That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.
I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?
Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?
Finally, I would keep both units at 6 IPCs.
Defending Subs can submerge anytime and it is a game changer.
Sub is now directly vulnerable to Fg and TcB units attacking @1.
Sub commander can save them from their unfortunate low defensive stance, to the next turn into attacking upper hand unit.
I like the 6 IPCs Subs A2 D1 because it remains OOB. One less thing to learn.
In some cases, it was already possible to make a few surprise attack on lonely warships.
Now, it is against every warships and Destroyers needs an arch-enemy, DD is very strong on defense.
I like the 6 IPCs DDs A1 D2 because it is consistent with Larry Harris cost increment.
Also both units are some kind of mirror: SS A2 D1 M2 C6 vs DD A1 D2 Att Depth Charge@1 M2 C6
I would try that one and adjust from there.
What do you think?
That’s correct Baron. DD win. Yes BB and CA can both have DDC as well.
I don’t know if you saw my edit earlier but I ran some small battles and the SFR subs had a noticeable higher survivability rate than OOB due to being able to submerge if they survived a depth charging. That and being able to blockade should help justify a higher cost ?
Having the DD and not SS as the main Fleet fodder was Krieg’s biggest concern, correct ?
Yes. I saw it. Thanks.
I still would try both at 6 IPCs.
Tac A3-4 D3 M4-6 at 10 IPCs to slightly increase plane offense against water. (10 is much easier to remember)
I’m not too concerned about Cruiser now, since it gets M3 with Transport.
The issue is about Battleship. Now, there is no reason to buy it. None.
Nothing to gain if you simply built DDs and Carriers, much better.
All battles simulations involving DDs vs BBs are a lost cause for Battleship.
It needs an ability to make it competitive or a cost redux…
Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB.
Right on Baron. Sounds good to me. The mirror thing is the way a lot of other games work.
I’ll get this packaged up and we’ll see what Elk thinks about the BB.
If we try giving 1 infantry (we can call it Marines division without using a special unit) on Battleship, it is a bit better for defense with 2 hits, A4 D4 M2 ShoreB4 C20 than
Cruiser 1 hit A3 D3 M3 ShoreB3 C12 + 1 TP A0 D0 M3 C7 total 1 hit, 19 IPCs but 2 ground units and 3 Move, faster.
At least, it makes more sense to bring along some ground units, so you can use Shorebombardment ability.
Hehe well there’s never been a reason to buy a battleship, other than production restrictions.
I feel like we’ve been down this road before with the Battleship transporting 1 inf “Marines”, even in this very thread. I don’t mind it from a gameplay perspective, but I think CWOMarc made some pretty convincing historical arguments against this use of the BB.
I suppose if we’re drifting into a full scale revamp of the purchase costs for these other units, I’d go with AA fire or a price reduction as the simplest solution. Though I’ll admit, I can sense the ability to describe such a ruleset in a few simple lines suddenly slipping away from me. A few days ago, I was thinking it would be pretty simple to describe the basic gist in under 100 words. Perhaps it was too much to hope that a ready fix would come so easily.
:-D
Ps. I wonder if we can get away with something universal…
Like “all surface warships cost 2 ipcs less”
?
New cost structure would be…
Destroyer 6
Cruiser 10
Carrier 12/14 (1942.2/G40)
Battleship 18
Subs and Transports aren’t “surface warships” so their costs remain the same.
Then all we have to do is describe how subs work with a separate entry, that discusses subs, and subs vs dd vs air with the depth charge. Maybe I still have a shot at getting all this to fit on a single side A4 print out?
It would mean finding a replacement for the shipyards tech, or just a blanket no tech game, until we can come up with a more suitable tech system for use on both boards (as an add on). But that’s a secondary concern for me right now. I’d rather get the base naval game in order, since most play without tech anyway.
I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.
Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.
Maybe there is other possibility to try something without a complete overhaul. Keeping OOB set up as much as possible.
This roster can work and is pretty near the ideal cost structure and remains pretty balanced within himself.
ASA: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1
Destroyer A1 ASA1 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C9, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C12, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C15 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ
Fighter A3 ASA1 D4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 M4-6 C10?, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A
Is it 2D for convoy raiding by plane?
I used ASA,
Do you prefer Depth Charge Attack DCA?
or
Anti-Sub Patrol ASP?
Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol ASAP?
DCA doesn’t describe all kind of Aircrafts Patrol Attack.
Reducing TcB to 10 help toward all improved cost/defense ratio from warships.
Fgs+TcB OOB 21 IPCs/ 7 pts, 2 hits = 3 IPCs/pt vs BB 20/ D4, 2 hits = 5 IPCs/pt
SFR 20/7= 2.86 IPCs/pt, 2 hits vs 15/D4, 2 hits = 3.75 IPCs/pt
Maybe to help Fighter you can reduced it to 9 IPCs, so you get 5, 9, 10 spot for aircraft.
Fg is same cost than Cruiser. TcB is slightly over.
This may saved cost ratio toward DD and BB.
But this can be a plan B, only if after playtest aircraft seems too weak for the price.
In 1942.2 without TcB, maybe it is better to makes Fg A4 D4 C10.
It plays all Fighter, Fighter bomber and TcB bomber roles.
And increasing attack with lower cost can help against warships better defense ratio (DD A1 D2 for most part).
**@Black_Elk:
I don’t know, even at 18 the battleship still seems terrible hehe.
Alas, I fear that there may be no way of getting around a new unit chart for the entire naval roster. Once we go down this road with the sub, it seems pretty unavoidable.
The simpler road placing both DD and Sub at 7 IPCs. But 8 IPCs you hinder Germany U-boat production.
3 boats at 7 IPCs… Not much variety for purchase.
Maybe, in that case TP may be put on 6 IPCs spot?
Or we can look on the other simulations with higher depth charge factor and weaker DDs such A1 D1.
This last one makes for a good fit inside OOB cost.
And simplify casualty selection because DD is cheaper, and weaker in itself.
A player will prefer to save a 6 IPCs First strike unit @1 over a simpler 5 IPCs @1.
Also, the offense /defense ratio between such DD and BB is only 5% stronger.
So BB is not outclass and since DDs no more block Subs, it is not as attractive.
The cost effectiveness of such DD is far better than OOB but not the highest.
IMO, it needs a play-test to say it is broken. Also, it is still easy to implement.
However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
So Fg and TcB will both have part in attack and defense.
Group 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
SFR OOB
6 DD C5 vs 5 SS C6 77-79% DD win 60-63% DD win
5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5 61-64% SS win 90% Sub win
6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win
8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub win
This would be much simpler to test (and be in line with intended simpler SF rules):
This roster can work and is pretty near the OOB cost structure and remains probably much balanced within himself. Considering that weaker Subs (compared to this cheap 5 IPCs DD unit) have much survivability than ever.
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1
Destroyer A1 ASAD1 D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, no air operation if damaged
Battleship A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ
Fighter A3 ASA1 D4 ASD1 M4-6 C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ
Tactical Bomber A3-4 ASA1 D3 ASD1 M4-6 C11, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 or 1? dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A**
We should just go for it.
I have certain reservations, like about the naval spam against coastal air defense. Here just trying to recall that the roster favors the purchasing/production power of some nations over others and the map is not as even in the geography as a pure unit to unit Calc might recommend. The US and Japan in particular can get pretty huge over time. The UK and Germany rather less so. I don’t want to see the battleship spam delivering overly crushing bombardments or absorptions if that unit ever becomes too cost effective haha. But I guess I’d rather see it proved in the play out, than just making hypotheticals.
I say we put into effect like this.
Code name: San Francisco
Defenseless Strategic Bomber at 5
M3 Transports and Cruisers
AB+2
Code name: Oakland? San Diego? LA expansion haha? Whatever sounds cool.
Maybe just West Coast Naval Rules for now.
All of the above plus
Submarine and shipyard improvements outlined above.
Basically a complete overhaul to Naval cost structure. With the emphasis on the integration of the Submarine.
Just to keep it clear. SF rules I think I have my head around. The full naval expansion I think needs the proof of concept in tripleA.
Let’s just make the ideal roster, then see how the play patterns shakes out. Using the OOB starting unit distribution.
@Black Elk
so you want the whole naval revamp added in ? Sounds good to me or do you just want SFR with the first 3 ? It just gets kinda screwy with multiple mods.
Hmm…I could probably make the naval a tech and when it activates all the naval would kick in. Or you could have multiple techs and have the sub DDs a different one. Just need to edit the tech and you’d be good to go. Hell I could even add one for the combat move AAgun and Pacific Islands.
Anyway don’t want to overachieve. That’d take a few days, probably a little longer, to do. Just let me know :)
You can get both worlds IMO, near OOB cost structure with DD A1 D1 ASA1 ASD1 C5 SF rules.
And revised cost structure with DD A1 D2 ASA1 C6 with total overhaul
See link, lead above edited post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1630011#msg1630011
That way, you get two different xml files and games.
Provides possible compared analysis betweenn both to make up your mind.
Depends on Barney. …
We should just go for it.
I have certain reservations, like about the naval spam against coastal air defense. Here just trying to recall that the roster favors the purchasing/production power of some nations over others and the map is not as even in the geography as a pure unit to unit Calc might recommend. The US and Japan in particular can get pretty huge over time. The UK and Germany rather less so. I don’t want to see the battleship spam delivering overly crushing bombardments or absorptions if that unit ever becomes too cost effective haha. But I guess I’d rather see it proved in the play out, than just making hypotheticals.
I say we put into effect like this.
Code name: San Francisco
Defenseless Strategic Bomber at 5
M3 Transports and Cruisers
AB+2Code name: Oakland? San Diego? LA expansion haha? Whatever sounds cool.
Maybe just West Coast Naval Rules for now.
All of the above plus
Submarine and shipyard improvements outlined above.Basically a complete overhaul to Naval cost structure. With the emphasis on the integration of the Submarine.
Just to keep it clear. SF rules I think I have my head around. The full naval expansion I think needs the proof of concept in tripleA.
Let’s just make the ideal roster, then see how the play patterns shakes out. Using the OOB starting unit distribution.
What about Philadelphia Experiment for this total overhaul for warships?
(Could be an Hoax but can be founded on some truths. Rumors may hide more than meets the eyes. It was about an allegedly technical and scientic breakthrough on a US Destroyer.)
Keeping SF rules for what we know already plus a different Destroyer A1 D1 at 5 IPCs sweetspot too with special Anti-Sub Air Patrol offence and defence @1, also given to Fg and TcB.
2 xmls is np. I’ll go ahead and finish up SF Rules. Won’t take long. Is no big deal to change either.
OK SFR is ready to Rock. I’ll go ahead and bust out Philly too. No big deal if the plan changes.
2 xmls is np. I’ll go ahead and finish up SF Rules. Won’t take long. Is no big deal to change either.
OK SFR is ready to Rock. I’ll go ahead and bust out Philly too. No big deal if the plan changes.
I don’t believe it.
It will come to fruition.
Thank you very, very much.
Stars were aligned for this new born San Francisco !
:wink: :-) :-) :wink:
Sounds good
Philadelphia! sounds totally apt haha. Who needs sleep
:-D
Ok Philly ( or Tesla for ease of testing ) has joined the Party ! Take a bit to get the objectives and DL.
Forgot about the game notes. Be tomorrow before it’s ready.
Peace Out
Killer
I suspect that San Francisco will be a bit simpler to implement in face to face play, where you are more reliant on memory and go more by the gut for fast calculation, based on experience and habit. I think there is enough in here with SBR and M3 ships to be pretty entertaining. But it’s still pretty easy on the player at least in terms of no new complex relationships to track or additional phases. Pretty grab and go once you get the hang of the defensless bomber.
The Philadelphia experiment strikes me as particularly well suited to tripleA testing. Because here all the new values are presented clearly in the UI and all the new phases and combat interactions are enforced by the engine. And you have a Calc to help parse combats, and built in game notes for all the stats.
ps. I think the SF M3 cruiser/transport will be interesting especially in 1942.2. From G1 on things start to look rather different. There is a potential attack option for the Baltic Fleet now, vs sz 4 and Archangel if Russia allows it. If Germany takes both Arch and Karelia on G1, then there is perhaps another way to keep the Baltic Cruiser alive into the second round, even without a naval purchase in sz 5, or a link up with the med. At there very least such a move would put presure on the red october and soviet airforce in the second round. I think Russia would have a much higher incentive to just park fighters in Arch now to cover this tile, rather than deal with the possible fallout. Alternatively G can go south toward Gibraltar, also now in range of the Baltic Cruiser/Transport. This combined with the SBR only bomber, puts a new spin on the first round both for Russia and UK vs Germany. I think the German player will feel more pressure to do something creative or experiment with their starting fleet, since this is something they don’t usually get to do. This might keep G somewhat more oriented vs the West, rather than just plowing headlong towards the center the same way each and every game. The UK situation around Egypt is somewhat less precarious for Allies at least at the very start (again because of no StratB in combat). The British fighter lives to fight in the first round (without gamey Russian assistance, or just counting on a conservative Axis player hehe), and UK has a few more options with their India and Aussie fleets as a result. In the Pacific more broadly the M3 transport is a total game changer, which makes that theater much more active for the Americans (even just launching transports on the sacrifice distraction). Japan in turn has to face a whole new transport calculus vs India and the money islands, vs Tokyo itself. The cash in Europe and Scandinavia is much closer to sz 11 too, so I think the US still has some difficult decisions to make about where to throw their weight. Not sure what the overall balance will shake out to be, might still end up needing something like the an A0 turn or a bid or something else in the end, who knows, but I’m intrigued.
G40 I’m sure will be more intense, with much more to ponder.
I think the full naval expansion experiment for either board is certain to be entertaining, because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable. Kind of offsets any complexity for the subs when you can buy more of everything in exchange. I look forward to checking it out.
And San Francisco rules may introduce Philadelphia.
The simpler more familiar leads to the wider game changer.
Easier to give a try to a game with a few HRs, it allows to test things and compare from known experience.
If you like, no, enjoy it, then the other might appeal.
PhiExp is an experimental cost structure which may reveal more bugs than the other which is more an historical enhanced feel of Subwarfare and economical warfare.
Still M3 TP and Cruiser may be a boon or a bane. We don’t know.
Probably one thing that will need a correction is about Sub Stealth move.
It might require to allow DDs to block it somehow.
Good news is that players may enforce it in CM or NCM, and different ratios can be try.
IMO, a 1:1 blocking is an option to play-test.
I imagine a huge pack of Subs roaming and unwilling to engage.
Can be hard to stop with a few Depth Charges @1.
Maybe it might need also two attacks per DDs. IDK.
How AAA phase treat such double roll? 1 roll per target max or as a reg attack each rolls important?
Ex. 2 DD vs 2 Subs, 2 @1 rolls or 4 @1 rolls?
because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable.
Amen brother. Nothing else is so satisfying.
