Real value of units

I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.

@Arreghas:

You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.

Yes, that’s quite correct.  An important point to remember is that a complex game such as Global 1940 is similar to other complex devices (such as automotive vehicles): they are systems consisting of multiple interrelated parts which are designed to work together in a particular way and which reflect many design choices and compromises.  Sometimes it’s possible to make minor or even major alterations to some of those components without affecting significantly the performance the overall system, but sometimes even a minor adjustment to a single critical component can wreck the whole thing.  (Take as an example the recent Galaxy Note 7 debacle.  There’s been speculation that Samsung may have changed the electrolyte in the lithium-ion batteries to something less stable, or that it may have gone too far in thinning the separator which keeps the positive and negative sides apart so that the battery doesn’t short-circuit and overheat.)  And design considerations have to take into account the fundamental question of what purpose the system is supposed to serve.  A luxury limousine, a Formula One race-car and a semi-trailer truck are all automotive vehicles, but they’re all optimized to do specific jobs and they all place different leves of emphasis on different capabilities such as passenger comfort, baggage / cargo-holding capacity, speed, fuel consumption efficiency and so forth.

@Tamer:

I like your original idea, but what about carriers?  They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.

I do not recall any instance off-hand during the war in which a carrier was re-floated after having been sunk and then returned to active service.

The Amagi and Graf Zeppelin were both sunk and re-floated, but neither saw active service during the war and Graf Zeppelin wasn’t even complete.

The re-floating idea is kind of cool, but it may need to be reduced somehow to make it a more rare occurrence. As Marc said, it was a long and expensive process and not every ship that was sunk qualified for such a salvage operation. Unfortunately with A&A, we do not have the granularity in gameplay to determine how badly ships are damaged.

I suppose that you could modify the rule so that after combat you need to roll for each ship lost to determine IF it can be salvaged. Say you need a 2 or less to float a given ship. If you roll that, then you can decide to pay half to re-float.

It complicates things, but definitely makes it so you can’t just regenerate 2 battleships and 3 cruisers if you want.

I will offer another limitation that sounds logical to me, but you can consider:

Ships may only be raised on the following turn and to do so, there may not be any hostile warships in the sea zone where the ships were sunk. This implies that any ships not raised the following turn will be lost forever, as you said, and that the territory with your naval base cannot be taken by the enemy in that time.

Example:    Gibraltar is amphib assaulted by Italy. All UK warships are destroyed. Italy has no warships present in sea zone, only transports. Italy takes Gibraltar. US player lands and liberates Gibraltar on their turn, returning it to UK control. The UK player cannot then re-float ships lost in previous turn combat with Italy because they did not retain full control of Gibraltar.

Somewhat complicated perhaps, but I think some of these limitations need to be placed, otherwise I see this as being a huge advantage for the Axis. Germany and Italy in particular, because they tend to hole up their navies in home water areas and can potentially get double the naval power at half the cost. It will further incentivize them to stock up and stay in port knowing they can effectively respawn capital ships on the cheap. An element of chance and tactical consideration should be added so that it isn’t just automatic.

@Imperious:

The Strategic Bomber is just fine as it is. The only OOB unit that’s problematic is the Cruiser at 10 IPC.

People buy Bombers because of their reach for both land and sea, numbers don’t quantity that value.

Sorry IL but it is a totally different paradigm we were talking about.
A game changer for Strategic bomber, no more A4 C12 M6.
It is a much different dynamic and have way more interesting implications.

Here is the link to this Redesign discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39384.msg1632453#msg1632453

Soon, you will be able to playtest G40 both AA Cruiser C12 and bomber C5 on Triple A.

This method is to compare between SBR values in itself.
It cannot consider general combat values for sure.

And a way to explain why some SBR method and values may be unbalanced even without a lot of gametests.

nice piece…

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

Lol well that was the first color that came to mind for them.

So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?

Didn’t think of this happening. :| I guess you’d just have to have at least 1 defending unit fighting at any one time, regardless of the amount of paras.

Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.

I admit that realism is compromised here, but if elite infantry are allowed to fill all these roles, it will mean less unit types and therefore less compexity. Believe me when I say I’m still all for historical accuracy and realism, this is just my take on things.