Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

Hey guys/girls,

First time posting on the forums, thus first time submitting my house rules, so bear with me. I created a stylized rule sheet, but as far as I understand I’m not allowed to post a hyperlink yet, so I will have to type them out here. I apologize for the lack of aesthetic.  :-P

It is important to remember that I have no idea if these rules are balanced or not. I have only had a couple of chances to test it out. That’s why I would love some feedback; any observations, improvements, and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Don’t hold back, folks.

HBG provides beautiful blue acrylic naval mine tokens that I use when implementing these rules. In essence, my naval mines act as ocean AAAs and the similarities can be easily discerned. This also helps in understanding their affect.

Naval Mines
Cost: 6 IPCs
Attack: N/A
Defense: 1
Movement: N/A

Unit Characteristics

Blocks Enemy Movement: Sea zones containing naval mines block the movement of enemy sea units. However, cruisers may bypass naval mines, as well as disarm them.

Sea Defence: A naval mine unit can defend only when enemy units enter the sea zone containing the naval mine. Naval mines defend only once, before the first round of combat. Naval mines may defend up to three times, but only once per attacking sea unit. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one sea unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle.

Amphibious Assault Defence: In the event of an amphibious assault on a coastal territory with naval mines in the adjacent sea zone, transports must be chosen as casualties first. A die is rolled by the defender for each transport engaging in the amphibious assault, up to three times. For each “1” rolled, the attack chooses one transport as a casualty.

Limited Placement: Naval mines can only be placed in sea zones adjacent to coastal territories.

Cannot Hit Air Units: When defending, naval mines cannot hit air units.

When a coastal territory is captured by enemy land units, any naval mines in adjacent sea zones are destroyed.

The transports taken as casualties first may seem, “iffy” (for lack of a better term) but it is meant to emulate the real danger posed by naval mines. I am worried this might be imbalanced/overpowered, but I think it adds a whole new dimension to Amphibious Assaults.  
In addition to the Naval Mines, I sought to expand the role of cruisers. I think the general opinion is that Cruisers aren’t worth their cost (though I could be mistaken.) With this in mind, I decided to provide a specific foil for the Naval Mines, but merging the role of a Minesweeper/hunter with that of the Cruiser.

Cruiser/Minesweeper
Cost: 12 IPCs
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Movement: 2

Unit Characteristics

Minesweeper: Cruisers are specially equipped for mine sweeping duties. When entering a sea zone containing naval mines, cruisers cancel the Sea Defence and Amphibious Assault Defense characteristics of the naval mine.

Minehunter: Cruisers can also attempt to disarm naval mines. After combat (if any) is resolved, cruisers can attempt to disarm any naval mines present. If a “4” or less is rolled, the naval mines are disarmed and removed from play. If a “5” or more was rolled, the naval mines were not disarmed, and the cruiser must wait until the next round to attempt to disarm them again.

Treat hostile Naval Mines as Friendly: Cruisers can move through a sea zone containing enemy mines. Their movement is not blocked by the Naval mines.

Any and all comments are appreciated. If you notice anything even just by reading these, share it. I’m also open for rule clarifications, in case there’s any confusion.

Thanks guys/girls.

@Baron:

Only a few against computer AI.

::blink::

These posts from a past thread on AA guns summarized many AAA’s limitations:

@Vance:

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.

Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.

AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.

So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever. A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

@allweneedislove:

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.
aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.
@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.
like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@ryguy:

Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You cant do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why cant you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?

If were talking in real life terms this might seem weird (Im not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns cant be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. Theyre just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.

Im not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPCs with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If theyre valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I dont like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casualty (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

WILD BILL provided two interesting abilities to planes which can limit somehow the unbalancing effect of AAA#1 or AAA#2 continuous firing :

1- Any hit from attacking planes could be directly taken on AAA units.
2- All attacking aircraft units can retreat after each combat round while ground units still be part of the battle.

Maybe one or both should be add to the mix to reach an equilibrium point.

Well I’ve well expanded out of the A&A universe though it is still a first love. There is a HUGE world of games that we especially as US gamers have overlooked outside of A&A. WWII has a plethora of games out there if you’re willing to explore.

However, in the UK market especially, there are many, many, many games covering even the smallest and largest battles of history varying on complexity.

I would encourage anyone to take a dip in this pool. I actually got my wife to not only play but ask for more of Memoir '44. Sure it’s not A&A but it’s WWII and some day A&A may be “go to” game.

So, while A&A is a favorite, a smaller, weirder, not necessarily A&A game can be the gateway to WWII without “overwhelming” potential a “war game junkie” with the likes of G40 or even AA41.

It seems backwards but more “complicated” games with a smaller scope can really convert people to the thought “well this is really fun, what else have you got?”.

I already use heavy artillery and self propelled gun with those specification.
Friend and I love it.
I use heavy artillery for USSR. (152 mm artillery) destroyed Infantry cannot fired back during first round of combat.
Slef propelled gun. (destroyed Tank cannot fired back during first round combat)

After several more games, that have all ended with my winning, My friends and I have decided to add a number of objectives, and an alliance system to it, to give them game a bit more of a purpose. We have several New national objectives for each of the countries, and we have written up 24 global objectives for players to accomplish to win the game. The thought is to give each player 2 or 3 global objectives and this is what they have to do to win the game. We are going to be spending all friday night and saturday day play testing these out. God Help me!  :wink:

@dezrtfish:

So, you take a bad odds chance of loosing 12 IPCs worth of equipment for an average of 3IPCs loss to your enemy.

1/61 + 1/62 + 1/63 + 1/64 + 1/65 + 1/66 = 3.5

About the odds! If one uses one fighter to escort the bomber and the enemy has one fighter in the target area, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 8.5 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 12 + 1/6 * 15). On the other hand the enemy has the odds of loosing 11.5 I.P.C.'s (4/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! The question is if the enemy chooses to use his fighter to intercept the escort??

If one chooses to perform a SBR whithout fighter cover, then one has the odds of loosing units to a cost of 10 I.P.C.'s (3/6 * 15 + 1/6 * 15), where as the enemy has the odds of loosing 5.5 I.P.C.'s (1/6 * 12 + 3.5)!!! :wink:

What we have learned here is that this rule pracrtically reduceses the bombers range to 4! But there is another thing that is very interesting with this rule, and that is when one player has developed Heavy Bombers. Then it’s worth building a stock pile of fighters in all IC territories, except new or captured ones (se rules for ‘New Complexes’)!

B.Andersson, Game Master