Well done!
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Barney:
Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.
**Here is the epiphany: in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!
Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.**
U like?
Another reason to try it is that it is partly an idea of Black Elk on Battleship.
However, rising to 4 IPCs Marines units which can use this movement feature is a way to limit both carrying capacity and the useful number of Marines.How to make battleships a more attractive purchase
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1284230#msg1284230Re: Cruisers - Combined Arms
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1357920#msg1357920@Baron:
So speed is out, the game doesn’t do speed well. But how about Maneuverability?
Maneuverability might be something we could try to represent somehow. What if the Cruiser could ignore blockers on non combat? “Race past” Or if you don’t like that, then Cruisers move 3 on non combat?
Short of a movement type advantage, the idea to have them attack at 4 is at least something. Attack 4, defend 3? What value would you have it bombard at then though? Still a 3?
Other concepts that I have tried were Cruisers and Battleships can load a single infantry unit, which I liked, since it basically provides a kind of alternative to defenseless transports (albeit really expensive ones) but definitely makes the unit more attractive as a purchase. In this case, we said that the infantry units loaded onto these Warships represent marines, whereas the units loaded onto transports are more like army soldiers. These dudes are the marines, which was fun with the non com move at 3 idea. For launches, with these units first on the scene in the Pac.
Given that there is no marine unit represented in the game, the idea was that, when loaded onto a Cruiser or Battleship the infantry unit just is a marine or naval- amphibious infantry unit.
Cruisers and Battleships carrying 1 Marines Infantry unit are interesting since it can depicts some historical fast deployement of US Marines.
I like it when you show it that way.Since there is some move @3 via NB, why not input the 1914 Cruiser Move?
A Cruiser basic move is 3 spaces CM and NCM and get no bonus from Naval base.The high 12 IPCs with the lesser combat value will be explained and balanced by the extended range and Marines deployment capacity.
Battleship heavier firepower can even gives a +1A as Artillery capacity to help Marines assault. (Toblerone77 get this idea first, I think)
Cruiser and BB get their one shot shore bombardment @3 or @4, which is forbid with Naval combat.
But Battleship can still provide a +1A to her Infantry unit on board for every combat round of an amphibious assault.So Cruiser gets 3 moves, while Battleship gets an Artillery support capacity.
I think this will makes more interesting depiction of Pacific Invasions.
@Baron:
Without getting too wild, and fitting within game mechanics, you could simply boost firepower to land units + 1 in uncontested amphibious assaults for all rounds just like artillery does making BBs more valuable. this could be modified to include cruisers too. BBs can support 2 INF and cruisers can support 1. Do this for all rounds of combat and not simply a bombardment.
Interesting idea which I completly forgot could be used as a way to promote BBs and CAs (when we were trying to introduce a more historically accurate shore bombardment for Destroyers and in general).
Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment? (1942/1940) http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30249.msg1260861#msg12608611942.2 & G40 Improving historical accuracy of amphibious assault
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33217.msg1262175#msg1262175This should be kept within the limits of only paired Infantry units being unloaded from transports in an Amphibious assault get this bonus.
But any INF cannot get both bonus from Art and BBs or Cruiser. It is still a combined arms, right?Even if it is for all combat rounds, this will be a limited bonus since Infantry units is always the first casualty taken.
It will mostly fade by itself in subsequent rounds, due to attrition.
As read another time, by " boost firepower to land units + 1" do you really intent to make Armor A4 and Art A3 during a debarkment?
Probably, it is in this post you got the first development of this idea of BBs and Cruisers providing support to Infantry/Marines:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg1101675#msg1101675 -
@Baron:
Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?
Correct.
Cruiser Cost 12 A3 D3 M3, no NB bonus, bombard @3, preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
With all these additional capacities, even if not directly optimized on AAcalc vs other warships, +1 move and AA would be a test to see if people want to buy it at 12 IPCs.To summarize my POV on Marines and the rest according with OOB cost structure with TP at 7 IPCs:
Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryBattleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryElite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Cruiser or 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).No other combined arms.
With SS5- DD6-TP8-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure, Cruiser should be different:
Cruiser
Cost 9
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)Battleship
Cost 15
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry -
Why do cruisers get AA capabilities and not battleships? Is there any historical justification for that, or is it just to “make cruisers more attractive to buy in the game?”
Also, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities, why do they only fire at 2 planes, when AA guns fire at 3? Is there any historic or game-play justification for this?
Why do Marines get a movement bonus from mech infantry? Why not regular infantry too then?
Also, Marines need to cost 5, imo. The player who uses them is already saving 7 because no transport is needed.
-
Why do cruisers get AA capabilities and not battleships? Is there any historical justification for that, or is it just to “make cruisers more attractive to buy in the game?”
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36596.msg1452254#msg1452254
-
Also, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities, why do they only fire at 2 planes, when AA guns fire at 3? Is there any historic or game-play justification for this?
From my POV, first Barney made the unit on his file that way.
Second, I still have in mind my own AAA which shoot every round at up to two planes, one roll max per plane, so this could eventually be consistent.
Third, for play-test, I believe it will be easier to observe if it is OP, than if it was only a single shot.It is a start, the consistency issue between sea AA Cruiser and /or BB and ground AAA will have to be resolved after feedback testing. (Your point is still valid.)
Why do Marines get a movement bonus from mech infantry? Why not regular infantry too then?
Also, Marines need to cost 5, imo. The player who uses them is already saving 7 because no transport is needed.
Both a cost issue, at 3 IPCs you keep the basic unit, basic. So, no combined arms with MI.
At 4 IPCs, it needs some special abilities, hence MI pairing movement bonus.
Rising Marines at 5 IPCs seems high for footman soldiers, rather de-boost somehow to keep it at 4 IPCs.
The 4 IPCs Elite unit is on narrow spot which gives its specific and balanced nest compared to all other ground units combos:
MI + Inf = A2 D4 M2/M1 7 IPCs
MI + MI = A2 D4 M2 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.Art + Inf = A4 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Art + MI = A4 D4 M1/M2 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
2 Artys = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.Elite + Inf = A3 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Elite + MI = A3 D4 M2 8 IPCs
Elite + Art = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCs
2 Elites = A4 D4 M1 8 IPCsTnk + Inf = A4 D5 M2/M1 9 IPCs
Tnk + MI = A4 D5 M2 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Art = A5 D5 M2/M1 10 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.
Tnk + Elite= A5 D5 M2/M1 10 IPCs
Tnk + Tnk = A6 D6 M2 12 IPCs, not possible on 1 TP.So, if adding 1 Elite to Cruiser is OP, then I believe it should be limited to Battleship only, but cost must remain 4 IPCs.
To figure if it is OP or not, a comparison on 32 IPCs basis can be made:
2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A4 D4A) 2 DDs + 1 TP /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C32, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
B) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1 TP/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D4I concede, it seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
2 Offshore bombardment @3, higher off/def.
Is it too much? Probably.
2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers.
Same offense on land.
Though, Cruisers are much vulnerable to Subs attack.
Marines cannot move as fast as Tank.
Battleship+ Elite/Marines = C24, BB A4 D4 + 1 Elite A2 D2
1 DD + 1 TP / 1 Tank + 1 Inf = C24, DD A2 D2 + Ground A4 D5
This comparison with BB seems better balanced.
High off/def at sea but weak on ground.
vs
Low off/def at sea but stronger on ground.So, it is probably more balanced to implement these units that way:
Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryElite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).No other combined arms.
According to SS5- DD6-TP8-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure, Battleship carrying 1 Elite is better of course, but maybe OP too, IDK.
2 (Battleship C15+ Elite/Marines C4) = C38, BB A8 D8, 4 hits + 2 Elite A4 D4
vs
1 CA9+ 2 DD12 + 1 TP8/ 1 Tank + 1 Inf = C38, warships A7 D7/8vsAir, 4 hits + 2 Ground A4 D5But with TP at 7 IPCs,
2 CA18+ 1 DD6 + 1 TP7/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C38, warships A8/D8/9vsAir, 4 hits + 2 ground A4 D4.
This gives almost an even match in Naval combat: 52% vs 38%.So, if such feature for 15 IPCs BB is introduced, the low cost structure should put Transport, 1 hit, A0 D0, reg AA1 at 7 IPCs to be balanced.
It would be easier to remember compared to OOB TP, at least.
But becomes a more interesting unit to use as naval fodder compared to DD A2 D2 C6.
That is my own issue to get ride of “chosen last” rule and revert back to owner select all casualty order.
Which I believe is better to implement less scripted tactical battle in the Atlantic between Subs, TPs and Destroyers.So, this reduced cost for TP imply the following cost structure:
SS5- DD6-TP7-CA9-CV12-BB15 cost structure,
Fg10, TcB12, StB12,
Inf3, MI4, Art4, Elite4, AAA4, Tank6 -
I really dig the idea of elites, it’s one sculpt we can almost certainly include that would add some cool variety to the roster. I really like the concept of the battleship transporting 1 as well.
-
Barney,
do you know if there is a Triple A version of HBG Global War 1939?
According to the question below, it seems that Transport unit works almost like I would like to introduced in Redesign.
1 hit, no defense vs warships, regular AA@1 defense vs up to 1 plane.
If yes, then you can borrow XML codes to add in your next version of Transport unit for G40 Redesign.
Question about HBG Global 39
@Ju87Stuka:Hi,
got 2 question about the transport and the aircraft carrier. They only firing against air units only in the first round of comabt or every combat round ?
In a battle i lost all my units execpt my transporters , they are destroyed or can i fire back with the transporter till it gets a hit ?thx
@SS:
Question 1 : They fire at planes for every round of combat.
Question 2 : Transports are destroyed if all alone with enemy ships unless there’s still planes attacking. Then transport get a shot at planes. Transports do not fire back against ships.
Next time you have question go to the Global War thread to ask any more questions for HBG Global 39.
Welcome.
-
unfortunately I don’t think you can have DDs negate the submerge of subs on a 1:1 basis in triplea. It may be possible with some sort of negative triggers but IDK.
Do you think it is possible to limit on tripleA the DD’s blocker capacity vs Subs for the first combat round only?
Even if 1:1 blocking is not possible to install, at least, with 1 round it will gives more survivability to Sub.
I know that some use this HR with 1 DD block unlimited number of Subs, and it seems better.
This feature worth a play-test, IMO. -
Hey Baron
There is no Global 1939 for triplea, not the one you’re talking about anyway. We’d probably all be playing that if there was. :) I did run across a thing called maxAArounds that determines the number of rounds the aagun fires. IDK if you can give a transport a aagun or not,you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work), but if you can you could come close to what you’re after. I’ll take a closer look at it.Sadly I don’t think there’s anyway around the sub issue. I haven’t asked anyone but that’s how it looks to me. It does seem like there are a few more developers around these days and nerquen altered the code for his house rule so maybe somebody will take it on in the future.
-
. . .you can’t give normal attack and defense with v3 rules ( which means the battleship packing an elite unit unfortunately won’t work). . . .
Barney, not sure if you mean to say that a battleship can’t serve as a transport because it has an attack value, but it can. Here is how u do it:
<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“battleship” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”></attatchment>
In this case, I changed regular transports to have 11 transportCapacity, and set the transport cost for the units as follows:
Marine: 4
Infantry: 5
All other land units: 6This ensures that only a single marine can ‘fit’ onto a battleship (or cruiser), while the usual unit combinations will continue to fit onto a regular transport (which can also carry two marines).
Also, I’ve play tested the Marines with a number of good G40 players over the last couple of days, and it seems that the optimal cost for the unit is 5 PUs (you’re getting an artillery powered unit that doesn’t require a transport). No number restriction is necessary.
Also, we tried playing with your Militia unit (0 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement, 2 cost, no artillery support), confining it to china. It worked great. Again, no number restriction was required.
When we gonna do our 1 v. 1 playtest, Barney? :P
-
Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree you’d have to go 5.
Just finishing stuff up. That NAP is gonna work great now I think. I’ll see how things go and pop on tommorrow night. Unfortunately I’m having trouble trying to edit the Vichy map. It keeps freezing on me. I’ll give it another go tomorrow
-
Hey that’s good to know kid ! I just made a elite unit and then it wouldn’t work . Cool I like the idea of battleships packing them around. Maybe people will buy one once in a while. I just made them A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost to keep the cost down. If they bump to 3A I agree you’d have to go 5.
I agree, too.
Any unit going up to Attack or Defense 3 should be at 5 IPCs.Once said, I wonder if you could be interested by Mechanized Artillery at 5 IPCs, or is it outstretched?
Looking at how you both make miracles and tripleA dreams come true with XML files, I’m sure there is some possibilities to start from MI with blitz pairing with Tank and upgrade a new unit to at least a A2 D2 M2 giving +1A to MI or Inf.
Black Elk opinion on that one is mandatory I believe.
How far this 5 IPCs ground unit is missing in the roster to really improve Eastern front German-Soviet war for people is not clear.I know from Calc POV that any 11 IPCs paired units which gives A6 D6, 2 hits is a close even match to A4 D4, 2 hits at 9 IPCs.
9 A3 D3 vs 11 A2 D2 gives near 50% odds of survival.
And this explain why 2 AA50 Tanks were slightly OP at A6 D6 M2 C10 and Classic Tank A3 D2 C5 was on this spot (A6 D4 C10, 2 hits) when averaging offense and defense.
So, a unit A3 D3 C5.5 is even matched to a unit A2 D2 C4.5.
Said otherwise, A2.5 D2.5 C5 is a balanced match too.To summarize for same ability to Move 2, here is balanced numbers between them:
A7 D7, 2 hits, 12 IPCs or A3.5 D3.5 Cost 6
A6 D6, 2 hits, 11 IPCs or A3 D3 Cost 5.5
A5 D5, 2 hits, 10 IPCs or A2.5 D2.5 Cost 5
A4 D4, 2 hits, 9 IPCs or A2 D2 Cost 4.5
A3 D3, 2 hits, 8 IPCs or A1.5 D1.5 Cost 4
A2 D2, 2 hits, 7 IPCs or A1 D1 Cost 3.5
A1 D1, 2 hits, 6 IPCs or A.5 D.5 Cost 3
That is why I gave to my MechArt +1 A/D pairing bonus with Tank.
Alone MA A2 D2 M2 C5 cost higher than 4.5 IPCs, hence slightly underpowered.
With MI, this gives A4 D4 M2, 2 hits for 9 IPCs, just on the line.
With Tank, it gets A6 D6 M2, 2 hits for 11 IPCs, right on the same line.
Finally, MA+MI+Tk could reach A8 D8 M2, 3 hits, 15 IPCs,
for an avg/unit: A2.67 D2.67 for 5 IPCs.
However, this 1:1:1 combined arms is slightly above the line.
And this can be a balance issue for M2 units.An Elite A2 D2 M1-2 C4 + MI A1-2 D2 M2 C4 is not OP on offense because you get A3 D4 M2, 2 hits, C8, avg/unit A1.5 D2 for 4 IPCs.
This is still on the line at 1.5 for 4 IPCs.
This table also reveal that its defense factor D2 would be slightly above the 1.5 line.
This can be acceptable since Elite Infantry is not always a M2 unit and is not better than Inf or Art or MI on defense.Balanced MA at 5 IPCs should not be higher than stats below (example of too high values: A2 D3 M2 C5, +1 to Inf or MI), otherwise it would be better than Tank (in the last example, clearly better on defense, for 1 IPC less, and a bit better on attack, too, when pairing with MI):
Mechanized Artillery
Attack 2-3
Defense 2-3
Move 2
Cost 5
Can either be paired 1:1 with MI/Inf or Tank, not both.
Gives +1A to Inf or MI
Gets +1A or +1D when paired to Tank
Can blitz when paired to Tank or with Tank+MI.Another reason to keep it paired 1:1 with either MI or Tank is because of the Tech:
Improved Mechanized Infantry which gives to all MI A2 D2 M2, blitz alone.
If 1:1:1 combined arms is allowed, then this Tech will not make any difference or could rise to a high A9 this combos (A3 avg for each unit seems too high).
1:1:1 is A1+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A8 for 15 IPCs, 3 hits : A2.67/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise to A2+1A+A2+1A+A3 = A91:1 only is A1+A2+1A+A3= A7, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : A2.33/hit/5 IPCs
Improved MI would rise A2+ A2+1A+A3= A8In both case, same defense: D2+D2+1D+D3=D8, 3 hits, 15 IPCs : D2.67/hit/5 IPCs.
So my Mech Art suggestion combos creates an average per unit A2.33 D2.67 M2 C5, and averaging offense and defense makes for 2.5 A/D for 5 IPCs, right on the line! See table above. -
Here’s another update:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/00bksz
There are 4 maps.
Td no armor or mech builds at new or captured minors.
TdMECH You can build armor and mechs
TdMECHSHIPYARD same as above with shipyard prices
TdMECHVICHY same as MECH with regularkid’s Vichy rulesAll maps have updated game notes.The following is the same for all.
Russia/Japan NAP
Removed the 3 PU cost to declare war. Changed the Lend-Lease NO to SZ 5 and control of Amur. You get a extra buck if Japan declares on Russia but not if Russia declares on Japan. SZ 80 also gets a extra buck. SZ 5 has no convoy symbol for now.The Strategic Islands NO for the US and Japn has been removed.
The All Island Conquest NO goes into effect for the Allies after Japan takes them and after turn 4 for Japan.
Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.Left the valueless island boost to 1 objective the same for now. If It’s a J1 it won’t matter anyway, otherwise it may influence Japan to consider her options.
Militia is the same. You probably wouldn’t have to worry about China spamming them if they were unlimited since they don’t have the dough. I wouldn’t want to see a pile of them in Moscow or Italy or anywhere else though. Thought about boosting UKPs build limit to 4 to counter the J1, but you can still get a Russian mech force there pretty quickly. Anyway they’re the same for now.
Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "
I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.
As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.
-
Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "
I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.
As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.
If Elite cost 5 and are boosted by Art +1A for A3, there is no difference with Marines A1 doing debarkment +1A with Art+1A = A3, except for 1 IPC lower.
To make a real play-test for Elite Infantry viability, it should be 4 IPCs and no Arty boost.
That was the core of my idea: no A3 footmen unit.
Otherwise, better keep Marines as they are. -
yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out.
Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.
-
yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out. Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.
It was intentional. Arty and Infantry stay the optimized buy.
That way, there is no Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs spam.
The first bonus is that Elite hit as hard as Arty but take the place of an Infantry in TP.
Hence, you can hit harder A5 with Tank (A2+A3). For a single TP, there is no other way to max out the ground attack. So, if a player want the highest punch for an amphibious assault, the best combos will be Inf and Art in many TPs plus Elite Infantry on every TP loaded with one Tank.The second bonus is coming from being carried on a Battleship.
Even a Naval group with BB and TP, provides a way to bring 1 additional ground unit can be enough attractive to buy a 4 IPCs Elite Infantry to put on board BB.These two features appear to me balanced, distinctive and have limit by itself.
Pacific Marines don’t have it because for 8 IPCs, Marines and Arty, you already get the stronger punch A5, there is no need for Tank with them, since Marines acts like Tank on Amphibious assault for 2 IPCs less. A real deal! That’s why an artificial limit is required to not spammed them.
On AA gun put on TP, it is a good news. :-)
Don’t forget, it is not a preemptive AA @1 but a regular AA @1 defense.
IDK if it is possible to get it that way. I still hope so.
And TP should also worth 1 hit against warships but zero defense.
Probably easier to start from scratch with a regular unit and give it A0 D0, 1 hit, then built the AA code as its only defense. Then adding carrying capacity.
Thanks man for all your efforts and work.
It is a precious contribution to such a project, you have no idea.It could be a real game changer which can increase the naval dynamics.
-
have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).
5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.
A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.
Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.
-
have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).
5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.
A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.
If Marines are really A1 D2 M1, A2 during amphibious assault, no arty bonus?, they should cost 4 IPCs.
If they are too convenient on board Cruiser and Battleship, they shouldn’t rise to 5 IPCs.
Your diagnosis is right about it, but the cure I suggest is different.
The issue is that Cruiser should not get this carrying capacity at all.
That way, Germany effectively starts the game with only 1 conventional transport, and 1 capital ships (3 units: 2 Infs+ 1 other), and Japan starts the game with 3 conventional transports and 2 capital ships (8 units: 5 Infs+3 others).The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463
On next play-test only use Battleship to carry 4 IPCs Marines, I believe it is far less OP.I agree about not giving specific carrying TP bonus to US.
But it worth the try before changing MI features to all nations TPs.
If it is not that useful a change for USA strategy (in Africa and Europe), which should benefit the most, then keep OOB TP capacity.Maybe Japan and Italy can use TP able to carry 2 MIs, too.
If it is more advantageous for these two Axis than USA, then it should stay OOB.
Axis seems well on top in this game.Unless Black Elk wants a deeper Redesign, in which cheaper boats for Allies (SS5, DD6, TP7, CA9, CV12, BB15) can compete with a fast Axis expansion in Asia and Africa due to this TP able to carry 2 MIs or 1 MI+ 1 Tank.
So, maybe it worth a try if all nations get this TP capacity. -
My preference would be for no purchase limit, since that seems to me rather unprecedented for A&A, at least since the earliest rulesets of Classic.
The USMC may have had 6 divisions in the war, but I’d rather preserve these units as a generic “Elite” type, and not pigeon hole them into a specific description as marines etc. I think trying to create exact ratios for a unit sculpt to historical division numbers is always problematic. Better I think to leave the purchasing as normal, without limits, and leave it up to the players discretion to decide how many to buy.
If the 5 ipc cost is the sweet spot rather than 4, then perhaps just increase the functionality/ability of the unit so they can also serve as airborne? Another combat role beyond just the amphibious invasion. I think this would be the ideal solution, since it gives the US for example, a way to have these units used in Europe without breaking with whole Marines only in the Pac thing.
Perhaps these units could have their abilities associated with units at bases rather than just with units. For example, Elite ‘marines’ can only embark on the battleship if it moves from an opperational naval base. Or similarly Elite ‘paratroopers’ can only hitch a ride on a bomber if it takes off from an airbase. Or something along those lines. This seems a bit easier to me than introducing a separate class of infantry for each nations potential elite infantry. Just make it into a catch all.
Basically I’d put the focus on the potential strategic movement advantage, rather than the attack/defense value for the cost. Even if they had the same value as a normal infantry unit in combat, the ability to move in ways that normal infantry can’t would be a pretty strong incentive to buy some, without unleashing a spam that might occur if the unit is significantly stronger than the inf artillery combo. We don’t want the elites to totally eclipse infantry as the go to ground purchase, especially for nations that have to move across the sea to reach the action.
Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.
An Elite at an NB is considered a Marine, an Elite at an AB is considered airborne.
This would encourage the building of naval bases in the Pacific to move Marines around on battleships. And if used as a paratrooper, tying the elites to the AirBase rather than the bomber would place some limits on their use, like Germany in the dark skies for example.
-
I agree that paratrooper can be a one way ticket without airbase.
But unloading Elite from BB in an island without NB and not allowing to reembarke seems weird.I’m pretty sure that limiting Elite to Battleship transport is enough to self-limit their usefulness, even if they have similar value than Arty, A2 D2 M1 C4, but with no combined arms combat bonus.
1 Elite moving with big plane (StB), 1 with big warship (BB), seems an interesting theme.
Any other idea for moving them by land?
I can’t think about other thing than Mechanized Infantry pairing with 1 Elite somehow.Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.
Maybe this should be tied to 1 Elite per major IC+base per turn, you get 2 Elites when you have both AB and NB in major IC TTy.
So, if minor IC can’t produce them, it is a way to show how it is home-made dedicated and highly trained unit.
Suggested Topics
