I also believe this Submarine unit can be put on 5 IPCs sweet spot and keep balance vs Destroyer.
That way, you get 1 IPC gap (cost differential) between DD and Sub while keeping DD the best all around naval fodder which remains necessary to screen from Submarine, since according to this HR, Sub cannot be hit by Sub.
@WILD:
As stated before, I really like this sub warfare strat for the Pacific. There are plenty of convoy zones for the allies to spread subs out to execute it attached to high IPC valued territories. The rules involving subs/destroyers plus the cost differential of these units make it even more attractive then just straight convoying.
With that said, why in the hell can’t the Germans do something similar on the Euro side, especially early in the game when the UK is vulnerable? This just seems wrong for the power that had the best success convoying the enemy to be so limited in its ability to do so. There are only a handful of convoy zones in the Atlantic, and they can be easily defended by the allies. The best convoy zones are next to production centers, and air bases making them easy to keep clear.
The Germans start out with a good size sub force, but are pretty much forced to throw it away G1 attacking the UK big ships. Even if the Germans build subs, they can’t spread them out like you can in the Pac to get the same desired results (strangle the enemy econ).
You should be able to attack/convoy known shipping lanes in the mid Atlantic as well as the ports IMO. That would allow the Germans to spread out subs in a similar manner to be more cost effective. You might say that the axis have enough of an advantage in this game, but if the Germans build more subs they will have fewer units heading to Moscow.
It is also a way to incente Germany to buy more of them (1 IPC cheaper than Tank), since it remains a powerful attacking unit and can be use in conjunction with Aircrafts to get ride of Royal Navy at lower cost than full-blown only air attack.
Also, the always on surprise strike attack makes for a more iconic unit. And still make Sub as balanced as OOB because 5$Sub/6$DD ratio (83%) and 88% odds of survival for Sub is same than 6$Sub/8$DD (75%) and 88% odds of survival for Sub.
On defense, regular @1 reminds us that Sub is pretty vulnerable to DD hunting and submerge is salvation. Which in that case make Sub weaker than OOB Sub when compared to DD.
Submarine 5 IPCs
A2fs* D1 M2 (3 with NB)
*Permanent A2 first strike against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Always regular defense roll @1.
Cannot hit planes or submarines.
Submerge (in Surprise strike phase, even in defense) and Stealth Move (cannot control SZ).
Unsubmerged Submarine can be hit by planes without any ASV presence.
For Submarines and Destroyers, I cut down the Surprise Strike and blocker because most of the time there is enough Destroyers to neutralized this special ability. Making both at the same cost would have put a balanced Sub at A3 D1 vs DD at A2 D2. Keeping it at a lower combat value but constant A2 first strike keeps the symbolic surprise attack (figurating the sneaky torpedoes) while putting Subs as a better offensive warship than Destroyer. On the other hand, I simplified the Sub defense value to a regular and constant Defense @1. Anyway, most of the time, it was the usual Sub defense OOB since DD is always present to block Subs escape.
So, when Sub is part of a naval combat it keeps the same value from the start till the end. Simpler.
Since this Sub is weaker than OOB Sub vs Destroyers, I add Sub cannot hit Sub rule (for offense while this rule make it a less interesting fodder) and gives a better survivability with DD blocking Submerge and Stealth only on 1:1 ratio which still make sense at almost the same cost.
At least, when a Submarine will be on offense, the A2 first strike promise to be more satisfying than OOB A2 regular Sub attack, due to Destroyer presence.
Destroyer capacity remains the same as above:
Destroyer 6 IPCs
A2 D2 M2-3 paired 1:1 with Cruiser (3 with NB)
Anti-Sub Vessel: Blocks Submarine’s Submerge (first combat round only) and Stealth move, both on 1:1 basis.
Here is a first post questioning 1:1 blocker ratio. In essence, asking that Sub and DD be put at the same cost to balance a 1:1 blocking ability:
If you make destroyers work against subs only on a 1:1 basis, you’ll have to increase sub cost to 8 IPCs or they’ll be grossely overpowered. It’s already tough defending against subs when you need to spend 8 IPCs for every 6 IPCs spent by your opponent. If every sub … also gets to make a first strike, then it gets ridiculously overpowered for the guy buying subs. Either that, or bring their attack down to 1 (but I don’t think that would be enough).
Here is good explanation on why Destroyer were needed for aircrafts to hit Submarines.
And it provides the background about how I simplify DD-Sub-Air interactions with cheaper DD (near same cost as Subs) and Sub unable to hit Subs.
By keeping Sub submerge ability in Surprise Strike phase, this make Submerged Submarines immune to aircrafts, so DD blocker is still needed to prevent Sub to submerge before being attacked.
But how much defending Sub can be prevented from submerging with a single Destroyer to keep a good balance? One or two subs?
**Planes were very effective sub killers in reality. **However, reality suffers a bit when translated into an abstract board game. Sometimes the designers have to “fudge” one aspect of a reality-based game in order to deal with the limitations of another aspect of it. Hopefully, in the end, the two balance each other out to create a whole that abstractly mirrors reality even though the individual parts may not. The interaction between subs, destroyers and planes is a perfect example of this.
The range of air units and the size of the oceans in the game make it very easy for air units to find and eliminate subs, if air units are capable of hitting them on their own. This gives subs no place to hide and makes them “sitting ducks” for air attacks, as was demonstrated in the Revised edition. This simply doesn’t reflect the realities of anti-submarine warfare as it occured in World War II, at least until long-range aircraft were developed later in the war. Until that time, subs were very safe in the middle areas of the oceans, as planes didn’t have the range to hunt them effectively there. Most were sunk only when they were caught in the act of raiding shipping.
Adding the rule that destroyers are required as “spotters” for air attacks against subs represents the concerted effort needed to hunt and attack subs hiding out between raids. This gives subs more longevity and makes them more the fearsome foes that they actually were in the early to middle days of the war.
**It also promotes the purchase and maintenance of more well-rounded fleets, as destroyers are necessary to guard against the threat of subs. This reflects the reality that subs were a constant threat to military shipping as well, and that no convoy would travel without destroyer escorts because of that threat. **At the same time, it keeps them from being used as cheap “cannon fodder” in naval battles, as they were most often not used extensively in fleet operations, but rather as harrassing hunters where their unique properties were best utilized.
From an economic standpoint, the necessity of buying destroyers for protection against subs also reflects the economic losses sustained by raids against merchant shipping by submarines.
All of these points, taken together, allow the game to abstractly represent the economic and military threat posed by submarines in World War II. This makes subs a useful and strategic purchase in the game. I hope this sufficiently answers your concerns.
My first draw to improve interactions:
Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853
About Aircrafts, why not let them hits any units, including Subs? As it was historically the case and in many previous games before A&A 50 Anniversary.
You can read the interesting answers of Krieghund about the evolution of this rule on Aircrafts and Subs here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14344.msg1264872#msg1264872
Here is the most interesting point IMO:
@Krieghund:
@Baron:
So is there any version of OOB Subs rules which allow Submerge during First Strike and let planes be able to hit directly subs without DD, the sole condition is that defending sub choose not to submerge first (in such situation, fighter A3 or StB A4 will be considered as any single indestructible attacking Cruiser A3 or Battleship A4, because Sub cannot hit air units.)?
No.
@Baron:In this condition DD still get a function because all freaking subs can always submerge before receiving any hits.
If all Subs rules after Revised always included both Submerge during First Strike and planes need DD to hit subs,
Does the simpler sub rule Submerge on First Strike phase with Air can hit subs without DD (if subs choose not to submerge) was ever play-tested?
Because, according to the uncorrected AA50 Rulebook,
Sub rule was easily understand that way (give hints to think about it),
subs (submerging before reg combat) becomes far less vulnerable than in Revised rules (submerging after regular combat),
and this rule is simpler: “simplifying unit interaction”.Yes, it would make subs less fragile, but the thing that it would not do is keep subs from being used as fodder in fleet battles. With subs being immune to air units without a destroyer, it’s dangerous to pad a fleet with subs, since all an attacker needs to do is go in without a destroyer in order to force all of his/her air unit hits to bypass the subs and hit the more expensive units. This makes destroyers the better choice for fleet protection, as it should be.
A summary of the reasons behind OOB Subs and planes rules by Krieghund:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23342.msg797496#msg797496
About Submarines, why not making them a more elusive and independent unit while forbidding them to serve as cannon fodder for bigger warships?
@Imperious:
Submarines should never be cannon fodder. In fact, Submarines should only participate in one round of combat and not engage in multi-surface combat actions. Their was never any major naval actions where submarines were used in a major role in such combat. They are basically sinkers of commerce ships. They participated as advance screening for fleet movements to locate and possibly sink a few ships that were passing through the area, but a sub travels at 7 knots underwater and a cruiser is at 34 knots and a battleship is 25-32 knots. That’s why the other chap in an earlier thread bought those destroyers and stopped buying battleships. (…)
@The:
Hey Folks,
the current discussion has some very good points. Some of the biggest flaws of the original rules concerning Subs are the possibility to detect an unlimited number of Subs with just one single destroyer. In our games we’ve limited this with great success to just three subs that can be detected by each destroyer. (Maybe even this ratio could be reduced to a 1:2 or 1:1 basis.)
A second point is the unhistorical capability of Subs to sink other Subs. There was only one case in which a submerged Sub was able to sink another submerged Sub. (And to me this seemed to be a very lucky shot.) So I would appreciate such a change of the rules very much.
…
Greetings,
Lars
How many Submarines should be blocked (both Submerged and Stealth Move) by a single Destroyer unit to keep balance?
The IJN blocker strategy can be doomed if the rate is 1 for 1.
All additional Submarines would be able to attack behind the blocker SZ, is it too OP?
Should 1 DD:2 Subs blocking ratio be better balanced?
IDK.
I hope some of experienced players will share on this point.
Below, here is a collection of posts on Destroyer blocking capacity.
@Baron:
@Der:
The answer to this unrealistic mess is to do what artillery does with infantry. Their powers work when being matched on a 1:1 basis. Just as one artillery does not make 10 or more infantry attack @ 2, one Destroyer should not be able to stop 10 u-boats from leaving the Baltic Sea. I’m proposing that the destroyer’s powers be limited to a 1:1 basis with subs, like this:
SUBMERSIBLE: One destroyer and two fighters attack three u-boats. Only one of the u-boats should have to stay. The other two should be able to submerge and escape.
SURPRISE STRIKE: If one DD is in a naval task force attacking four subs, only one of the subs should lose the surprise strike ability, not all four. One DD cannot be everywhere.
TREAT HOSTILE ZONES AS FRIENDLY: If five subs want to come out of the Baltic and there are two British DD’s blocking their way, only two subs should have to stop. The other three should be able to get by.
Coming back to the opening post:
There is one problematic aspect in your idea from a game-play looking up for simplicity.
In naval combat between Subs and many destroyers the type of attack or defense of submarines can constantly be moving according to how many Submarines is in excess of Destroyers.Example: 6 Submarines are attacking 4 Destroyers.
First round: 4 Subs get @2 / 2 Subs get @2 First Strike against 4 DDs @2
Fictional casualty results : 2 SubmarinesSecond round: 4 Subs get @2 / no first shot against 4 DDs @2
Fictional casualty results : 1 Submarines / 2 DestroyersThird round: 2 Subs get @2 / 1 Sub get @2 First Strike against 2 DDs @2
Fictional casualties: 1 Submarine / 1 DestroyerFourth round: **1 Sub get @2 / 1 Sub get @2 First Strike **against 1 DDs @2
Fictional casualties: 1 SubmarineFifth round: 1 Sub get @2 / no first shot against 1 DDs @2
Fictional casualty: 1 Destroyer1 Submarine win!
OOB rules is simpler on that point, as long as there is one destroyer, Submarines don’t get Surprise Strike. All the rolls are @2.
With your 1:1 blocking on Surprise Strike and Submerge, in each combat round you have to compare both sides to see the number of subs and ASV units to fix the number of First Strike shots.@Baron:
About subs combat role, I can follow you and DK for the 1 Destroyer blocks 1 Submarine principle.
However, this imply that to determine how many first strike submarines get, each combat round the number of subs and destroyers must be calculated and revised.
It adds an annoying procedure before a lot of naval combat round.
For my part, I would rather prefer to let destroyers block the submarine submerge 1 on 1, but needs only 1 destroyers to protect against first strike.On that point, something which could simplify combat interaction is to only apply the 1 DD:1 Sub blocker to Submerge and Hostile Sea Zone Movement.
This means letting Destroyers blocking all Surprise Strike.Doing this will still gives a better survivability and mobility (which is needed also for survival) to Submarines but they will be less killing machine.
Any 4 Subs against 3 Destroyers will gives the same odds than OOB.
And when a few Destroyers with a bunch of planes attack some Subs, only the same few numbers of Submarines will be vulnerable.
All the others Subs would be able to submerge before combat.Once this said, I know you will not rewrite your rulebook.
I just wanted to point a certain kind of flaw in the 1:1 approach placed upon blocking Surprise Strike on this basis.
Blocking only Submerge and Subs Movement is less problematic.
Besides, I can add that even lowering the combat prowess of Submarines (to OOB level) against Destroyers isn’t the end of Atlantic U-boat peril.
As a counterweight, you can still make the Convoy Disruption Raiding rules more powerful in many ways.
I found that Cmdr Jennifer also saw the issue of the 1 DD :1 Sub blocker basis on Surprise Strike:
@Cmdr:If you were to go along this route, I think the cost of the submarine should be increased to 8, or even 9 IPC. Since their power is significantly magnified. (You have to have a destroyer for EVERY submarine attacking which means, as a battle drags on, you’ll lose more and more ability to negate sneak shots sinking your ships before they can return fire. This is going to get increasingly magnified by either you sinking destroyers which defend a lot worse, or sinking cruisers and battleships to maintain your submarine screens.)
I think you’ll also end up in situations where the battle will get confused. What I mean is you’ll have to keep track of how many submarines get to sneak vs how many are blocked by destroyers.
The current rules minimize the complexity by stating that a single destroyer is enough to negate the sneak shot ability of all submarines. It’s simple.
This should be taken into account on how increasing Subs combat power can be disastrous against Destroyer.
Veqryn is talking about the OOB Subs and say that OOB DD is a liability! (Follow the link to read the OP combat situation that Veqryn is adressing.)
DK, it will be much worse with 1 DD 8 IPCs : 1 Sub 6 IPCs blocker basis.
@Veqryn:It is a lot more complicated than the first glance. I have been testing out different fleets fighting against each other, and it really seems like once fleets get big, destroyers are a major liability.
If the enemy has a good number of subs, along with some planes or high value ships, then you would be better off without any destroyers.
So when is it good to have a destroyer? If the enemy has few or no high value ships and few or no planes, then you will want the destroyer to negate the subs first strike ability.
(or if the engagement is very small, like 1-4 units total, you may want it to make sure you are just outright killed).
So in other words, avoid building destroyers until you see what your enemy is building for a couple turns. And most likely you should never build them in the pacific.
thx Kang,
- veqryn
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14215.msg430027#msg430027
All I can say is that, at least 8 IPCs Subs A3 D1 against 8 IPCs DD A2 D2, is less unbalancing in favor of the Subs if wanting to play 1:1 blocker basis.
Here is a commentary which can provides new idea to improve Subs survivability somehow, but Romulus can provides too complex solutions:
@Romulus:I think the sub are better modeled in Anniversary than in any preceding A&A. To still improve the modeling we should have that sub could be hit only by DD, and DD allows CA and aircrafts to hit subs. BB and AC have no depth charges or torpedoes for attacking the sub. Thay may only maneuver for avoiding subs torpedoes or trying to ram a surfaced sub.
Submerged sub may not be hit by the guns of the surface ship. So the better defense for sub is to submerge. No any sub in a real battle stay on the surface for being attacked by ship guns or aircraft bombs.In the real fleets it does not resist the “escort submarine”. It exist the escort DD, or the escort AC etc.
Submarine operate separated from the rest of the fleet, in autonomous operation.They were not around during fleet engagement they were too much slow for staying together with a battle fleet. They cannot maneuver nor stay in formation with ships that have, at least, the double of their speed.
They were specialized attack vessel, which task has been lurking around to hit passing ships.DD and aircrafts had the task of dealing with subs.
When Bismark was sunk in battle with the Home Fleet there were a lot of U-Boat around the battle area, they arrived just in time to disturb the UK DD rescuing of the Bismark survivors, after the battle.In the battle of Midway there were a lot of Japanese subs around the islands with the task of intercepting and attacking the USA ships. Before the battle, they saw and attacked nothing.
Yorktown, heavily damaged, and on the way for the Hawaii was sunk, after the battle, by one of the japanese submarine still patroling the sea.
Subs being sunk by aircraft only happened in the war, especially in the Bay of Biscay when the German subs were transferring to the Central Atlantic, but given the scale of the game it’s good that it’s omitted. We also see shore batteries and mines sinking subs on the link posted, but that’s not in the game? Bringing a DD is easy to do and it introduces more strategy in the game and builds matching the opponent, works very well.
Only thing I’d like to change is 1) subs move being blocked by DDs (since this pretty much kills German sub builds in Baltic) 2) subs not being able to block movement of unescorted transports. After that, subs are perfect! :wink:
I found this post in another thread of AA50, in which Defenseless Transport and DDs blocking all Subs was introduced:
I will try to make some spaces for easier reading.
Kavik Kang was amongst the first to suggest the 1 DD :1 Sub ratio but for movement blocker only.
This example show how to use so called Fleet Submarines tactics to maximized their potential as sea-fodder units.
@Kavik:
A Note About German U-Boats:
Unfortunately, Germany is not a sub user. So close, and yet so far.
With a single small rule change subs would become a vital part of Germany’s arsenal in keeping the British navy away.
If Germany could keep 4-6 subs in SZ 5, which they can afford to do, they could cover SZs 3, 6, & 7 and keep the British navy out of those SZs. It would be really cool, and make subs a vital weapon for Germany as they should be. But the nature of subs is that they must be outside of range of enemy ships beforehand, so that enemy ships cannot enter within their range. They cannot enter range of an enemy fleet to attack, the enemy fleet must come to them.
This almost works for Germany, they can get into position in SZ 5 with 3 subs and their air force on turn 1 and keep the British navy out of important sea zones (3, 6, and 7).
It all falls apart with the unrealistic ability of a single ship to block an infinite number of ships in AA50.
This means the British can simply place a single destroyer in SZ 6, blocking the German subs, and put their navy in attack range.
The subs can’t reach the navy, so they can’t attack.
And on the following turn the British navy enters SZ 5 and destroys all of the subs.
This means that it would be a huge waste of money for Germany to try and use subs because all England has to do is sacrifice a single destroyer to kill the entire German U-Boat fleet.This would be simple to fix with a simple rule from other naval combat games.
Instead of a single ship being able to block an infinite number of enemy ships, which is ridiculous, blocking ships should only be able to block an equal number of ships.
This rule works much better and would correct several different problems associated with blocking naval units within AA50.
With this rule if the British tried to block SZ 5 with a single destroyer the Germans would simple be required to leave a single sub behind to fight it (they could leave more if they wanted, but must leave a number of ships equal to enemy blockers as they pass through that SZ) while the rest of the subs continue on to attack the UK fleet. The blocking rule is the only major problem remaining in A&A naval combat, and it alone prevents subs from being useful to Germany.With the picket force rule in place, naval combat in A&A would work very, very well and Germany would be buying subs every game.
great article
I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships. I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy. An interesting idea for sure.
@Der:
@Baron:
For now, I can just say that rising the cost of Submarine to 8 IPCs (along with an attack factor of 3) makes things more even on the number produces for the IPCs invested.
With Subs at 6 IPCs, this imply that a 24 IPCs investment is assuring a one shot surprise strike against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs.
Thus making this 1:1 blocker, not exactly an even match.
With both units at 8 IPCs, it is only a matter of strategic IPCs investment choice, both units will be on an even ground.
3 Subs at 8 IPCs against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs. Buying Submarines have no immediate advantage over buying Destroyers.
To me, this is an additional reason which make more acceptable this dual changes from OOB:
1- Submarines A3 D1 Cost 8 IPCs
2- Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8 IPCs, only able to block Sub on 1:1 basis.You are right - the subs @ 6 IPC are cheap and dangerous. But then isn’t that what they were in Battle of the Atlantic also? Subs were really the only things Germany could put in the water that worried Winston Churchill and the huge Royal Navy. If you make them “equal” to DDs, then I’m afraid we’re back to seeing them a non-factor again in games. If the RN assumes an aggressive posture, they can send packs of DDs backed by planes and other surface vessels to kill these subs before they have a chance to use their Surprise Strike on them. A DD with 2 fighters backing it will likely sink any sub, which can only return fire @ 1.
I suppose a guy could buy enough subs to wipe the ocean clean, but what would that accomplish? It would have to be done at the expense of losing ground on land. Every sub you buy is one less tank for the push on Moscow, or 2 less infantry to defend land somewhere.
But under this limitation to Destroyer capabilities:
OPTION 1: Each Destroyer cancel Submerge of up to 2 Submarines.
Blocking ratio: 2*X DDs= number of subs unable to submerge.
So 2 DDs block 4 Subs, 3 DDs cancel 6 Subs’ Submerge capacity, etc.
Rationalization:
Destroyer class naval unit can “screen” out one warship at a 1:1 basis.
So, basically any 1 Destroyer unit can screen from Subs another unit and itself.
Hence, 1 Destroyer unit can block 2 Submarine units.
Such analysis makes me believe that a 1.5 combat value points cost structure for Naval units would work for Global 40:
@taamvan:
That’s a pretty good idea, to land AAA in there. But taking Norway has some serious problems. The US transports are on a one-way trip, one that takes them so far from the US that they’re never heading home. The germans can easily defend Norway (or Denmark, Italy, France or any other part of the wall)> Yes they only have 1 transport, but with just one more, they can consistently re-take whichever squares the US and UK decide to grab.
Germany and Italy are 1 or zero turns away from being able to build defenders with any of their 3 major or 4 minor complexes. They can build infantry for 3, and supplement either on defense or counterattack with planes they already have.
The US on the other hand, can only cycle fresh troops in every other round if it dedicates all 70 income to this and takes Spain. Otherwise, the transports are on a one way trip. You have to buy a whole turn’s income worth of transports, along with a destroyer and carrier to defend them–and against a cagy or bomber equipped Germany, you’ll need much more to defend the stack from an air attack. You’d want the UK to help, but they don’t have the money it takes to buy a navy, transports, and then fill them with troops and supplement them with tacticals so that you have a tactical and a fighter making each assault.
The allies have such poor ability to broadcast power against the atlantic wall, there are many times where I wonder how Germany and Japan seem to do it so easily; its because it doesn’t take them 4 turns to get ready, 2 turns to get there, and Germany and Japan start with 30 planes. **UK and the US don’t, and if they build planes to support atlantic efforts, well, there is no middle east and no india and a raging japan to deal with. So what will happen is that I have a huge stack of infantry, ships, and artillery ready to attack the European axis but it cant roll worth crap on offense or defense because none of that junk helps during land battles like tanks and planes do. **
Germany and Italy can just leave a few pieces in France and counterattack you at their leisure. They are counterattacking a wildly overpriced and overprotected one-shot invasion force with backup units–-the volksturm essentially.
I wish there was a KGF…but it doesn’t work very well. Right around the time that you are making progress, Germany gets the Russian $$ and that is enough to end your invasion no matter how it starts.
Such cost structure with OOB abilities (except a M3-4 Cruiser) should be tested on a Triple A file to see how it switches balance toward Allies and makes a more even game without the need for a bid.
Do you know if Barney have made such xml file?
Unit type Cost - 3 IPCs scale
Combat values
Special abilities
WARSHIPS & TRANSPORT
Submarine 5 IPCs
A2* D1* M2 (3 with NB)
Destroyer 6 IPCs
A2 D2 M2 (3 with NB)
Transport 6 IPCs Defenseless, taken last
Cruiser 9 IPCs
A3 D3 M3* (4 with NB bonus), 1 hit, Shore Bombardment 3
Carrier 12 IPCs Capital warship
A0 D2 M2 (3 with NB), 2 hits
Carry 2 planes: either Fighter or Tactical bomber, no flight operation if damaged.
Battleship 15 IPCs Capital warship
A4 D4 M2 (3 with NB), 2 hits, Shore Bombardment 4
I don’t think you can make rules that is both simple and historical correct. The hex and counter games have search rolls and sequenced fire, which make the games complex, not simple and fast to play. Xenon World at war have search rolls, and that makes sense. The ocean is a vast place, and the enemy is moving around behind that foggy horizon, so you need to roll a search roll before you find him, but then the enemy too can roll a search roll to avoid you. But if you find each other, then roll for combat. Land combat is different, you know the enemy is dug in behind that hill or city. So maybe a search roll will difference naval combat from land combat. Aircrafts will of course make for automatic find. But it will be a game in the game.
Another and more simple way is to differ the movement values.
Subs move 1, and can submerge from combat, but not retreat to another seazone.
Tranny move 2, and can not retreat to another seazone. If the escort retreats, the trannies are sittin ducks
Surface warships move 3, and can retreat to another seazone.This model the importance of speed and range in naval operations.
To avoid trannies being fodder, let them cost 10 and defend on 1 against air.And do you really want to use a sub as fodder when it move 1 space only in a turn, and a Destroyer move 3 spaces ? I know I wouldn’t.
Reading this older post, I wonder if a way to make Submarine more independant of regular fleet and be less useful as fodder for other warships could be this:
Naval Base gives +1 Bonus Move only to all Surface Vessels (DDs, CAs, CVs, BBs and TPs) in SZ.
@Baron:
Hi everyone,
since the creation of A&A, the submarines rules receives a lot of modifications.
The actual OOB rules on Sub warfare includes mostly 3 units: Sub, destroyers and planes.The Subs have 6 caracteristics:
1-Stealth movement,
2- First Strike,
3- Submersible and
4-cannot hit aircraft.
A fifth one is derived from aircraft limitation: cannot be hit by aircraft.
A sixth one is an offspring of the no control of SZ for Subs: prevent unescorted transports from offloading for an amphibious assault.Aircraft: cannot hit subs unless there is a friendly Destroyers which is taking part of the combat.
Destroyer have an Anti-Sub Vessel (ASV) role which negates Subs capacities:
mainly First Strike and Submerge.
In addition, a Destroyer allows all friendly planes to hit submarines during combat.
And also block Submarine stealth movement and force him to battle with DD in a given SZ.For reference, here is the OOB Submarine rule in different A&A version:
Classic:
1st Ed. 1984: A2D2M2C8, attacking Subs get Surprise Strike, cannot submerge but can withdraw in another SZ, cannot hit air.
2nd Ed. 1986: A2D2M2C8, attacking Subs get Surprise Strike, cannot submerge but can withdraw in another SZ, cannot hit air.
3rd Ed. 1997: A2D2M2C8, attacking Subs get Surprise Strike, withdraw in another SZ, defending Sub can submerge in SZ at the end of the round, cannot hit air.Iron Blitz Edition by Hasbro and Microprose 1999, A&A 3rd Ed.:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike on attack only, can submerge in SZ at the end of the round, cannot hit air.
Destroyer: A2D2M2C8 can retaliate even when hit by subs surprise strike and cancel Subs submerge.Pacific 2001 and Europe Edition 1999:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, Surprise Strike on attack only, can submerge at the end of the round, cannot hit air, cannot be hit by air.
Destroyer: A3D3M2C12, cancel Surprise Strike and allows planes to hit subs.Revised Edition 2004:
Sub: A2D2M2C8, First Strike (attacker and defender), can submerge at the end of the round, cannot hit air.
Destroyer: A3D3M2C12, cancel First Strike and Submerge.Anniversary Edition, AA50, 2008:
Submarine: A2D1M2C6, First Strike, Submersible: can submerge in First Strike phase before regular cmbt, cannot hit air, cannot be hit by air.
Destroyer: A2D2M2C8, cancel First Strike & Submerge and allows all planes to hit subs.1942.1 (2009) : Same as AA50.
Pacific 1940 (2009) and Europe 1940 (2010).: same as AA50.1942.2 (2012) : Same as AA50.
Plus: prevent unescorted transports from offloading for an amphibious assault.Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 2nd Ed. (2012): same as 1942.2.
There is also an evolution of how to treat a Sea-Zone when a sub is present. But, it is also a complex matter, that I left for now.
What I would like to develop is a different relation between aircrafts and submarines; so planes could be able to hit submarines without any destroyer unit.
It will better depict the impact of aircrafts in WWII on Submarine warfare and I hope will create some new tactical situations for naval combat.
I would like also to get rid of the aberration which is created when, paired to others, 1 destroyer unit can give a specific ability to an infinite number of units.
In this specific case:
1 Destroyer gives to an infinite number of planes the ability to hit subs,
1 Destroyer is able to negate the First Strike and Submerge of an infinite number of subs.
For instance, this creates the kind of aberration where 1 DD and a large air fleet can destroy numerous subs and the attacker can only loose 1 single DD unit.
Here someone which said it better than me:
@Fishmoto37:So you’ll have to match my sub purchases with dd purchases? And I defend at a 1, whilst you are just trying to detect me? I don’t know how well that would work… seems to hard to kill the subs.
Well Gar, it is harder to kill subs as we found out in our last 1939 game. That is the whole point. We want to make the subs a more effective unit. In the 1940G OOB rules you can have a German wolf pack of six subs and an allied power can send one destroyer and half a dozen planes and just about wipe out all the subs in one combat round. That is just ludicrous!
My new Sub warfare rule will be on my next post.
Here is, as a reference and source, a description of historical warships used in WWII:
@B.:ON REALISM
The rise of air power during World War II dramatically changed the nature of naval combat. Even the fastest cruisers could not outrun an airplane, which were increasingly able to attack at longer distances over the ocean. This change led to the end of independent operations by single ships or very small task groups, and for the second half of the 20th century naval operations were based around very large fleets able to fend off all but the largest air attacks. This has led most navies to change to fleets designed around ships dedicated to a single role, anti-submarine or anti-aircraft typically, and the large “generalist” ship has disappeared from most forces.
The Naval Units in WWII
The new cruiser unit represents an antiaircraft cruiser able to lay a deadly fire on incoming enemy planes. She had a weight of about 6000 tons, with a main armament of about 16 dual-purpose guns (both air and surface attack) around 5 inches. The cruisers could steam at around 35 knots. More cruisers were built by the major naval powers than any other naval unit, for not only could she support the battle fleet (fast carriers), but she were less expensive to construct.
A typical destroyer weighted about 3000 tons, with about 6 guns around 5 inches and torpedoes tubes. She was the fastest ship in the fleet, up to 40 knots. Her weak point is the range. Whereas a battleship or a cruiser can sail 10 000 miles upward, the destroyer can hardly put more than 1000 or 2000 miles, a couple of days of sailing. She required support ships, such as fleet tankers or bigger ships (carriers, battleships) that gave away part of their fuel to the guzzling destroyers. Hence the destroyers of WWII were not suitable for independent long-rang operations (…).
A typical submarine in World War II was a boat of 1500 tons displacement and was armed with one 3 inches gun and 10 21-inches torpedo tubes. She ran at a speed of up to 17 knots while surfaced and at a speed of up to 8 knots while submerged. The Germans later developed the high-speed submarine in the Types XXI and XXIII. The former had a 16-kt submerged speed, under water control and advanced torpedoes (the Zaunk’nig acoustic torpedo, tuned to home in on the enemy’s fast running propellers). (…)
Between 1939 and 1945, a battleships weighted from 30 000 tons to 70 000 tons. She carried about 10 guns from 11 inches (German Scharnhorst) up to 18 inches (Japanese Yamato). She ran at a speed of around 20 knots. Until World War II, speed was not a major requirement for battleships. The other ships had to adapt to the battleship, not the other way round. The rise of the aircraft carriers changed all that.
Although the battleships themselves do not launch torpedoes, they must protect themselves from them. For that reason, a second hull was built around the first to make the torpedo explode before reaching the vital parts of the ships (reflected by battleships special ability of Two Hits to Destroy).
The fleet carriers were speedy ships (around 30 knots) and weighted from 20 000 to 30 000 tons, carried 50 to 100 planes on board. The largest aircraft carrier of the war was the Japanese Shinano with no less than 70 000 tons. Shinano was a slow carrier since she was build on the Yamato class (battleship) hull to be used for repair and resupply ship to front-line carriers.
@Imperious:
Submarines should never be cannon fodder. In fact, Submarines should only participate in one round of combat and not engage in multi-surface combat actions. Their was never any major naval actions where submarines were used in a major role in such combat. They are basically sinkers of commerce ships. They participated as advance screening for fleet movements to locate and possibly sink a few ships that were passing through the area, but a sub travels at 7 knots underwater and a cruiser is at 34 knots and a battleship is 25-32 knots. That’s why the other chap in an earlier thread bought those destroyers and stopped buying battleships. (…)
@Baron:
For my part, I’m eager to test Convoy Raiding rules for 1941 and 1942.2 develop along this thread.
And I’m still a fan of incremental cost of 3 for warships going mostly by 5 (sweetspot for Sub), DD 6, Cruiser 9, Carrier 12, Battleship 15.
Or 1.5 IPCs per combat points.
It feels easier on mind calculator playing game board to add or substract an Infantry cost to try some options during purchase phase.Seems the direction taken by 1914, Sub 6, Cruiser 9 and Battleship 12. Fighter cost 6.
Instead of usual 2 IPCs per combat point:
Sub A2 D1, 3 pts2= 6 IPCs
DD A2 D2, 4 pts2= 8 IPCs
CA A3 D3, 6 pts*2= 12 IPCs.
I playtested my Convoy system on 1941, 1942.2 and AA50.
The maximum damage per SZ should increase with money available.
The new cost structure allows for such Convoy SZs:
1941 is 2 IPCs per SZ
1942.2 is 3 IPCs per SZ
AA50 and G40 should be 4 IPCs per SZ.
This kind of unit works very well to increase Subs presence in SZs:
Submarine at 5 IPCs
A2fs* D1 M2
*Permanent A2 first strike against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Always regular defense roll @1.
Cannot hit planes or submarines.
Submerge (in Surprise strike phase, even in defense) and Stealth Move (cannot control SZ).
Unsubmerged Submarine can be hit by planes without any ASV presence.
1 DD blocks up to 2 Sub’s Submerge, for first combat round only, and Stealth move (SZ blocker).Submarine commander either choose to attack warships or make a Convoy raid.
Convoy raid damage: 1 IPC + 1-3 IPCs /4-6 = 0 IPC, up to the maximum damage per convoy SZ.
All chips put under Control Marker in a given Convoy SZ must be repaired during owner’s purchase and repair phase.
When Sub cannot hit submarine, it gives them better elusive capacity.
Germany can now use Subs the way it was in North Atlantic SZs to destroy a few Convoy IPCs (even Soviet Artic Sea north of Karelia and Archangelsk was attacked by roaming U-boats on AA50 game). It was such a pain in the a… that Russia built a 6 IPCs Destroyer north of Karelia to get ride of this German’s Sub in its backyard.
Permanent offensive Surprise Strike only is fine and give to Sub its iconic reputation of Silent killer while increasing its survivability. Even if Sub are acting like classic Sub (surprise strike on offense but not on defense), 6 IPCs Destroyer unit remains a must to be fodder for bigger warships and TPs or to chase Subs and block its submerge ability.
You should really try these little changes in naval dynamics. I really like this experience. Subs were no wasted IPCs for Germany.
I’m searching for a specific thread about aircraft excessive range compared to historical planes.
Please, let me know if you browse on it.
EDIT: I found it here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38009.msg1548516#msg1548516
It is difficult to grasp how dominant they where. Remember that UK sank half of the italian fleet using 20 gladiators in a nightraid.
You are correct, but you should also remember that real life planes in 1940 had real short range. A fighter could barely cross the English Channel, so if a fleet was a few miles off the coast it was safe from air raids. In A&A the whole German Luftwaffe can fly from Western Germany and sink the whole British Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and maybe even land in the Libyan desert, which would be impossible in the real world. Give fighters and Tacs a 1 movement over sea, and I will support your ideas. Also the 4 engines heavy Bombers should not able to hit a ship on 4 or less, they were made for carpet bombing, not for targeting a small boat.
Actually, I’m wondering if this little change in the way of counting move points could provides an alternative to better depicts realistic operational range and balancing somehow strategic bombers projections of power.
Here is the hypothetical house rule:
Counting 1 MP per SZ in NCM phase, same as usual.
But 2 MPs per SZ during Combat Movement phase for all aircrafts not on Carrier.
Land TTy Airbase still provides +1 bonus movement point.
Island TTy Airbase provides +2 bonus movement point.
@Baron:
If you are going to change all the rules and unit profiles sure go ahead but that requires a lot of play testing as well.
There are plenty of rules in this game that have no base in history or even contradict history.
There are plenty of units that have weird quirks that are completly ignoring history.
If you are going to make things better then revise the whole game and all of the unit profiles not just because you want to attack subs with planes change this 1 rule.Some things that are worst then the submarine rule.
Aircraft range ( really a plane attacking from WUS in SZ91 ), could be why subs are immume to them :)That point bothers me too.
I will post something in the house rule thread discussing this topic.
I believe calculating 1 MP per SZ in NCM phase while 2 MPs per SZ during CM phase for all aircrafts can works without adding too much complexity.
This may better simulate how difficult to spot enemy in open Sea and makes planes units less ominous weapons. That way, warships gets a better projection of power at sea compared to planes, specifically strategic bombers.
Aircraft are trumping units in this game; they are better than their cost, more flexible than any other unit (since they can be on land or sea). They prevent the game from being like Risk; where only numbers matter and all the units are the same.
This is just like the sub rule, its to represent the overpowering advantage aircraft had and have over all other types of unit during that era. Not sure what objection that raises, except that they are OverPowered. Which is true in real life also, airpower is OP compared to its costs and that’s why they keep using it.
I’m torn, the strategic bomber is definitely overpowered, but the more I sit with it, the more necessary the unit feels to pretty much every strategy of interest. It’s definitely the Queen of A&A pieces right now. The one unit that allows you to rapidly redirect from one theater to another and still be reasonably effective. I worry, given the large scale of the map and relatively small scale of the economy, that nerfing aircraft (and particularly the strategic bomber) overmuch will make the game kind of drag.
I’ll admit it’s been difficult for me to find a reliable face to face opponent these days, which was my preferred method to explore HRs. The one buddy I had who could be trusted to play a full game of global just got married, so he’s pretty much on lock down. That leaves me only triplea if I want to play global.
I still can’t help but feel like we’re missing the boat by not having an official game that can be played on a tablet or mobile device. Triplea is great on a laptop, but the UI is not well adapted for those mobile devices which is the platform that most people are playing boardgames clones on these day. There are so many opportunities we’re missing out on to expand the player base due to the lack of a phone friendly port of A&A. I don’t know if global is the ideal first step, but 1942.2 practically begs for the freemium game treatment. And if you could get that one up and running, then global could surely follow hot on its heels.
I’m torn, the strategic bomber is definitely overpowered, but the more I sit with it, the more necessary the unit feels to pretty much every strategy of interest. It’s definitely the Queen of A&A pieces right now. The one unit that allows you to rapidly redirect from one theater to another and still be reasonably effective. I worry, given the large scale of the map and relatively small scale of the economy, that nerfing aircraft (and particularly the strategic bomber) overmuch will make the game kind of drag.
Well put. I don’t see the mass outcry in wanting to get rid of the strategic bomber… unless I missed something previously. I have never found it to be overpowered given that in the games I play its numerical representation on the board is fairly low. The only issue I have seen with it is the US stacking them in UK to strategic bomb the crap out of Germany. Much as I don’t like that, I can’t say it is wrong because that is exactly what happened during the war.
If you really want to limit some of their effectiveness, particularly in large battles where they can be shielded by lower end units, would be to institute the aircraft rules we talked about previously on this thread. Specifically as it relates to fighters. Fighters should always have their hits concentrated on enemy air units first (both in attack and defense). This makes sense because it is their actual role and because it doesn’t allow air formations to hide in the background of a battle and just punish every other unit on the board.
The one buddy I had who could be trusted to play a full game of global just got married, so he’s pretty much on lock down.
Hahaha! Nice choice of words.
I don’t play tripleA, but I sympathize. Playing in person with friends is always better if you can do so.
Been a while since I posted in this one, but since this thread has served as a general repository for ideas that don’t yet have a full implementation, I thought I’d mention one more regarding strategic bombers.
Most of the suggestions I’ve read regarding a redesign of the strategic bomber, have tried to retain some role for the unit in normal combat. For example, lowering it’s attack value and lowering it’s cost, or creating new costs/abilities for all 3 air units at a go. What I’d like to propose here is rather more simplistic…
Eliminate the stratBs role in normal combat, so that it’s only use in the game is to strategically bomb factories and bases.
Rather than trying to preserve a dual role for the strategic bomber unit (which seems to invariably favor normal combat over strat bombing) what if we made it exclusively for bombing? Basically I’m talking about a bomber unit with no hitpoints, and no attack or defense value, in normal combat. Instead we create an SBR phase and escort/intercept rules, that are unique, treating the unit a bit more like transports. The tactical bomber, would then replace the strategic bomber, as the game’s principle combat bomber, at whatever new attack/defense value makes sense for that role.
I was thinking that this new, much stricter and much more limited role, might recommend a sweet spot cost at 5 ipcs for the strategic bomber. The idea being that they would face a much higher rate of attrition than they currently do, under whatever new AAA/intercept rules would be required to achieve that. The players buy the unit with expectation that many will be lost as a matter of course, thinking about them more like infantry in that respect, doomed to die but with a purpose. Something like… player invests 5 ipcs, with an expected attrition rate of 50%, for the opperunity to damage enemy facilities.
This would effectively eliminate the strat bomber air umbrella (or dark skies) approach vs navies, restoring carriers + fighters/tacBs to the preeminent position on the water. It would also eliminate the 6 move normal combat unit from the game, preventing the rush defense bomber stack, or the rush attack airblitz, with this crazy unit that has both the attack 4 (best in the game) and move 6 (best in the game.) It’s a major change, but one which I think might produce a more realistic strategic bombing campaign, without such huge distortions to normal combat.
Anyone else think something like this could work?
IDK if it might work but it worth thinking on this original idea.
I like somewhat this idea. Just for easier implement in TripleA (for play-test) and smooth play, I believed it should remains able to do both regular combat and SBR, but at these values:
Redesign Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 1
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6
When I got time, I will probably crunch on numbers, mostly cost, if SBR is as OOB to compare with OOB combat.
I see where you’re going with 5 IPCs StBs, it is such a sweet underused spot. :-D
Probably we should look at both: pure defenseless StB A0 D0 C5 and weakest StB A1 D1 C?
Redesign Strategic Bomber Defenseless
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6+2
Sounds interesting. Make them cheap and weak so fighters can hack them out of the sky and you could see some more sbr action and interaction I would think. Worth thinking about.
I’ve actually been using a lot of the ideas discussed on here from when this thread started. Sticking close to OOB, I’ve been using Bmbrs A3, +1 w/ftr D1 M6, +1 w/AB C12. Ftrs A2 D2 in SBRs. Also have AAguns at A0 D1 M1 C4 2AAshots, max 1 per plane.
The bombers are noticeably not as effective. For making decisions probably more than results. Using one bmbr to take out a solo inf or dstry blocker is more of a gamble now. As for the AAguns, it’s just like buying an artillery to me cost wise. They can block,kill,capture and if lucky slay a couple planes. Point is they get used more, which is what you’d hopefully get with a cheaper SBR.
There especially nice to have with a smaller counterattack force w/high unit survivability. Can’t just send a bunch of planes in with a couple infantry to take’m out. And since they only get two shots you need more of them to protect your stacks.
Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.
A2 D1 same movement would give you at least a 50/50 shot at DDs and INF. Probably have to boost the cost. Maybe 7 or something. I’m sure Baron will crunch some numbers out.
Edit:Ahh…I see he already has :)
Here is the number, some numbers…but I need more time to make a comparative analysis.
Break even ratio:
OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs A1 vs 31 Fgs D2, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs A1 vs 29 Fgs D2, 19/29= 0.655 StB/Fg
Cost 5: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR *2=2.778
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR *9= +8.496
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 5: 1StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR *15= -2.775
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR *10 = -8.15
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBR
Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and less
Cost 5:
No intercept, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR6= 12.504 IPCs
6 StBs vs 4 Fgs = 12.388 IPCs (Diff.: 0.116)
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR2=2.778
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR*2= 9.610
Cost 6
No interception, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR5= +9.585
5 StB vs 3 Fgs 9.332 IPCs damage (Diff.: +0.253 )
1 StB vs 1 Fg
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR1=+0.944
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR*2= +8.388
Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard IC or AB or NB damage: 1D6Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard AB or NB damage: 1D6IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber
Global40 SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, damage 1D6+2 / damage 1D6
Regular SBRs
5/6 StB survived *3.5 IPCs = +2.917 IPCs5/6 StB survived *5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *6 IPCs = -1 IPCsCost 5
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 1 = +3.583 IPCs damage/SBROOB G40: 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
TripleA 1942.2 : 2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HRules :1 StB A1 regular vs 1 Fg D2
Cost 5
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBRG40 OOB: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBRG40 OOB:StB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5
1D6: +7.593 - 3.148 = +4.445 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.148 = +5.926 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +7.593 - 3.407 = +4.186 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.407 = +5.667 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5
1D6: +7.222 - 4.444 = +2.778 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.445 - 4.444 = +5.001 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +7.222 - 5.333 = +1.889 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.445 - 5.333 = +4.112 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.361 - 1.389 = +5.972 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.027 - 1.389 = +7.638 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.361 - 2.556 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.027 - 2.556 = +6.471 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.056 = +7.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.667 = +6.972 IPCs damage/SBR
SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs
Cost 5:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 1.667 = +4.167 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 1.667 = +7.50 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 2 = +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 2 = +7.166 IPCs damage/SBR
G40.2 SBR OOB
Bomber A1
Damage: 1D6+2
Cost 12Fighter A1 D1
Cost 101 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBRStB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR*9= -1.854, 9 vs 18
Net: (+1.819 - 1.854= ) -0.035
For 1 StB vs 1 Fg
- 9 StBs vs 18 Fgs
Break even point: 10 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 19 Fgs D1 C10
Break even ratio: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
0.526*12=
6.32 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.632 offense/defense cost ratio
Approximative Interception Threshold: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
Eliminate the stratBs role in normal combat, so that it’s only use in the game is to strategically bomb factories and bases.
Rather than trying to preserve a dual role for the strategic bomber unit (which seems to invariably favor normal combat over strat bombing) what if we made it exclusively for bombing? Basically I’m talking about a bomber unit with no hitpoints, and no attack or defense value, in normal combat. Instead we create an SBR phase and escort/intercept rules, that are unique, treating the unit a bit more like transports. The tactical bomber, would then replace the strategic bomber, as the game’s principle combat bomber, at whatever new attack/defense value makes sense for that role.
This would effectively eliminate the strat bomber air umbrella (or dark skies) approach vs navies, restoring carriers + fighters/tacBs to the preeminent position on the water. It would also eliminate the 6 move normal combat unit from the game, preventing the rush defense bomber stack, or the rush attack airblitz, with this crazy unit that has both the attack 4 (best in the game) and move 6 (best in the game.) It’s a major change, but one which I think might produce a more realistic strategic bombing campaign, without such huge distortions to normal combat.
This is very interesting. I haven’t seen it proposed before. It does make sense and would definitely solve some problems. I like that it emphasizes the tactical use of fighters and tac bombers as the primary combat air units. Your suggestions for price and attributes appear spot on at first glance.
I have been thinking about it more lately, having just gone back re-read multiple threads dealing with Dark Skies and how to defeat it. The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly. As much as this would change the dynamics of gameplay, I think it may be a necessary and highly appropriate change. It would bring accuracy and a greater purpose/niche for strategic bombing that we don’t currently see… at least I don’t.
I won’t be able to test it out, but I would be very interested in the results if others did.
Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.
What exactly do you mean Barney? The Doolittle Raid was essentially a strategic bombing mission performed by medium (tactical) bombers. Unless you are comparing it to being able to using strategic bombers in a reverse role… Long shot attack on combat units with a poor offensive role?
The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly.
Well said Hoffman.
Once I learned how poorly StBs were against regular targets, it seems a real aberration.
This is mostly because before TacBomber creation, StB unit was an all bomber unit.
Now, TcB has been created, each bomber type need a specific and historically accurate role.
I see a lot a possibility coming from Black Elk idea.
I’m eager to compare all numbers to get some guidelines.
But definitely a breakthrough IMO.
From my HR POV both Fg A2 D2 C6 and StB A? D? will get same combat value in regular combat and in SBR escort and intercept.
It will be simpler.
I like this change.
Got the numbers crunching already! Nice
Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-D
I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.
I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more. I agree that this would take some getting used to, and I’m still trying to envision how it would look in practice. But it might be easier for players to just take a dive into a whole new dynamic, rather than trying to keep it familiar. I think if we preserve it’s role in normal combat, then there is a limit to how much we can reduce its cost, because the hitpoint and the move 6 (regardless of the attack/defense values) is just so potent in its own right.
The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.
I think in some ways the sculpts have held us back, because they suggest that it is the type of aircraft rather than the mission/target, that defines whether “a bomber” is tactical or strategic. The game is admittedly over simplistic on this point, and the issue is somewhat compounded by the fact the Axis never really developed the kind of specialized long range strategic bombers en mass, that the Allies did. But I think for gameplay purposes it would be helpful to just create a sharp distinction by unit type, even if one might not necessarily exist in reality. Because this allows us to define the abilities and price the unit in a way that makes more sense for the intended use.
Hi Lhoffman
What I meant by “Doolittle” raid was a unit that can do a long range low probability of success attack. You would not have that option with a short ranged combat unit.
Got the numbers crunching already! Nice :-D :-D :-D
Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-D :-) :-) :- :-)I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.
I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more. I agree that this would take some getting used to, and I’m still trying to envision how it would look in practice. But it might be easier for players to just take a dive into a whole new dynamic, rather than trying to keep it familiar. I think if we preserve it’s role in normal combat, then there is a limit to how much we can reduce its cost, because the hitpoint and the move 6 (regardless of the attack/defense values) is just so potent in its own right.
The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.
I think in some ways the sculpts have held us back, because they suggest that it is the type of aircraft rather than the mission/target, that defines whether “a bomber” is tactical or strategic. The game is admittedly over simplistic on this point, and the issue is somewhat compounded by the fact the Axis never really developed the kind of specialized long range strategic bombers en mass, that the Allies did. But I think for gameplay purposes it would be helpful to just create a sharp distinction by unit type, even if one might not necessarily exist in reality. Because this allows us to define the abilities and price the unit in a way that makes more sense for the intended use.
It seems a pretty good reason to not allow this little defense point @1.
So, do you still believe that even an hypothetical StB A1 D0 C5-6 M6, 1 hit could be too OP as a way to rise defense factor with such fodder?
If it is treated as an AAA for hit value with no defense point, could this be correct?
Do you believe Allies would spam 5 or 6 IPCs StB hit fodder unit?
Here, I’m just trying how far it goes to get a consistent combat value in both SBR and regular combat.
To me, it seems a good loss of money if it use as a last ditch defense.
Also, good to see you Barney! Glad to know the gang is still around, even when I take long breaks.
I get what you mean, especially given the size of the game map.
“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-D
I do see a couple of nice trade offs even if we lose the mobility of a combat unit with a reach of 6 spaces.
The first is that we create a much more historically realistic air combat radius vs fleets. Especially with respect to Europe and the Atlantic, but also for the Pacific side. I think we’d all have to acknowledge that the Axis never had a navy nuking bomber with the sort of reach we see demonstrated by the OOB strat unit. It’s range is entirely out of sync with the capabilities of Axis combat aircraft in 1940. You’d have to pretend it’s some kind of delta wing prototype, arriving on the scene well in advance of the game’s timeline.
The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. So you’re unlikely to see a dozen of them suddenly show up in some narrowly defended frontline territory without solid ground/defensive fighters to back it up. You’d want them in a place that is relatively safe. Players would have to make some tougher choices about where to set up their bombing opperations. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.
I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.
Ps. To Barons last Q. I do think it would be abused with a hitpoint at a low cost. One possible alternative would be a defense value without a hitpoint (similar to what we imagined for transports at various times.) Like with a one time defense in the first round of combat. Though that sort of mechanic would be without precedent in the official game.
Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots. It would be an easy way to distort the ground game in areas with a delicate balance of hitpoints. An alternative would be a higher cost, but then you have to lower the attrition rate, and definitely the sweet spot at 5 would be off the table.
In my view it would just be less open to abuse or confusion if we didn’t have to deal with the unit in normal combat at all. I think the move 6 is very powerful at such a low cost, and people would game it, even if it was just 1 pip or 1 hitpoint, in the right place at the right time. I think players would fixate on how the unit could best be used in combat rather than SBR, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the change.
Good to see you as well Black Elk. I could see bmbr spam happening, which as you said we don’t want. What about A2 D0 ? I guess you’d still have to give it a hitpoint though, which is it’s strongest defense function anyway.
Hmm…SBR long range bombers only? It would definitely shake things up. :)
Just trying to visualize it in gameplay. Using Germany for example, they could build a strat fleet for use against UK and turn it against Russia when their objectives changed. Ftrs still hit at 2 with no bmbr defense ? You’d scramble every time with some success but a few would still get through. That would be in line with what really happened.
Even at 5 bucks, it’s still an investment. Especially with no hit soaking ability. Idk, I guess as you said they would be similar to transports then.
Have some other stuff I’m testing right now but I think I’ll give it a try. What do you think Baron ? SBR role only with transport no hit rule for 5 bucks ?
So Germany turn 1 will be affected the most, JPN 1 will be also. Then UK and Italy a little bit too. Think I’ll give germany 2 subs in 113 and a couple more inf for the yunann attack ? Should be close enough to get the ball running.
