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

I think you could just announce that it’s a recon force and which ships would be passing through if it succeeds… maybe put the recon force into the territory for combat and the rest of the fleet could be put on the line between the territories until combat is resolved.  If the recon force takes out the blockers in the first round of combat, the ships on the line could then pass through the territory or use their shore bombardment in the territory: but the recon force could not pass through with them and could not bombard with them (they would be out of position, expended munitions, etc.).  If the recon force fails to take out the blockers, then the remaining ships may join the combat or they could stay in the previous zone and either way can’t pass through or bombard the shore.  The recon force would then have to continue to engage in regular combat or retreat.

About history I agree but my point is absolutely not to make many rule changes - In fact we hate house rules but sometime we “feel” obliged to introduce some very few. And we are really happy when some experienced players or our own experience shows us later that the official rules were better! Lesser and simpler the rules better the game!

If it were only about 2 hits against a fleet like 1xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We wouldn’t need any house rule because 1xBB damage and 1xFighter destroyed stays a reasonable response … But …

When 2 hits against 2xBB + 1xAC + 2xFighters > We HATE the 1xBB + 1xBB damages for many reasons explained elsewhere. Worse with 3 BB (for ex. we experienced the 2 first Japan BBs surviving and regrouped with a third one) > That is a shield of 3 hits! And that’s what we want to change with a house rule as SIMPLE as possible …

Clarification for the vets like Elk: Total respect for your stats and very precise calculations - And if our house rule makes players buy less BB in the futur … Well … Let’s say it’s the historical decline of the BB that started in the middle of the WWII! (Remember we are in 42) … And be sure some newbies (like me) will keep on buying BBs sometime to time because we don’t play maths + to overawe our opponent and finally because WE JUST LOVE BBs lol!

To be said in the last example: With our rule the defender can choose 1xFighter destroyed + 1xBB damaged (because last hit) … But the next hit (if any) should be on the BB.

@Pjor:

The second unit is Heavy Tank. A:3 D:3 M:2 cost: 9.
This unit will represent the heavy late-war tanks. Examples are the Soviet Josef Stalin tanks, British Churchill and German Tiger tank. Aside that it function as a normal tank it will rise it’s attack value to 4 if it’s combined with a mechanized infantry OR tactical bomber.

Tanks already Attack @3, Defend @3 and Move 2 for a cost of 6 IPCs. “Heavy” tanks should attack and defend @ 4 if they will cost 9 IPCs.
Also, there has been discussion in other threads that “Heavy” tanks should only move 1, or at least can not Blitz. This is due to the fact that they are so big and heavy. For example: The King Tiger tank was a very tough tank but was also kind of big and cumbersome. Part of that problem was that the engine was underpowered so they just couldn’t go very fast at all. However, if the movement is cut down to 1, perhaps the cost should also drop to 8.

One member came up with a pretty good formula to figure out the cost for land units: Attack + Defense + Movement - 1 = Cost.
For an example, say Heavy Tanks at 4-4-2-9. This works out perfectly. Attack 4(4) + Defense 4 (8) + Movement 2 (10) - 1 = Cost 9.
Now try Artillery: Attack 2 (2) + Defense 2 (4) + Movement 1 (5) -1 = Cost 4.
It actually doesn’t work for tanks since they changed the values to 3-3-2-6. By the formula, tanks should cost 7. Some have argued that OOB tanks should be considered “Medium” and should only defend at 2, which would fit the formula 3+2+2-1=6. Unfortunately, others say if you lower the defense to 2, then cost should go down to 5, which screws up the formula again.
Personally, I would be fine with Medium tanks at 3-2-2-6 because it also allowes for Tank Destroyer units (currently being put out by HBG) that would switch Attack/Defense values (2-3-2-6).

By the way, this formula does NOT work for aircraft or naval vessels. I don’t know if anyone has figured out a formula for them yet.

Soviet Union/Partisan/0/1/1/Can be built in any red terrirtory/1/Infantry with roundel under it

How about making it 0/1/0 Cost 1, and can build in any original Soviet territory up to IPC value. That will limit the number, movement, and use of these troops, but still helpful during a German invasion.

If you plug them into a combat simulation ( online) the odds give you these results.

I slightly redesigned my concept of ATGs:

ATGs should be 1(2)/2(3)/1 units.

1/2/1 vs all units except tanks
2/3/1 vs tanks

It’s more logical to get the + 1 bonus against tanks as an ATG in both, attack and defense.

This makes ATGs more valuable and justifies its costs of 4 IPC.

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”

Hey, I just wasn’t sure what he ment thats all. :)