he will anyway put some Art unit on the transport.

[Derek]

First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island, secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?

[baron Münchhausen]

First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island,

good.

Secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

Historically, probably true.
The cons I see, is:
Are your sure it will be balance, because Japan can become an island fortress?
To limit this in another way:
Maybe, just allowed the Japanese NA for just one time (as the Kamikaze token) per island (including Japan)

Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

You mean by letting Inf A2 after first round on Japan, US player will not buy much Art in PTO?
Otherwise (if Japan not include), US player will still have to buy Art.
Do I understood what you mean?

What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?

I don’t see this as a major unbalancing problem.
I played classic with additionnal cruiser and battleship bombarding even after naval combat.
This is a one time shot anyway.

The only impact is that Destroyer loose one aspect of their blocking effect, since 1 single DD can forbid many CA and BB to bombard an island/shore.

Just how far players are ready to let go this chess like feature, I don’t know?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…
That is: When a submarine is not submerged, there are no special rules regarding aircraft vs subs. When a submarine is or is not submerged does not change from OOB. However a sub still can never act as a blocker.
While not submerged, or at the surface, a sub does not have a first strike ‘sneak attack’
While at the surface it can hit enemy air units, and enemy air units do not need a destroyer to hit the sub.
Once a sub submerges it can no longer hit aircraft, aircraft then need a destroyer to hit the sub.
A submerged sub retains it’s first strike ‘sneak attack’ as long as there are no enemy destroyers present.
Also a submarine may submerge and retreat the battle, without leaving the SZ. So long as there are no enemy destroyers in the battle.

According to the rules (if I’m not mistaken) a submarine is considered ‘at the surface’ or ‘not submerged’ until it’s owner decides whether or not to submerge it. Once submerged it remains that way until the end of the battle, where it then resurfaces.

Basically a sub has 3 options:
Stay at the surface (acting as a normal A2D1 unit)
Submerge (use current OOB rules)
Submerge and retreat from the battle (remaining in the SZ)

In OOB rules a destroyer effectively blocks enemy submarines from submerging.
With these rules a submarine could still submerge, but an enemy destroyer blocks both the sneak attack and submerge and retreat while allowing friendly aircraft to target enemy subs.

This would give subs a little more power.
However considering there is only 1 IPC difference in cost from a destroyer, and submarines cannot block, I think there will be good reason to have some of both.

Is this too powerful for subs?
With this they can now act as proper escorts for transports. Albeit at a very low defensive roll (1)
This would certainly change some of the core dynamics of the game.

What do you think ?

On Subs, here is a different way to improve planes vs subs battle.
1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.
b) All sunken subs can retaliate @1 (against successful planes only) but not undamaged subs.
c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
c) As above, all sunken subs can retaliate @1 (vs successful planes) but not undamaged subs.
d) After the first round all subs can still submerge (as OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

3a) When planes and other warships except DD attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
b) All subs rolls as OOB a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.

---

Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
But when there is only defending planes, subs can be chose as casualties (contrary to OOB).

[Derek]

That is pretty complex

I think with cruisers at 10, OOB subs are best

[baron Münchhausen]

I still think Subs vs planes should be improve, here is a less radical way.

Planes should be able to hit subs anytime they don’t submerge.

Subs on defence should be able to escape destroyers (in an other way than sinking all attacking DDs).

Subs should be used anytime (even when no DD is present) as sea-fodder casualties against planes to protect more important vessels.

If I kept the more important aspects of my last post:

1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.

c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
c)
d) After the first round, all subs can still submerge (as in OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

3a) When planes and other warships (without DD) attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
b) All subs rolls, as OOB, a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.

---

Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
But when there is only defending planes (against subs+ warships/planes), subs can be chosen as casualties (contrary to OOB).