Whose boss in the sea?

The BB’s nice because you can bombard shore and have no return fire from the enemy that you killed with it, which makes taking islands with only one defender on them easier, but you’re gambling that you’ll hit.

The carrier with planes are nice because it’s a pain to kill off, and the planes can escort your invasion forces every round of combat until you win.

There’s a reason the Aircraft Carrier is Queen of the sea, and not king…kings are impotent and must listen when told what to do by their queen!

The best is 1 BB and one Carrier escorted by 2 fighters….and a DD! If you can have a couple of transports with tanks ant infantry, well, it helps. :D

For strategically defending islands or landing zones, destroyers are ideal. 3+3+3. They are also versatile in the fact that they tactically defend on 3+3+3 as well.

For invading or fighting any other forced battle, carriers are perhaps best, 3+4+4. For strategically defending a sea zone however, you only get 1+3+3. The planes can be switched to support ground combat of course, which is very useful, as a portion of your naval strength can be used on the mainland for an attack, and still fly back to your carrier and deter a tactical attack on your fleet.

Also, against a player relying primarily on aircraft to control the water, CVs are preferable.

SSs are too vunerable to air attack IMO. I dislike using them to any large extent. I use them to soak hits if anything, grouping them with BBs.

I feel that one thing that has been missed is the BB’s reusability. Use along with planes or some subs to attack and to soak up one hit, then retreat. Since UK’s fleet is always split, this can be very useful against convoys as Germany (attack from the Mediterranean outwards). If UK keeps its fleet together… then either invade UK or take all its cash!

I think the game is not perfectly balanced for naval combats, due to fighters supremacy. Any number of only ftr would beat (i.e. in an attack) any navy worth the same IPCs! This was not the fact when a ftr cost 12 IPCs. For those who are more advanced players I would recommand to introduced the cruiser unit as an optional rule.

Cruisers

Description: Warships that can fire on incoming enemy planes.

(One can use the battleships from A&A Classic as cruisers.)

Cost: 15
Attack: 3
Defense: 3 (Opening fire against attacking aircraft)
Move: 2

Special Abilities
Shoot Down Air Units: Whenever an air unit enters a sea zone containing an enemy cruiser, the cruiser fires during the Conduct Opening Fire step of combat. Roll one die for each attacking air unit (but only one cruiser in a sea zone can fire during the opening fire step, even if they are controlled by different powers). For every roll of 1, one attacking air unit is destroyed. This opening fire capability is for the first cycle of combat only and does not cancel the regular roll during the Defending Units Fire step.

Statistics for Naval Combats

1 AC + 2 Ftr

Cost: 36
Att value: 1+3+3 = 7
Def value: 2+4+4 = 10
Hits = 3

3 DD

Cost: 36
Att value: 3+3+3 = 9
Def value: 3+3+3 = 9
Hits = 3

1 BB + 1 DD

Cost: 36
Att value: 4+3 = 7
Def value: 4+3 = 7
Hits: 3

2 Ftr + 1 Bmr

Cost: 35
Att value: 3+3+4 = 10
Def value: na
Hits: 3

4 Ftr

Cost: 40
Att value: 3+3+3+3 = 12
Def value: na
Hits: 4

Andersson: Its good of you to conduct this survey. Id try to make sence of it by coming up with an equal IPC pool that could buy different combinations of units so the playing field is equal. Comparing items that have different costs and making sence of their worth is difficult at best.
Id add the Cruiser to the equation on a seperate tally. And the cruiser has to move 3 spaces because look again at the functions of a cruiser:

1)Provide quick response to threats where a groups of cruisers can take on naval surface action combat against say battleships.

2)Provide excellent AA gun support to carriers and any ships prone to aerial strikes.

3. Note that in the post where i have previously and specifically advocated “your” cruiser idea i noted that carriers and cruisers need to move 3 spaces. While Destroyers can get into fast speeds as well we have to maintian some play balance so we group them with Battleships so that they dont get marginalized. Another problem is subs should only go one space. They didnt chase warships across the oceans and basically spend their time sitting and waiting for prey (merchant ships). Of course they sunk warships, but something has to be done so people dont just buy hundreds of them as main fleet forces. The other problem is Submarines largely were tied close to home… they were not “long range” vessels with unlimited ammo etc. They should just get like one shot and have to head home or something. I know i keep advocating basically what i have in my own designed games, but this revised thing need some more realism which can also add a subtle strategy which does not overly burden our Beer and pretzel eating players.

NO Impy, I wont change the movement since an AC has a 2 in movement. Perhaps it is not realistic, but it is a statment that is used in the original rules. I just want to add optional rules for the more advanced player. That is the reason why I dont want to make a completely new set of basic rules, or simply a new WW2 game.

It is all about politics, one has to do it in portions if one want the big masses to accept it. First one lern the basic rules from the original game, then one might expand the rules by imply optional rules. These optional rules should not alter the basic rules, but just be special rules that easily could be added to the original game. In that way one can increase the dimension and scope of the original game in much better way. And that is why optional rules that are just add ons will gain a much bigger fanclub than the idea of yours!

When it comes to the cost of a heavy cruiser I am not sure. I might change it to 15 IPCs if that sounds better (have done)! Otherwise give me the statisctics!

Ok Andersson as you see it…carry on

After all we both want a better game while i want a different one e.g. a more “Advanced” one to be sure. We both serve the Fatherland and i accept your “smaller” solution to the problem. good

@B.:

I think the game is not perfectly balanced for naval combats, due to fighters supremacy. Any number of only ftr would beat (i.e. in an attack) any navy worth the same IPCs!

72 IPC 2 CV 4 FTR
6+16=22

72 (70) IPC 7 FTR
21

Of course, this is with the fighter force at a 2 IPC disadvantage, so for statistics sake,

360 IPC 10 CV 20 FTR
30+80=110

360 IPC 36 FTR
108

So CVs come out slightly ahead, and can protect convoys, unlike FTR only forces.

@Afrika:

…

360 IPC 10 CV 20 FTR
30+80=110

360 IPC 36 FTR
108

So CVs come out slightly ahead, and can protect convoys, unlike FTR only forces.

One can not neglect the fact that the attacking fighters outnumber the fully loaded CVs. The attacking fighter force can take 6 more hits. Since the cheapest unit in such a combat is a fighter, these 6 extra hits will count more than just an extra 2/6 chance of hitting an enemy unit. The slightly better odds for the the fully loaded CVs is for the first cycle of combat only!

1 cycle of combat

casualties inflicted by CVs: 110/6 = 18,33 (count it as 19)
casualties inflicted by Ftr: 108/6 = 18

2 cycle of combat

casualties inflicted by CVs (12 ftr): 48/6 = 8
casualties inflicted by Ftr (17 ftr): 108/6 = 8,5 (count it as 8 )

3 cycle of combat

casualties inflicted by CVs (4 ftr): 12/6 = 2
casualties inflicted by Ftr (9 ftr): 27/6 = 4,5 (count it as 4)

Fighters will win that combat according to the statistics above, even when it is biased to the CVs favour (i.e. 8,5 hits for Ftrs count as 8 but 18,33 hit for CVs count as 19 hits). The attacking force of Ftr only will come out ahead of any CV combos. And that is not slightly ahead! :wink: :wink: :wink:

This only show that the cruiser unit is a desirable new unit to the game. Cruisers are not necessary, but that piece would bring more balance to the game and at the same time make a realistic use.

This only show that the cruiser unit is a desirable new unit to the game. Cruisers are not necessary, but that piece would bring more balance to the game and at the same time make a realistic use.

And i remember the time when somebody said that “we dont need more units” and wanted to change the game with the existing pieces… hmmm this is a good trend. Now we still need to iron out the need for a Mechanized Infantry (armored infantry/panzer grenadiers).

@Imperious:

And i remember the time when somebody said that “we dont need more units” and wanted to change the game with the existing pieces… hmmm this is a good trend. Now we still need to iron out the need for a Mechanized Infantry (armored infantry/panzer grenadiers).

What I do here is to add the cruiser unit as an optional rule, that is the most important. I dont think the new cruiser unit will mess up the game board like any kind of land unit would do. And most people can use the BB piece from the A&A classic! Impy I think you are too advaced in most of your ideas, but they are basically very fine. I try to make such ideas more simple, just to make them easier to digest for the majority of A&A players.

Yes yes i see your value of what you offer. I am saying to include these items under the “optional rules” section. That is all. I should have mentioned it before. I too dont want people to stop drinking beer while playing the game…

Hey Afrika Korps, you was fast enough to regret your reply that you just wrote about the 760 IPCs scenario (10 AC + 20 Ftr + 50 TP against 76 Ftr). You realized your statistics was wrong once again. Your math were wrong in the second round were you said that there were only 38 Ftr left of the initial 76 Ftr. It is actually 49 Ftr left, risk adjusted! So what do you think about the optional rule of Cruisers?

:oops: You are indeed correct about tactical scenarios, (except with SSs of course).

However, I think that the rule of cruisers would be very much too slanted against Germany. Also, navies are more than enough balanced because without a navy, you can’t protect your convoys. If UK builds 3 fighters per turn, for example, it will die. As it is now, I find that it may be tactically fighters are more efficient per IPC, but if you make fighters and no navy you will not have those IPCs much longer. Also, navies can strike a coastal area before it can be attacked by enemy fighters.

@Afrika:

:oops: You are indeed correct about tactical scenarios, (except with SSs of course).

However, I think that the rule of cruisers would be very much too slanted against Germany. Also, navies are more than enough balanced because without a navy, you can’t protect your convoys. If UK builds 3 fighters per turn, for example, it will die. As it is now, I find that it may be tactically fighters are more efficient per IPC, but if you make fighters and no navy you will not have those IPCs much longer. Also, navies can strike a coastal area before it can be attacked by enemy fighters.

What convoys are you talking about? I am talking about A&AR, not A&AE or A&AP. The only time one need is a navy is when one want to invade US, UK or Japan. So if one want to defend it is much better to buy ftr that can be used for ground attacks as well, and when time comes that a fleet is close enough. Then one just use all those ftr in a swarm to take out the navy!

Its not about UK build 3 ftr per turn, but ftr instead of naval units and ICs instead of TPs! That is a better strategy since a ftr can be used in land combat as well and have a movement of 4. And remeber that these ftr are much better in defens as well, so your phrase “if you make fighters and no navy you will not have those IPCs much longer. Also, navies can strike a coastal area before it can be attacked by enemy fighters.” is as wrong as it could be. Ftr can reach the navy before the navy can reach the ftr! Imagine if one develop LRA, even if it cost some 30 IPCs!

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the need to move units across the sea zones.

@B.:

The only time one need is a navy is when one want to invade US, UK or Japan.

US needs a navy to take over German provinces. UK needs a navy to land in Europe. If aiding Russia, the UK will need a navy for that as well.

Where would you suggest UK’s IC be placed? At most you could only make 3 units a turn.

UK needs a navy to take back and/or defend its colonies.

@B.:

So if one want to defend it is much better to buy ftr that can be used for ground attacks as well, and when time comes that a fleet is close enough. Then one just use all those ftr in a swarm to take out the navy!

A navy can attack a province before they are in range of fighters. Fighters attack 2 squares away but have to be in the sea zone they are attacking, whereas navies move two and land in the coastal area without using an additional move.

@Afrika:

. . .
A navy can attack a province before they are in range of fighters. Fighters attack 2 squares away but have to be in the sea zone they are attacking, whereas navies move two and land in the coastal area without using an additional move.

That is correct, and I was wrong! What we lerned from this is that it is not just time consuming to build a navy and move across the oceans, a navy is also costinefficient compared to a flotilla of fighters. But as you said, a navy can attack (amphibious assault) a land territory before the ftr are in range of fighters. But that does not matter if the navy cannot conduct shore bombardment. And remember that defending fighters are even harder to crack. My suggestion is that all destroyers should be able to make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Get rid of the technology Combined Bombardment and replace it with Heavy Artillery (art attack on 3). Moreover the optional unit, cruisers, would make it even more balanced.

Cruisers

Description: Multipurpose ships that can fire on incoming enemy planes and conduct shore bombardment.

(One can use the battleships from A&A Classic as cruisers.)

Cost: 15
Attack: 3
Defense: 3 (Opening fire against attacking aircraft)
Move: 2

Special Abilities
Shoot Down Air Units: Whenever an air unit enters a sea zone containing an enemy cruiser, the cruiser fires during the Conduct Opening Fire step of combat. Roll one die for each attacking air unit (but only one cruiser in a sea zone can fire during the opening fire step, even if they are controlled by different powers). For every roll of 1, one attacking air unit is destroyed. This opening fire capability is for the first cycle of combat only and does not cancel the regular roll during the Defending Units Fire step.

Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your cruisers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each cruiser fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A cruiser cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Carriers are the major unit in a fleet
The aircraft carrier emerged after World War I as an experimentally modified cruiser. The first aircraft carrier built (1925) from the keel up as an aircraft carrier for the U.S. navy was the U.S.S. Saratoga. The aircraft carrier remained an experimental and untested war vessel until World War II, when the Japanese destroyed or drove out of the East Asian waters the British, Dutch, and U.S. navies with carrier-borne aircraft. By 1942 the aircraft carrier had replaced the battleship as the major unit in a modern fleet, and in World War II it was indispensable in naval operations against a sea- or land-based enemy.