Tokyo express does not need a marine. 1 infantry on Japanese destroyers.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
@Baron:
What do you do about Fighter rolling 2D6, keeping 1-3 as damage?
I’m OK with TcB.
Any idea about Strategic bombers?Really haven’t given much thought to giving planes their own convoy-raid capabilities. But my gut reaction to it is “no.” Permitting convoy raids by planes themselves (with more rules to try to nerf their impact) would probably introduce too much convoy raiding, and probably be really tedious. (For example, if you have a tac bomber in India, do you really want to feel compelled to do a convoy raid of Java sz on every round? Would make planes more overpowered than they already are (and slow down the game). In my opinion, its enough that planes already serve a role in clearing fleet, allowing ships/subs to do the actual convoy-raiding.
OOB, Fgs and TcBs on Carrier have 2 dices each.
That’s why I asked.About Fighter with no raid capacity.
Seems to me better to give economic damage to bombers only.Don’t forget, this Convoy Disruption phase is made on attacker’s turn.
Allocating planes to do between 0-6 for TcBs and 0-3 with StBs instead of attacking combat units is not going to be optimized most of the time.
Having a zero result 50% of the time, is not that efficient. Against combat units, more than a single round attack is allowed.Maybe TcB should roll 1 dice only, like other warships.
So, only Subs get 2 dices to roll.Maybe the issue is about giving too much options to aircrafts, IDK?
-
@Baron:
Maybe the issue is about giving too much options to aircrafts, IDK?
I think this is the crux of the issue. We could easily generate a mechanic for aircraft to participate in convoy raiding, but the question is whether or not we need to or should. My point with allowing it for only one air unit type is that it keeps the ability very limited. Though I acknowledge that even this is superfluous.
Another thing to consider is how we would allow aircraft to convoy raid. With ships, they can fight and then raid in the same turn, should aircraft be allowed to do this? Or should convoy raiding be their single use for the turn? Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?
-
For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.
In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.
Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.
At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack. The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.
-
Though I acknowledge that even this is superfluous.
If aircraft convoy raiding is superfluous, why continue discussing its mechanics?
Also, why would ships be permitted to do naval combat and convoy raiding in the same turn? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have the player choose between them (this is already the case with strategic bombing, shore bombardment, etc. . . units don’t get to do two things in the same turn. Why would should convoy raids be any different?)
-
Another thing to consider is how we would allow aircraft to convoy raid. With ships, they can fight and then raid in the same turn, should aircraft be allowed to do this? Or should convoy raiding be their single use for the turn?
I prefer that it should be as similar as possible to SBR. This was the starting idea.
Either combat, or SBR/TBR or Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR). 3 exclusive options for StB or TcB.Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?
Same as SBR, StBs and TcBs doing MCR start from friendly zone and must land to a friendly one after CMR during NCM. So as SBR, bombers can be use on defense as usual.
Only warships and Subs have to be in SZ to MCR. Once MCR is done, NCM is not allowed, they stay in SZ.
According to the MCR rule trying to develop, Surface warships cannot raid in a defended SZ, any 1 DD blocker is enough to forbid them MCR. Warships make MCR in empty Convoy SZ only.I am not sure about bombers.
It depends on the extent of the similarities with SBR mechanics and how far into historical picture.
With or without interception?
If no one likes interception with Fgs on Carrier (same rule with SBR escort-intercept), then it should be the same rule as with warships:
No MCR for bombers if the SZ have at least 1 DD blocker.
Or, said otherwise, bombers can do MCR in empty SZ only (Sub and TP doesn’t count).
This last one reduces some options for aircrafts (if there is too many).Finally, I suggested that Sub can be allowed to do MCR even in an enemy’s control SZ.
So Sub can either attack or MCR, not both.
Do you want it or not?I added, Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) at 1 IPC per Sub in SZ,
that way, even attacking Sub surviving in Convoy SZ can still do 1 damage, along with Subs on MCR.
This last feature creates somekind of wolfpack capacity as said in an earlier post.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1464159#msg1464159
-
@CWO:
For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.
In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.�
Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.
At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack.� The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.
This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.
However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.
If aircraft convoy raiding is superfluous, why continue discussing its mechanics?
In my opinion, everything we are discussing is technically superfluous because people already play and enjoy the game OOB. And even if it is superfluous, there is no harm in discussing mechanics for it. Perhaps it could morph into something applicable or useful. We don’t know yet. Honestly, I think that limited aircraft combat raiding could be a decent, if not necessary, addition to the game. Certainly it would be more useful than Airbase/Naval Base raiding; that is one of the least utilized aspects of the game, but you can still do it if you want to.
Also, why would ships be permitted to do naval combat and convoy raiding in the same turn? Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have the player choose between them (this is already the case with strategic bombing, shore bombardment, etc. . . units don’t get to do two things in the same turn. Why would should convoy raids be any different?)
Your ships conduct some sort of combat in a given sea zone containing an enemy convoy marker. At the end of your turn you declare that they are conducting convoy disruption there.
The rules in no way prohibit doing this. You don’t have to choose, you can do both. It isn’t like a shore bombardment.
I think it would make sense to make aircraft choose if they want to convoy raid or if they want to attack, because aircraft mechanics are different from those for ships. I was just posing the question.
-
@Baron:
Movement is also a far more important factor regarding convoy raiding with aircraft than it is for ships. (E.g. they still need to have enough moves to make it back to a friendly territory). Should aircraft convoy raiding be treated like strategic bombing raids (where the planes attack and return all at once) or more like the system for ships where they stay in the SZ until your next turn (and therefore cannot be utilized in territory defense)?
Same as SBR, StBs and TcBs doing CMR start from friendly zone and must land to a friendly one after CMR during NCM. So as SBR, bombers can be use on defense as usual.
Only warships and Subs have to be in SZ to MCR. Once MCR is done, NCM is not allowed, they stay in SZ.
This is fine, however, it does change the way Convoy Raiding is done OOB. I have only scanned previous posts on this issue, so I am not up to date on your proposal, but if you intend to keep OOB system of convoy raiding - where it is actually done at the end of the other person’s turn - aircraft raiding will have to take place immediately, much like the old SBR rules. This would set up two different convoy raiding schemes. In practice, I don’t think this will be very obtrusive because air units will just do it as part of the SBR phase.
-
This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.
However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.
And an added reason to eliminate aircraft-versus-sub combat is that, in WWII, actual sinkings of subs by aircraft were as far as I know pretty rare in daytime (though the Leigh Light and its associated tactics did result in some sub kills by planes at night). In the Battle of the Atlantic, the primary job of Allied aircraft wasn’t so much to sink subs (though sinkings were always welcome when they were achieved) but rather to drive them underwater in order to reduce their speed and increase their fuel consumption, thus limiting their effectiveness and range. And to drive a sub underwater, all a plane had to do was to show up somewhere in visual range of the sub, which could easily be dozens of miles in decent viewing conditions. As for subs fighting aircraft, that concept failed lamentably when Doenitz (briefly) ordered his U-boats to “fight it out on the surface” with Allied planes.
-
@CWO:
For whatever it’s worth, here are a few thoughts on the subject.
In my opinion, aircraft attacks against ships at sea should be seen as tactical operations, not strategic ones, for the simple reason that ships (even when gathered into large convoys) are very small targets whose position at sea is always changing, whereas cities (the primary type of strategic bombing target in WWII) are very large and have a fixed position on land.�
Even recognizing the limitations of aircraft navigation during WWII, bombers always knew the map coordinates of a target city; they had variable success at getting there accurately, but at least they knew exactly where they were heading.
At sea, however, there are only two circumstances under which an aircraft can overfly a ship and attack it: either because of pure chance (meaning that it’s located a target of opportunity) or because it’s learned from a friendly unit (such as a friendly ship or friendly airplane) about the position of an enemy ship (or convoy), in whose direction it can then fly to carry out a deliberate attack.� The Luftwaffe attacks against the Operation Pedestal convoy to Malta are an example of the latter type of situation.
I agree with this. I know theres been discussions about Str Bombers attacking ships.
You could have where reconssance ( hope its spelled write. IL will start rippin on me ) planes have to find the fleet.If the fleet is found, then Str. Bombers can attack or Str bombers attack at a 2 or 3 if you don;t use sea planes.
-
@CWO:
This sounds reasonable to me. If nothing else it would give a credible reason to not allow discrete convoy raiding by aircraft. I am able to accept that such events take place in the background of the game somehow, but due to scale are not represented overtly.
However, the same could be said of an aircraft’s ability to attack a submarine in A&A. Aircraft were used in an anti-sub fashion, but this was a very limited role that was even more determined by chance or surface ship help than convoy raiding would be. So by that reasoning, we could also eliminate air vs sub combat. Convoys at least had somewhat predictable routes and a very visible presence.
And an added reason to eliminate aircraft-versus-sub combat is that, in WWII, actual sinkings of subs by aircraft were as far as I know pretty rare in daytime (though the Leigh Light and its associated tactics did result in some sub kills by planes at night). In the Battle of the Atlantic, the primary job of Allied aircraft wasn’t so much to sink subs (though sinkings were always welcome when they were achieved) but rather to drive them underwater in order to reduce their speed and increase their fuel consumption, thus limiting their effectiveness and range. And to drive a sub underwater, all a plane had to do was to show up somewhere in visual range of the sub, which could easily be dozens of miles in decent viewing conditions. As for subs fighting aircraft, that concept failed lamentably when Doenitz (briefly) ordered his U-boats to “fight it out on the surface” with Allied planes.
I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?U-boat losses by cause
In the following table I attempt to list all U-boat losses by type of loss. There are some duplications in the listing (i.e. boats being paid off and then either scuttled or surrendered) but this as accurate as I can make it right now. This is based on the very latest research and will probably not match older sources.
Ships 264 Includes a few losses to merchant ships
Aircraft 250 Includes all ship-based aircraft
Aircraft & Ships * 37 Missing 44 See U-boats missing in Action
Air raids on ports 43 Check out this page.
Mines 35
Captured 3 U-110, U-505 and U-570Scuttled 238 Read about Operation Regenbogen
Surrendered 155 Most scuttled in Operation Deadlight
Paid Off 37 Usually battered or “tired” boats
Accidents 25 Losses to accidents or “friendly fire”
Other (+) 7Total 1,154 (1,149 individual boats)
-
This is fine, however, it does change the way Convoy Raiding is done OOB. I have only scanned previous posts on this issue, so I am not up to date on your proposal, but if you intend to keep OOB system of convoy raiding - where it is actually done at the end of the other person’s turn - aircraft raiding will have to take place immediately, much like the old SBR rules. This would set up two different convoy raiding schemes. In practice, I don’t think this will be very obtrusive because air units will just do it as part of the SBR phase.
True.
That’s why I name it Merchant Convoy Raid (MCR is my “on development” HR based on SBR mechanics, initiated by YG post) instead of Convoy Disruption (OOB) which can be also put on attacker’s turn (Regularkid idea).MCR is a mechanic which try to make 1 basic rule for economic attack in two different settings: IC and bases or Convoy SZ.
Regularkid keeps two separate mechanisms for SBR and CD.
-
@SS:
I agree with this. I know theres been discussions about Str Bombers attacking ships.
You could have where renaissance ( hope its spelled write. IL will start rippin on me ) planes have to find the fleet.If the fleet is found, then Str. Bombers can attack or Str bombers attack at a 2 or 3 if you don;t use sea planes.
You meant reCONnaissance planes?
-
@Baron:
I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?Verifying the site’s accuracy (or lack of it) in detail would take a good deal of research and time (which I don’t have), but just from a quick glance at it I think I know what’s behind the stated figure of 250 submarine kills by aircraft. The site states clearly that this figure “Includes all ship-based aircraft”, specifically noting that all victories by “aircraft carriers” (meaning carrier-based aircraft) are included in this category. In other words: many of those 250 sub kills by aircraft are probably kills by small tactical aircraft from escort carriers accompanying convoys, not kills by big, land-based, long-range planes like the Liberator bomber. Escort carriers (also called jeep carriers) were small, cheap, and easy to build, so they could be produced in large numbers. Their great advantage what that, by accompanying convoys, they were automatically at the right location to attack an enemy submarine immediately when a convoy ran into one, without wasting any time hunting over thousands of square miles of ocean. I’m not sure what exact types of planes were carried from escort carriers, but they’d have to be small (to handle a carrier deck) and have a surface-attack capability (to engage a sub), so this would translate into some sort of dive-bomber or fighter-bomber or perhaps just a fighter. Such planes are much more maneuverable than an big bomber like the Liberator, which is another reason why they’d have an advantage in attacking a small target like a surfaced sub. (Liberators did sink subs, but as I mentioned this usually involved special night-time tactics and equipment that wouldn’t apply in a convoy situation.) So what this would imply for potential A&A house rules would be, in my opinion, that aircraft would only have a significant anti-sub capability in situations in which a convoy is accompanied by an aircraft carrier. It wouldn’t have to be an expensive fleet-type carrier – a less expensive escort carrier unit would be the correct choice – but there would have to be a carrier of some sort present right alongside the convoy that’s being defended from submarine attack. Land-based aircraft wouldn’t work: the big ones (like the Lib) had their uses, but were much more limited for the reasons I’ve discussed, while the little and medium ones (fighters and tactical bombers, in A&A terms) didn’t have the range to get far enough into the Atlantic. The only realistic exception might be to allow anti-sub attacks by land-based small and medium planes immediately next to a coastline, where range wouldn’t be much of a problem.
-
Yes Baron. You could put those recon plane or planes on those carriers so you don’t have to be by a coast.
Sea Plane (Recon) C8 A0 D1 M4 D2 D = D6 die roll. Sees Convoy. Now you have fighter - dive bomber raid convoy zone if it can reach convoy zone.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?Verifying the site’s accuracy (or lack of it) in detail would take a good deal of research and time (which I don’t have), but just from a quick glance at it I think I know what’s behind the stated figure of 250 submarine kills by aircraft. The site states clearly that this figure “Includes all ship-based aircraft”, specifically noting that all victories by “aircraft carriers” (meaning carrier-based aircraft) are included in this category. In other words: many of those 250 sub kills by aircraft are probably kills by small tactical aircraft from escort carriers accompanying convoys, not kills by big, land-based, long-range planes like the Liberator bomber. Escort carriers (also called jeep carriers) were small, cheap, and easy to build, so they could be produced in large numbers. Their great advantage what that, by accompanying convoys, they were automatically at the right location to attack an enemy submarine immediately when a convoy ran into one, without wasting any time hunting over thousands of square miles of ocean. I’m not sure what exact types of planes were carried from escort carriers, but they’d have to be small (to handle a carrier deck) and have a surface-attack capability (to engage a sub), so this would translate into some sort of dive-bomber or fighter-bomber or perhaps just a fighter. Such planes are much more maneuverable than an big bomber like the Liberator, which is another reason why they’d have an advantage in attacking a small target like a surfaced sub. (Liberators did sink subs, but as I mentioned this usually involved special night-time tactics and equipment that wouldn’t apply in a convoy situation.) So what this would imply for potential A&A house rules would be, in my opinion, that aircraft would only have a significant anti-sub capability in situations in which a convoy is accompanied by an aircraft carrier. It wouldn’t have to be an expensive fleet-type carrier – a less expensive escort carrier unit would be the correct choice – but there would have to be a carrier of some sort present right alongside the convoy that’s being defended from submarine attack. Land-based aircraft wouldn’t work: the big ones (like the Lib) had their uses, but were much more limited for the reasons I’ve discussed, while the little and medium ones (fighters and tactical bombers, in A&A terms) didn’t have the range to get far enough into the Atlantic. The only realistic exception might be to allow anti-sub attacks by land-based small and medium planes immediately next to a coastline, where range wouldn’t be much of a problem.
Thanks for this answer.
I made the count on this web site and Halifax, B-17 and B-24 Liberator sunk 91 U-boats (including coordinated hunt with warships or other planes) and 72 were entirely credited to B-17 and B-24.
So 72 out of 250, is still a good score 28.8% amongst planes.
91/250= 36.4% amongst all U-boat killed by planes.And 72 out of 514 sunk by ships and planes= 14%
Or 91 out of 514 = 17.7% of the majority of U-boat sunk. Very near 1/6 odds.
3 types of planes seems to be aboard Escort Carriers:
TBF Avenger gets 35 U-boats and 11 on their own.
F4F Wildcat gets credited for 23 U-boats and only 2 on their own.
Swordfish gets credited for 21 U-boats and 11 on their own.TBF 35/250 = 14% on their own: 11/250= 4.4% amongst planes
F4F 23/250 = 9.2% on their onw: 2/250= 0.8% amongst planes
SF 21/250 = 8.4% on their own 11/250 = 4.4% amongst planes
Sum: 31.6% amongst planes.TBF 35/514 = 6.8%
F4F 23/514 = 4.5%
SF 21/514 = 4.1%
79/514 = 15.4%
These 3 types were credited for 15.4% of all U-boats sunk.It is only a rough ratio, because some credited kills can be counted twice for 2 different planes.
-
Updated to GlobalRedesignTb.
Added a M3 CA no NB boost (has AA), Bumped CruiserAA price to 12 and boosted bombard to 3, added 10 PU oob CA that bombards at 2, boosted SNLFs to 6, got rid of Russia’s Korean NO and changed India’s AB and NBs to repair at India. Was this intended otherwise ? If so it can be switched back.
Here’s a triplea mod that uses some of the ideas discussed here.
NAP Japan/Russia
Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. Mongolians behave the same as OOB. When Russia is at war with Germany and Japan she receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus for SZ 4.New/Changed NOs
When Russia is at war with Germany:
“The Great Patriotic War” Theme:Soviet Sphere of Influence.
5 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.“Arctic Convoys” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Arctic Supply Route.
2 PUs each if SZs 125 and/or 124 have no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Archangel is Russian controlled.“The Northern Trace” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Northwest Staging Route.
2 PUs if SZ 4 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Soviet Far East is Russian controlled.“Persian Corridor” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route.
2 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), French Madagascar, Persia, Northwest Persia are Allied controlled and Caucusus is Russian controlled.“Red Advance” Theme:Propaganda Value and Spread of Communism.
2 PUs for each originally owned German, Italian and Pro-Axis Neutral European (includes Scandanavia) territory that Russia controls. This excludes all African TTS, Iraq and Mediterranean Islands.It is discussed in more detail on page 3 here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.30
“Pacific Island Control” When Japan is at war with any of the Western Allies (excluding Russia) all Pacific Islands valued at 1 or lower receive 1 PU. Controlling Power must be at war to receive bonus.
"UK Convoy Zone"UK receives 2 PUs if SZ 104 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports).
“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.
“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Axis control Midway, Wake and Guam.
“Island Conquest” 2PUs for conquest of any 2 value Pacific Island TT or less, excluding PHIs.
“All Island Conquest” adds the rest of the Pacific Islands to the “Island Conquest” NO after turn 4.
These are discussed in more detail here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36554.0
Removed NOs
Russia Controls Berlin for 10 PUs
Japanese Strategic Defense Perimeter, control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomon Islands for 5 PUs
Territory Value Changes
HI is now worth 2. Fiji, Samoa, Midway and the Aleutians are now worth 1. Gib, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Tobruk and Alexandria are all worth 1. These are discussed in more detail here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36514.0
West India is now worth 0.
French Guiana and Iceland are now worth 1. Ontario is now worth 0. If you want to build a factory there you will have to use edit. Same for West India. Alberta/Saskatchewan is now worth 0.Territory Ownersip Changes
Sierra Leone is now Pro Allied Neutral (it still shows up as true neutral).
Minor Factories
All captured and new construction minors may only produce artillery and infantry. If a NB is present you may also build subs, transports and DDs. If a AB is present you may also build fighters and TBs.
Added another xml that removes the restriction builds on mechs and armour.
ABs and NBs
ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. So Germany may only build bombers in Western Germany and Germany. Germany must also have a AB. May not build at a AB with 3 or more damage.
NBs are required to build all naval units. BBs,CVs,CAs and Escort Carriers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. These TTs must also have a NB. May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.
Primitive Terrain
Non Coastal Asian and Soviet Far Eastern TTs all land units may only move 1. Air units exempt. Once you’re out of China and past the Urals, Novosibirsk and Kazaksthan movement restriction ends. Discussed on page 8 of this thread. Note: If you don’t start in a primitive TT you can move your full movemnt including moving through primitive TTs. Primitive TTs are editable.
New and Modified Units
Bomber A3 +1 when paired with fighter 1:1, D1, M6 +1 with AB, C12
Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB, C11. No boost when paired with fighter or tank.
Added Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB, C12. No boost when paired with fighter or tank. (Use caution whren purchasing as both images are the same).
AAgun A0, D1, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C5. Game starts with these.
AAgun1 A0, D0, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C4.
CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C12. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 3. Game starts with OOB Crusiers only. OOB crusiers bombard at 3.Escort Carrier
A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD.Transport333
Same abilities as OOB transport except may carry 3 inf or 2 inf and 1 other land unit. (will also carry 2 heavy land units which is not intended). Use caution when purchasing as they have the same image as OOB transport.Militia
A0, D1, M1, C2. Limited by country. Discussed on page 3 of this thread. May only conquer Completely empty TTs. No infrastructure. Includes primitve.Flying Tiger
Same abilities as fighter. When ending turn in Chinese controlled TT it changes into a Chinese fighter. US starting PHI fighter is a Flying Tiger. US may only have 1 Flying Tiger at any time. May fly over and land in UKP TTs when US is neutral.Marines
Same as infantry except +1 during amphibous attack. Artillery bonus stacks. So A3 with artillery on amphibous attack. Limited by country.
Japan 6
US 6
UK 1 or UKP1 not both
ANZAC 1Setup Change
Add 1 Chinese AAgun to Szechwan
Add 1 AB to New South Wales
Add 1 Russian DD to SZ 5. May only move in Sea Zones 3, 4 and 5. Restrictions end when at war with Japan.
Add 1 NB to QuebecThis adds a few things that have been discussed. Unfortunately a lot of Good Ideas on here are unable to translate to triplea or I don’t know how to do it.
The CA seems like some sort of concensus anyway. Wasn’t sure about the Tac at attack 4 but IDK if people would buy them otherwise. The 3 unit transport sounds cool but I wonder if it will be an automatic India Crush. ANZAC will face a more serious threat as well.
ABs and NBs are more valuable. Russia is stronger economically. Movement through China and Soviet Asia has been slowed. Limited Japan’s ability to spam mobile units on mainland China while still allowing UK to deploy some mech forces out of South Africa.
I know it’s a significant addition of NOs which will make it harder to keep track of, but it seems like the easiest way to encourage certain behavior without deviating too far from the current system.
An optional version with Shipyards for everyone as well as ABs and NBs C12 is also included.
Note: Custom techs, Improved Mech Infantry, Airborne Forces and Shipyard, are not editable. You can aquire them normally.Future Changes
Neutral Blocks
Vichy france
ParatroopersSadly SBR attacks +2 only when leaving from an AB is not possible.
DD blocking subs from submerging on a 1:1 or 1:? is doubtful.
Obviously ignore any units you want for testing purposes. If you want to give it a try here it is:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/3k9yyi
It’s the light blue dl button
Put the zip in your maps folder which is inside triplea.
This is the previous one with AACruisers at 10 bucks
-
Wow, way to go Barney. This took a lot of work, I can tell. Excellent job.
Would love to playtest this with you. You ever in the TripleA lobby?
On initial read through, I’m loving what i"m seeing. I have two concerns/questions though:
1. Why are all of Russia’s Lend Lease routes contingent on Archangel being Russia controlled? If the stuff flows through Persia, for example, what does that have to do with Archangel? And Madagascar?
2. I think I’m missing the Mongolian infantry. Effectively replacing the Mongolia penalty with a 12 PU “fee” to declare war, is it seems arbitrary and disconnected from any historical reality? What does it represent exactly? With the Mongolia thing, you immediately understand whats happening. . . you’ve pissed off the Mongolians and now they’re at war with you (scary!). But 12 PUs? Just cuz?
Another, perhaps more organic way to deter DOWs between Russia and Japan is to increase the lend lease NOs if Japan declares war on Russia unprovoked. This is how it works in my Balance Mod, and it really does seem to prevent early DOWs. Russia doesn’t want to DOW Japan cuz it doesn’t want Japan to block its lend lease route in the Far East (in mine, its sz 5 and Amur), and Japan doesn’t want to DOW Russia because then the amount of lend lease aid that will flow to it from the West will increase, and Japan will have to devert resources to blocking the Far East route.
Also, does putting a 12 PU penalty on a Russian DOW essentially means that Japan can leave Manchuria defended, since when does Russia have 12 PUs to spare?
Anyhow, let me know if you’d like to play test.
Nice work.
-
Hi kid
Updated previous post. Archangel was a pasting error. Soviet Far East and Caucasus are the TTs needed.
The 12 PUs for the NAP was just because that’s what it was originally. I’m only 3 test games in and yea it doesn’t look like Russia would spend the dough to do it, although she’s making extra dough so she might. Maybe lower it to 6 for Russia or scrap it. If she doesn’t it means Japan can move here forces out of Manchuria. However if you can get a Flying Tiger to China that makes them a lot more powerful (might want to limit them to 2 max) and Japan has had to send more dudes to keep them in line.
Increasing the NOs sounds like a good idea for keeping Japan from taking a DOW to lightly. I check in on the lobby once in a while but haven’t played in a long time. My schedule is a little erratic but maybe we can set something up in the future. I’ll pm you or look for ya.
Just trying to make as many ways as possible to try stuff out. Nothing concrete by any means.
-
It is a lot of good work, man. :-)
Thanks!
I believe this provides the basic ground to test many things to improve Pacific actions.About NB and IC, there is an historical issue about moving the Naval Base from Nova Scotia (Halifax) to Quebec. If absolutely needed to have in the same TT both IC and NB, then add 1 NB to Quebec but do not remove Halifax.
Maybe, if a 3 ships Cap apply to number of ship NB can repair, this SZ 106 would provides up to 6 repair points. There is Shipbuilding yards in both Nova Scotia and Quebec.It seems that one Japanese NO is based on what islands Allied have, is this right?
“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.
“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam
You seems becoming more and more profiencient with TripleA software.
Do you know if it is possible to create a 4 PU AAA which fire at up to 2 planes per round, (1 shot per plane max) every combat round?These two units worth the try:
**CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.Escort Carrier
A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD.**However, if Fleet Carrier is at 16 IPCs, I would have raise the Escort Carrier cost to 10 IPCs.
It is a balance issue, 2 CVEs at 9 (18 IPCs) and 2 Fighters at 10 IPCs for 38 IPCs will be more cost efficient in combat than a full Fleet Carrier at 36 IPCs, with no Anti-sub capacity. -
Hi Baron
I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.
I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.
Oops another pasting error. Should be axis controlled for Japan. Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.
Suggested Topics
