@Genghis:
I have made a change to the destroyers in my proposal above, check it out!
Subs now cost 5 IPC. Reason: with one destroyer’s ability to completely cancel ALL subs’ abilities, I have given the subs a little help so we see them on the board more often as cannon fodder. It also makes the destroyers even more important to puchase because destroyers are the hard counter to subs. Makes the game more interesting because convoying is now a more viable strategy.
Destroyer stats are unchanged. The reson for this is that they have many uses like blocking, soaking up hits for Air only attacks and sub hunting. Because subs will now be more important, so will destroyers. In addition I have changed the anti-sub ability of destroyers to work only on a 1:1 basis. No longer will one single destroyer cancel out 20 subs. This change is inspired by DK’s house rules. I think it is quite flavourful and makes more sense, plus it makes the game more interesting by making subs more viable instead of being rendered useless after someone spends 8 ipcs on ONE destroyer.
Using Subs as fodder is a totally different intent than of designer AFAIK.
Here, I’m just talking because it doesn’t mean your rule frame does not work, only it get some issues for purist and historically oriented player.
DD was meant to be the main blocker and fodder. Lowering to 5/8 Sub/DD ratio instead of 6/8 will increase Sub padding fleet and 1 DD blocking a single cheaper Sub will make Sub OP.
If 1:1 ratio is applied, you no more need to lower Sub cost to 5 IPCs. You will need 24 IPCs in 3 DDs to block 18 IPCs of 3 Subs worth. Meaning for same cost 1 Sub will make it through blocker.
@Genghis:
Genghis,
I would ask that battleships be 5/5 so there’s still a chance of a miss. I don’t like the idea of any unit having a guaranteed hit in a dice game. Even at that price, I’d be dropping them on the board more often rather than just aircraft carriers.
However, all other stuff you stated, I do like. Really revolutionary and it all makes sense to me.
The problem with making it 5/5 is that two cruisers would be statistically better than one battleship. Because they have the same role in the game (combat ships that bombard), they need to be exacty equal in terms of stats or math will find the more efficient option. Trust me with 6/6, you would still get aircraft carriers because of the flexibility of airplanes able to attack land, supporting amphibious assaults AND sea, plus extra threat range for your fleet (3 move without naval port) compared to pure combat ships.
According to AACalc simulations, in fact:
2 Cruisers A3 D3 C10, 1 hit are weaker than 1 Battleship A5 D5 C20, 2 hit
38% vs 60%
I made this by using Classic Jetfighter defending @5 with Subs as first hit for BB.
So no need to have auto hit with BB.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=20&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=10&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=10&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Bat&ool_def=Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Tra-Sub-SSub-Des-Cru-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Classic&territory=&round=1&pbem=
So, it is another way to balance Cruiser and BB.
Here is a balanced scale (on AACalc) for different variant:
Cruiser A3 D3 C10, SB @3, 1 hit. (Light Cruiser)
Cruiser A4 D4 C12, SB @3, 1 hit (Battle Cruiser)
Cruiser A3 D3 C16, SB @3, 2 hits (Heavy Cruiser or Armored Cruiser)
Battleship mark I A4 D4 C18, SB @4, 2 hits
Battleship mark II A5 D5 C20, SB @5, 2 hits
Battleship mark III A4 D4 C22, SB @4, 3 hits (Flagship style Yamato-class like)
@Loose:
Unless you buying 300 infantry……wearing “beanies”
Ha ha ha
Oh no, I see Baron you have met MR. VANN ! :-D
@SS:
@Loose:
Unless you buying 300 infantry……wearing “beanies”
Ha ha ha
Oh no, I see Baron you have met MR. VANN ! :-D
Yes, the enigmatic Mr. Van sent me a PM about his thread, OP quoted above.
:-)
I’m genuinely puzzled about this Cruiser being better according to his formula.
:?
Yes exactly, there will always going to be a few subs that get through the blockade of destroyers. that was the intent of my rule change, doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that? It meanse it might be worth buying subs instead of never buying any because they all get blocked by a single destroyer. It means if you buy lots of subs, the opponent must start buying DDs to keep up instead of simply buying a single DD to cancel out ALL your subs.
@Genghis:
Yes exactly, there will always going to be a few subs that get through the blockade of destroyers. that was the intent of my rule change, doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that? It meanse it might be worth buying subs instead of never buying any because they all get blocked by a single destroyer. It means if you buy lots of subs, the opponent must start buying DDs to keep up instead of simply buying a single DD to cancel out ALL your subs.
That is the reason why I think you no more need to lower sub price.
At least, they are no more trapped in defense by few DDs and some get surprise strike in a given combat round when Subs nb > DDs nb.
The only annoying thing is you have to compare numbers on each side and every combat rounds to determine how many surprise strike you get.
For instance: 5 DDs and 3 Subs against 2 DDs and 4 Subs.
According to casualty selection, which subs get surprise strike will greatly vary.
It delay combat resolution compared to OOB.
That maybe an issue for some players.
For your info, in redesign thread, we develop a different POV, in which DD get A1 D1 C5 but cannot block Subs A2 D1 C6 in any way at all. So, they always do Surprise strike and can pass through SZ with enemy DDs in it.
We are actually in play-tests phase and taking summer brake. Barney found that this increase Battle of Atlantic feel to his G40 tested game.
However there is a few changes for TcB and Fg which no more need DD presence to hit Subs.
And get some one time first strike @1 anti-sub capacity.
Ok so according to my calculations, the battleship needs to be M2A6D6C20 to be better in combat than current DDs. BB needs to be better in combat than DDs because DD’s abilities are better than BB’s ability.
Now if you make the point that M2A6D6C20 is better than two cruisers M2A3D3C10, than we have to give the cruiser a unique role in the game so that every ship is worth taking.
Suggestion: Cruisers have M2A3D3C10 Target Priority: Air units This means a hit taken by a cruiser MUST be assigned to an air unit, BB and AC tips cannot be used against it.
@Genghis:
Ok so according to my calculations, the battleship needs to be M2A6D6C20 to be better in combat than current DDs. BB needs to be better in combat than DDs because DD’s abilities are better than BB’s ability.
Now if you make the point that M2A6D6C20 is better than two cruisers M2A3D3C10, than we have to give the cruiser a unique role in the game so that every ship is worth taking.
Do you meant Battleship A5 D5 M2 C20?
Axis and Allies basic assumption is that cheaper fodder unit, Infantry, are always more cost and combat value efficient than costlier unit.
Making Destroyer less combat efficient than Cruiser and Battleship is radical perspective change.
IMO, it is easier to assume that Infantry is better cost efficient in land battle than Tank.
But for warships, it seems sounder that paying for a costlier unit, you get a more powerful and efficient one, or at least of similar efficiency. Otherwise, it is not optimized to buy such bulkier ones if smaller ones get the job done for better price.
This last point should be open up for debate about balancing warships within themselves.
Ok I did 8 BBs vs 20 DDs with DDs unchanged and BBs at A5D5C20 and the BBs won with one BB left over, so we can make BBs at 5/5 and that would make them better in combat than DDs (but only slightly).
I tested the same battle with BBs @ 6/6 and the BBs had 4 BBs left at the end of the battle.
I tested also BBs @ 4/4 against standard DDs and the DDs won easily. So the BB definitely needs a buff compared to DD.
I propose that the BB be AT LEAST 5/5 to make it worth buying over DD.
@Baron:
@Genghis:
Ok so according to my calculations, the battleship needs to be M2A6D6C20 to be better in combat than current DDs. BB needs to be better in combat than DDs because DD’s abilities are better than BB’s ability.
Now if you make the point that M2A6D6C20 is better than two cruisers M2A3D3C10, than we have to give the cruiser a unique role in the game so that every ship is worth taking.
Do you meant Battleship A5 D5 M2 C20?Axis and Allies basic assumption is that cheaper fodder unit, Infantry, are always more cost and combat value efficient than costlier unit.
Making Destroyer less combat efficient than Cruiser and Battleship is radical perspective change.
IMO, it is easier to assume that Infantry is better cost efficient in land battle than Tank.
But for warships, it seems sounder that paying for a costlier unit, you get a more powerful and efficient one, or at least of similar efficiency. Otherwise, it is not optimized to buy such bulkier ones if smaller ones get the job done for better price.
This last point should be open up for debate about balancing warships within themselves.
Yes but tank has extra ability compared to infantry, that’s why you buy it. (move 2, blitz). In a fleet, a destroyer defending a fleet has the same role as a BB or cruiser and even has extra abilities. It’s already been proven that the DD fights better than the cruiser and BB and also has extra abilities compared to them
Larry and consorts would say Cruiser and BB get Shore Bombardment.
And Cruiser get the most cost efficient.
2 Cruisers combined with 1 Inf and 1 Art get 10 attack points, avg. 3 hits and only lost 2 units.
Overkill in defense have no impact on BB and Cruiser while air support may be shut down.
most of the time the bombardment is a joke. only once per battle. I have never seen anyone buy a cruiser or BB except for new players. If Larry tries to justify they are balanced, he clearly has not playtested the game.
Also I tested 20 AC costed at 20 IPCs with current stats against 40 BB with 5/5 and the AC won with 5 planes remaining. It’s because they can tip all their carriers and take the carriers off as casualties before the planes. this is what makes them OP. They should probably cost around 24 IPCs to be balanced.
On Carriers vs BBs, historical purist would say that BBs were becoming obsolete in WW2.
I’m pretty confident you don’t need autokill A6 D6 but only A5 D5 to get interesting results against DDs.
Also, 2 hits should be considered.
Loosing carrying capacity, is not easy decision to make compared to tipping BB.
10 Carriers A0 D2 C16, 2 hits with 20 Fgs A3 D4 C10, against 18 BB A5 D5 C20, 2 hits
Carriers on offense get no chance to survive.
As far as I can try various combinations, even on defense, full Carrier is not better against BB A5 D5, 2 hits.
There is probably a mistake in your simulation, is it really:
10 Carriers A0 D2 C20, 2 hits with 20 Fgs A3 D4 C10, against 20 BB A5 D5 C20, 2 hits?
sorry i had made a mistake in my initial simulation. the BBs actually won with 10bbs surviving lol.
I just finished 38 BBs at 5/5 vs 20ACs D2 (with 40 fighters of course) and the battle ended with one BB vs 1 fighter.
Sea Unit Proposal Rev 2:
Subs: unchanged
Destroyers: can only cancel ability of subs on a 1:1 basis. If 1 DD and 5 planes attack 10 subs, only one sub can be hit.
Cruisers: Now cost 10. In addition, they have the Target Selection (Air) rule which means when a hit is scored by a cruiser, an air unit must be taken as a casualty if any is present.
Battleships: Now attack, defend and bombard on 5s
Aircraft Carriers: Now cost 18.
Please discuss
A lot depend on what you are aiming for.
IMO, there is no need to modify CV. On offense, it is weaker vs Cruiser C10 and BB A5 D5.
Against a lot of StBs, it is barely manageable to get a working fleet DD+CV+Fgs with a few TPs, on the same IPCs basis. Adding BB or Cruiser can now be part of optimal defensive fleet.
Target selection is a matter of taste and flavor.
@Genghis:
sorry i had made a mistake in my initial simulation. the BBs actually won with 10bbs surviving lol.
I just finished 38 BBs at 5/5 vs 20ACs D2 (with 40 fighters of course) and the battle ended with one BB vs 1 fighter.
What do you use to make this simulation?
AACalc get some limitations.
I do it by hand, very tedious process but it works :). I add up the attack and defense punch and divide by 6 to calculate hits in each round and keep going from there.
My issue was that carrier at C16 is too strong in terms of defense. And don’t worry, I’m planning on changing the Strategic Bombers because they are quite OP.
suggestion 1: bombers may choose to attack at low or high altitude. low altitude attack at 4 but subject to AA fire by cruiser and BB (work just like regular AA, imagine ships are AA guns for that purpose). high altitude, attack at 3 but not subject to any AA fire.
suggestion 2: strategic bomber unchanged but attack at 3 against sea zones.
@Genghis:
I do it by hand, very tedious process but it works :). I add up the attack and defense punch and divide by 6 to calculate hits in each round and keep going from there.
My issue was that carrier at C16 is too strong in terms of defense. And don’t worry, I’m planning on changing the Strategic Bombers because they are quite OP.
Your method is very approximate, it works to get a general idea in f-2-f game but willing statistical accuracy, it is better to rely on AACalc simulations which does 10 000 combats to get results.
4 Cruiser A3 will not get 2 hits 100% of time in a single combat round, for instance.
Rather 6% to get no hit or 4 hits, 25% to get 1 hit or 3 hits and 38% to get 2 hits.
If you want to know the method using AACalc and numbers for Carrier compared to other ships:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.msg1227352#msg1227352
The true balanced scale for pure combat value is SS 7- DD 8- CA 10- CV 16- BB 18
On a 50% vs 50% odds of survival on same IPCs basis, actually Carriers should be lowered to 15 IPCs based on avg between offence and defense.
Either if 2 hits BB is A4 D4 C18 or A5 D5 C20
But since Carrier has a specific role and will stay useful, there is no need to change cost, 16 will make it popular even if Cruiser and BB are stronger or cheaper.
@Genghis:
I do it by hand, very tedious process but it works :). I add up the attack and defense punch and divide by 6 to calculate hits in each round and keep going from there.
My issue was that carrier at C16 is too strong in terms of defense. And don’t worry, I’m planning on changing the Strategic Bombers because they are quite OP.
suggestion 1: bombers may choose to attack at low or high altitude. low altitude attack at 4 but subject to AA fire by cruiser and BB (work just like regular AA, imagine ships are AA guns for that purpose). high altitude, attack at 3 but not subject to any AA fire.
suggestion 2: strategic bomber unchanged but attack at 3 against sea zones.
Making StBs A3 D1 M6 C12 works great.
Adding a +1A Fg combined arms to get A4 works to lower StBs efficiency too.
There is many ways to go and also going against purely AACalc balanced scale cost depending on giving different capacity, for example making Cruiser M3 with AAA vs up to 3 planes is enough to make it interesting at 12 IPCs. (Same as a Tank M2 compared to Artillery M1.)
So balancing per cost ratio is not the only aspect, simplicity and historical depiction can be others.
So what is your main goal by trying to tweak some rules?
