G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

**@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**

[Black_Elk]

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.

[barney]

@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 :)

[baron Münchhausen]

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. …

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

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.

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.

[barney]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

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:

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good

Philadelphia! sounds totally apt haha. Who needs sleep
:-D

[barney]

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

[Black_Elk]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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?

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[Black_Elk]

Alright it sounds like we are putting together a battle plan here.
:-D

I say we float the SFR game files for G40 and 1942.2, so players can take a crack at it and start making balance assessments. In a perfect world, we might hope for it to be balanced by sides right out the gate, but when you’re dealing with A&A things rarely go so smoothly. I’d be interested to hear feedback, or suggestions. If people think it’s unbalanced in favor of one side or the other, what they might recommend for a bid range, or if they like to try it under A0 or China0 conditions etc. Also if it might have applications with other Mods, or integrated HRs that people enjoy.

Give that one a little time to shine, while we put our best scientists and conspiracy theorists on the Philadelphia experiment to create a new roster/unit cost structure for use in these games.
We can keep the working game files for that one cloaked in the shipyard for a time, if need be, while we run the numbers and consider tweaks. Since the overhaul here is certain to be extensive, I think we should feel free to go mad scientist with it haha.

I think the only things I would try to keep sacred are the principle combat ground units and the core stats for the fighter at A3/D4/C10. I feel like those are key touchstones, and units that I’m not too comfortable messing with. But otherwise I think we should go all in. If we need to add abilities or revise costs on a unit by unit basis to make the system better, then that’s what we should do.

Since the experiment will build on the SFR ideas, those initial gamefiles can serve as primers, and might help raise new questions or recommend new solutions we haven’t fully considered yet, once we see it in action. That ruleset should also be fairly simple to playtest FtF too, which is why I like it for the physical table.

When we get to the point where we have a complete roster ready to materialize. I’d like to make some printable materials (battle board, and unit chart) to accompany it, so its a bit easier to get going around the table face to face.

I can edit the lead post in this thread, with a brief synopsis and an internal link to an SFR thread for specific balance feedback on that project. While we continue to charge ahead with the experimental stuff here.

Most of all, even more important than any specific balance by sides, is whether people like the gameplay. Whether fleet movement and SBR in particular under the new ruleset help to shape enjoyable patterns of play. If it succeeds in that basic aim, then set up changes for starting balance are pretty easy the way I see it. Many solutions are on offer there, from a suggested bid range, to starting cash or additional objectives bonuses, even balance modding of the starting unit distribution. Turn order, or new political situations. But the important question is whether the basic rules are fun with the defenseless bomber and m3 transport/cruiser situation.

[baron Münchhausen]

I agree.
Good plan.
It allows to observe a lot of basic points without going crazy with Subs.
IDK where will lead us SFEx and PEx.
I truly hope one or the other will work great.
It is a cautious approach with baby steps.
I like this.
I new Subs are complex matters, I played 5 different interactions along my whole life.

I will need help to learn how to load all xml files and play by  Forum, to eventually play-test all these features.  :-D :-D

[Black_Elk]

Ok dropped a testing thread in the main section below, and edited a link into the lead post of this thread. I’ll format it and flesh it out a bit more tomorrow if I can.

Right now I’m kind of lazy at the keyboard and more interested in messing around in TripleA haha.
I did throw some red up in there for San Francisco, like YG often uses. Cribbed his font technique, since I always like how it looks. But tried to keep it short, since I usually ramble like a madman.

Should be cool for now, unless anyone catches something we missed. Should keep us busy for a little while at least, waiting on bomber and M3 transport results, while we tease out the rest of the roster overhaul.

depth Charging ahead!
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Barney and @Black Elk, did you sleep, last night?
:-D :-D :-D

[Trenacker]

I think that the map would benefit from significant adjustment in certain locations. Historical Board Gaming’s 1939 map probably gets closest to the territorial distribution I consider ideal.

Consider giving the French an increased presence in Indochina, which should be divided into a northern Tonkin and a southern Cochinchina. Add two infantry and a cruiser. Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Cut off the bottom of Shan state to create the Kra Isthmus. Expand Indochina in size to allow for the two French territories while preserving Siam.

Enlarge the Philippines so that it is bisected by a pair of sea zones. Consider dividing the Dutch East Indies into smaller districts. Add a neutral cruiser that joins the Allies if an Axis ship enters coastal waters.

Include a Russian destroyer and submarine in the Pacific, along with one tank in Buryatia.

Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Add cities to the map, including Singapore, Tobruk (which eponymous territory should be renamed Cyrenaica), and Vladivostok. Divide Amur into two territories (not inclusive of Vladivostok).

[baron Münchhausen]

Are you sure you answered in the appropriate thread?

[General 6 Stars]

Black Elk

Have you or anybody else that you know of tried to play the G40 tabletop game using the D12 system ? Maybe Triple A ?

What’s funny is I do have room and pieces to setup a G40 game and test D12 (if 1 or 2 guys wanted to try testing ) but I would be strapped for time.
Other is also I only have played 1 G40 game.

[Black_Elk]

I haven’t tried it myself, but I had buddy who’s a big d12 enthusiast, and we once tried to get something up off the ground for revised way back when. He was a big fan of space tactical wargames, and made one that was a bit like Master of Orion for the tabletop, so we were pretty used to using d12 for crits and such in that game. And being a D&D geek myself, I still have the dice, but haven’t attempted anything other than d6 for G40.

I think sometimes I am kind of an abnormal Global player, mainly because everything I want to do with the game (in HR or redesign terms) trends towards simplifying it, whereas many others tend to move it in the opposite direction haha. To me the promise of d12 would be to somehow streamline the game at the tactical level, so that you could maybe chip away at some of the rules overhead, by having more raw numbers to work with. Not sure if that makes much sense. But I prefer an easy read where the mechanics and desirable play patterns or purchasing/production patterns make clear sense at a glance, without having so much nuance or so many specific conditionals in the rules. I think there is a definite brilliance to the A&A combat system (just in abstract gameplay terms) at d6, and I really enjoy it at the foundational level. But as the desire to build more and more complexity on top of that foundation increases, while still retaining d6 structure for everything, I think there may be a point where it might just be easier to jump up to d12. But yeah, I’d be a total neophyte here, since I haven’t really made a serious attempt at d12 for an A&A game at this scale. Perhaps others have given it more serious thought?