G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

@Cmdr:

Any discussion yet about throwing in a few more victory cities?  Seeing lots of complaints it’s too easy with 6 in the Pacific, so what if Japan needed 8 and we made 3 more VCs on the board?  Sikiang maybe (I don’t have the map in front of me, thinking of the one that is SW China in 2 spaces from Volgograd and would not screw up Mongolia if Russia reinforced), Alaska or at least Aleutian Islands since they really were invaded and I cannot think of one that would have been a historical target right now, but I am sure we can think of a 3rd one for the Pacific.

I think a rulechange along the lines “Japan needs 7/8 VC” or “3 out of Calcutta, Sydney, Honolulu and San Francisco”
would be short and sufficient.

@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

5. Enhance naval units. a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment return fire at -1(with 1 being lowest)
                                  b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Same bombardment rules as cruiser.
                                         c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
                                  d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
                                              No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
                                  e) Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver, and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

Cruiser, carrier and battleship: could work, needs further playtesting.
Transport: Movement 3 while empty might be fine but I dislike the evasive maneuver: everyone who lets transports alone should be punished. And I don’t see the point in a cost of 6 IPC. I don’t think that transports are to expensive now, especially given the threat they create.

This has been VERY hotly debated topic for a long time. Many would like to see the return of the classic transport, many feel they are best now.
These rules are a middle ground.
And also remember to take the cost reduction along with the other changes to naval units.

But transports don’t count against other naval units. Naval units are only there to a) protect transports (and destroy enemy transports) and b) convoy. Transports don’t fight against enemy naval units, they fight against enemy ground units. By cheapening transports, you are only strenghtening amphibious assault attacks.
@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

6. Enhanced Armor. For every single tank purchased, a second may be purchased for 4 IPCs. Both tanks must be mobilized in the same territory on the same turn. For example 2 tanks cost 10, 3 tanks cost 16, 4 tanks cost 20, 5 tanks cost 26, etc. If a nation purchases 2 tanks, but is going to mobilize them in different territories then the cost of both tanks remains 6.

This rule would effectively be “Tanks cost 5 IPC if built in pairs, else 6 IPC.”
And I strongly advise against this rule. Tanks at 5 are almost as good as artillery (if both are paired with infanterie) and bring with them the superior speed and blitz.
I disagree here, i have played over 200 games of spring 1942, and tanks at 5 IPC are only spammed by noobs or against noobs. Tanks at 5 IPC are still not stronger than artillery and infantry. Simple math and/or a battle calculator can prove this. Most would like to see more tanks on the board (both for fun and for historical reasons).
There was also hotly debated thread about tanks costing too much at 6 IPC.
It is especially disadvantageous to Russia to purchase tanks at 6IPC per, Russia built a crap ton of tanks in WWII

Tanks in WWII had a different purpose than in A&A. As Russia is mainly defending, I don’t see a point in building any fast attack weapons.
And yes, tanks are still inferior to artillery in pure battle strength, but with their double speed they need to be far inferior in battle. I think 6 IPC is fine.
@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

8. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 2 or 3. On a roll 4 or higher the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.

Again I strongly advise against this rule. It would be much, much to easy for the USA to strengthen Russia up to a point where germany has no chance to conquer Moscow. ESPIACALLY as a 5-IPC-investion from USA would lead (in average) to a 8.33-IPC gain in Russia. This is absurd. For a merely 20 IPC (per round), USA could give Russia 30 IPC (per round, on average). A Russia with this much IPC would be unbeatable by germany and that would be worth a multitude of the 20 IPC lost by the USA.
There is a 50/50 chance that Russia does not get the token. And every turn Russia rolls there is a 1/6 chance that said token is destroyed outright.
The axis can also block the tokens outright by simply controlling Amur, Archangel or 1-2 territories that break the chain from Moscow to the middle east.
Also keep in mind that in order for Russia to even recieve the token, there cannot be any non-soviet allied units in any origional Russian territory.
It is not overly strong, but does give the allies a slight advantage possibly (but currently with OOB rules the axis are slightly favored so this would be a good thing)

Let me give you an example:
At the earliest possible time (probably when both are at war), USA spends 30 IPC in 6 Tokens.
At its next turn, Russia converts in average 3 tokens into 30 IPC (or units worth of), 1 token is destroyed and 2 remain.
USA then spends 20 IPC to refresh the tokens and the game starts again.
So while the allies hold the southern route (persia-russia), which they normaly do until round 5-8 at least, russia gains 30 IPC per round, which roughly doubles their income and makes it near impossible for the germans to conquer moscow or even break the support line.
All the while, the USA lose 20 IPC per round, which leaves enough to attack Japan, as they no longer need to be involved in Europe at all.
At least lower the russian gain to 5-6 IPC per token.
@Uncrustable:

And last but not least a rule of my own:
I dislike the fact that every territory can by convoyed regardless of the way transporting the goods would be handled (convoy in a russian Iraq? Where should they even take the boat to?), so here is my rule.
The maximum convoy damage that can be made in a given territory is halved (rounded up? rounden down?) if the following condition is fulfilled:
A path can be drawn from the territory to the capital that only crosses friendly (non-enemy?) landzones.
E.g.: If germany controls all of france and germany, an allied ship in SZ105 can only make 1 IPC convoy damage.

This would mostly benefit Italy and on a smaller scale Japan and UK.

Seems a very complex method for very little change.

It’s not complex at all, maybe I just worded it complicated. In 99% of the time, it would effectively read:
“The following territorys convoy damage is halfed if hold by their original owners:
England, Scottland, Itlay (both), USA (all), Japan, East India as well as SZ 97 and russian occupied territories.”

So far, see you around
Kion

@Cmdr:

In regards to fighters A2D3:
New Tech or National Bonus maybe?  Superior Air Power fighters A3D3.  Leaves room for Jet Planes (would be A4D4 then?) Justifies reducing the cost of fighters to 8 IPC (life is a lot easier for the Italians and Russians.)

Might need some kind of combined arms rule for fighters though.
Maybe +1/+0 if paired with TB just like TB gets when paired with fighters.

About Jet Fighter, it seems to me that in an historical perspective they were mainly used as home-land interceptor:
Jet Fighter A3D4 or maybe just A2D4, in Air combat A2D3 or only A1D3 (if the basic is A1D1)?
It could be different from:
Superior Air Power fighters A3D3 , in Air combat A2D2 or just A1D2 (if the basic is A1D1).

On the other point, there is an issue on this particular aspect on Fg and TcB working in pair:
against ground unit, I think Fg stats should not move to A3 but stay: Fg A2D3M4
Otherwise, Fg and TcB will be very similar, and Fg have a role of air superiority, not an improve aiming against ground unit (TcB function) and also because TcB already received +1A from a paired Fg for any battle.

But in Air Combat, I made this suggestion: Fg A1+1*D2, *when paired with TcB.

I pretty believe Uncrustable has made up his mind about it (but I cannot talk for him).

There is some issues in such a plane vs plane battle:
1- balance (tactical & economical), an expensive battle regarding IPCs value of units destroyed in early combat cycles instead of later combat cycles,
2- the nature of Air combat phase,
3- his mechanism,
4- stats of escort vs interceptor Fgs,
5- attack factor of Fg vs defensive factor of scrambled TcB,
6- and any Air superiority and/or Air supremacy effects/bonus on all 3 types: Fg, TcB, StB.

@Uncrustable:

3. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
                                      b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
                                      c)Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-All air units have an air combat value of 1
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR
Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:

Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense, escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, strongest on offense when supported (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, poor defense

6. Enhanced Armor. For every single tank purchased, a second may be purchased for 4 IPCs. Both tanks must be mobilized in the same territory on the same turn. For example 2 tanks cost 10, 3 tanks cost 16, 4 tanks cost 20, 5 tanks cost 26, etc. If a nation purchases 2 tanks, but is going to mobilize them in different territories then the cost of both tanks remains 6.

2 armors A3D3M2C10 (A6D6, 2hits) vs 1 TcB A3D3M4C10.

If I compare these two, I’m under the strong impression that this game will become Armors oriented (and not Air oriented) as was 1942.1 (because of Armor A3D3C5).

Does reducing anyhow the cost of Armor will introduced an “all out” for Tanks battle detrimental toward TcBs and other planes, at least between Germany and Russia?

I let you the numbers:

10 Inf+10 Art= 70 IPCs A40D40, 20 hits

14 armors = 70 IPCs A42D42, 14 hits.
14 armors OOB= 84 IPCs    vs
12 armors OOB= 72 IPCs A36D36, 12 hits.

7 TacB= 70 IPCs A21D21, 7 hits.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

3. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
                                      b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
                                      c)Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)
-No changes to range or carrier/airbase rules of any air unit.
-All air units have an air combat value of 1
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR
Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:

Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense, escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, strongest on offense when supported (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, poor defense

6. Enhanced Armor. For every single tank purchased, a second may be purchased for 4 IPCs. Both tanks must be mobilized in the same territory on the same turn. For example 2 tanks cost 10, 3 tanks cost 16, 4 tanks cost 20, 5 tanks cost 26, etc. If a nation purchases 2 tanks, but is going to mobilize them in different territories then the cost of both tanks remains 6.

2 armors A3D3M2C10 (A6D6, 2hits) vs 1 TcB A3D3M4C10.

If I compare these two, I’m under the strong impression that this game will become Armors oriented (and not Air oriented) as was 1942.1 (because of Armor A3D3C5).

Does reducing anyhow the cost of Armor will introduced an “all out” for Tanks battle detrimental toward TcBs and other planes, at least between Germany and Russia?

I let you the numbers:

10 Inf+10 Art= 70 IPCs A40D40, 20 hits

14 armors = 70 IPCs A42D42, 14 hits.
14 armors OOB= 84 IPCs    vs
12 armors OOB= 72 IPCs A36D36, 12 hits.

7 TacB= 70 IPCs A21D21, 7 hits.

The problem I’m seeing with this is that the battle calculator is being relied too heavily to calculate unit value. While useful, it does not take into consideration many factors such as range, overall strategic movement, and it only models two giant stacks of units slugging it out on the board. While that does happen, not every battle is going to be X number of IPCs vs. X number of IPCs. I think we all need to think about this. Just IMO.

@Uncrustable:

@toblerone77:

On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

I’m not quite sure with actual Scramble rules with AB that fighters will often be used as such.

Actually, I’m wondering did you made the maths for Fgs A2D3C8 vs Armor A3D3C5 (when bought in three pack)?
5 Fg A2D3C8= A10D15C40, 5 hits vs 8 Arm A3D3C5 = A24D24C40, 8 hits

Here this Fighter is clearly out of the way for defensive factor and number of hits.

Does Fgs will still be an interesting assets for defense vs Armor?

Otherwise, I only see 2 amendments to get incentive:
a) Fg A2D4M4C8 vs Arm A3D3C5 (buy in three packs)

b) At least an Air Supremacy bonus to Fg : D+1 when there is no enemy planes.

Fg D4 vs Armor C5:

5 Fg A2D4C8= A10D20C40, 5 hits  vs 8 Arm A3D3C5 = A24D24C40, 8 hits
Armors are still the much better buy on defense.

Fg D4 vs Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D4C8 = A6D12C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits
Here Armor will be better on defense because of 4 hits but, at least, this is the same Def factor.

Actual Fg D3 vs  Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D3C8 = A6D9C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits

I think you have at least to either keep Armor at 6 IPCs or boost Fighter on defence somehow.

Don’t forget that Armor C5 or also good on offense and much better than Fg.
Also, Armors don’t have to be under a direct hit (loosing at least 8 IPCs) during a Combat Air Phase, they should have plenty of Inf as cannon fodder (loosing a few 3 IPCs).

@Uncrustable:

-The problem is not so much underused cruisers

Right, cause 0 (in words: ZERO) bought cruisers is not a problem.

By the way, I already proposed a submarine change earlier in this thread, that I prefer to your proposal:

Increase submarine cost to 8, increase attack value to 3.

Why would you want a 2/2 sub? It will be just way to similar to the destroyer.
Better make it a glass cannon that needs to be defended by destroyers, carriers and ideally modified cruisers/battleships.

And we, who we argue very mathematical with IPC values and stuff, are well aware that the battle calculator only simulates the IPC values. We realize the worth of a unit is more than just the raw power in battles.
But calculating the raw power is a good way to check, how much better or worse a unit is, compared to other units. In this way, we can measure the worth of speed, range and flexibility.

In the armor case: The importance of having 2 range instead of 1 definitely justifies a 6 IPC cost.
In 1942 the axis are often times just mass buying armors. Sometimes the army doesn’t even consist of anything else.

Reducing the armor cost to 5 is benefiting the axis so heavily. Japan, because they need the range in China. And the Allies can’t afford them (India) or can’t buy them (China).
Russia will suffer a lot with reduced tank cost, because the Italian can opener will be even more dangerous. And if Italy builds armor too, they can can-open basically everywhere.

@Uncrustable:

Thanks toblerone,
here is my response to armor…

In most competitive games i follow i see mech spam, inf/art spam and sometimes even bomber spam.
I rarely see tanks, i wish i could find the thread regarding tanks in G40, but i cant. It was not so hotly debated as defenseless transports was. The majority seemed to be in agreement that tanks are overpriced.
Like i said i played alot of A&A when tanks were 5 IPC with 3 attack and 3 defense (spring42), and tanks were not overused.
But again i attempt to find a middle ground,
Maybe 3 purchased together cost 15 IPC, up from 2 at 10.

On another note, i arrived at a revelation earlier today on naval purchases.
-The problem is not so much underused cruisers, and BBs. But overused destroyers and submarines. Carriers are perfect.
-All the changes so far addresses everything but submarine spam.

-Here is my proposal:
Increase cost of subs to 8, while increasing defense to 2. (no other OOB rule changes)

Very simple, but game changing.

Thoughts?

I personally would go in a different direction which is out of harmony with the overall goal(s) of the G40 Enhanced project. It probably would cause a major revamp in subjects already pretty much agreed upon amongst the contributors to this thread. I also think my thoughts on this would be in the minority at best.

However I am enjoying the discussion and like a lot of what I see.

@Baron:

Fg D4 vs Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D4C8 = A6D12C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits
Here Armor will be better on defense because of 4 hits but, at least, this is the same Def factor.

Actual Fg D3 vs  Armor C6:

3 Fg A2D3C8 = A6D9C24, 3 hits vs 4 Arm A3D3C6 = A12D12C24, 4 hits

I think you have at least to either keep Armor at 6 IPCs or boost Fighter on defence somehow.

Don’t forget that Armor C5 or also good on offense and much better than Fg.
Also, Armors don’t have to be under a direct hit (loosing at least 8 IPCs) during a Combat Air Phase, they should have plenty of Inf as cannon fodder (loosing a few 3 IPCs).

The more I think about it, the more I wonder the usefulness of the actual FgA2D3C8M4.

On a fully loaded CV:
1 TcB A3D3M4C10 + 1 Fg A2D3M4C8=
           1TcB+1Fg= A6D6M4C18 12 A/D points
compare to 2 TcBs = A6D6M4C20 12 A/D points
or              2 Fgs  = A4D6M4C16 10 A/D points

Same attack, same defence, just the 2 IPCs lower cost, and even A-2 with 2 Fgs, with no further advantage on defense.
And for strategy, you don’t have to always paired your TcB, you have no real gain, and you can have 2 different targets without impairing any air support attack (using the Fg).

Now, vs TcB + Tank
Here you are: A7D6C16,  2 IPCs lower cost and +1A factor. 13 A/D points.
Greatest mix!
Why bother to buy Fgs for Germany or Russia?

For a rare scramble, defender’s choice (for 1 single round) situation in a AirBase Territory?

Anyway, I’m Russia, I have a lot of TcB, I go Scramble without any Fg,
if Germany attack with Fighter there will be no more dangerous than TcB in Combat Phase,
and still less dangerous after this single round.

Fg Defense must raise to D4.

So Full CV 1 TcB A3+1*D3M4C10 + 1 Fg A2D4M4C8

1TcB+1Fg= A6D7M4C18 13 A/D points
vs 2 TcBs = A6D6M4C20 12 A/D points
or 2 Fgs   = A4D8M4C16 12 A/D points

Now there is much more strategical choice for carriers and her flight units.
And the optimal choice in A/D/C will be the mix of 1 TcB and 1 Fg.

Fg need D4 or
a bonus which give it D4:
like being paired with TcB, at least,
any Air superiority bonus: if no Fgs on the attacking side means D+1?

Or have a much wider scope for Air combat which includes Naval and can work outside AirBase territory…

Let’s think about it…  :?

Another way to see how feeble is a Fg A2D3C8
is by taking a OOB Fg A3D4C10    A/D points = 7 pts /10 IPCs = .7 A/D point/IPC
.7A/D point/IPC x 8 IPCs = 5.6 A/D points rounding up = 6 A/D
keeping A2 then D4 is needed to get the same ratio for this new Fighter.
Convinced?  :wink:

@Uncrustable:

You take my words out of context here, and not sure why.

I don’t see how that is out of context. You say that overpriced cruisers are not the problem. Well, you could increase the cost of every other unit in the game, so that the cruiser is on par, I give you that. But since that is bullocks, yes - overpriced cruisers are indeed the problem.

Concerning your submarines at 2/2.
I know they and destroyers are not the same unit.
But:
Since every fleet usually contains at least one destroyer, there are no first strikes in the battles. Even the blockers are destroyers, so no first strike here, either. You’d only build submarines, when you know you’re gonna be able to convoy the opponent. I see no other incentive to buy them with your proposal. So yes - in my opinion they are very similar. Submarines convoy better, destroyers do everything else better.

@Uncrustable:

Submarines at attack 3 with cost 8, would severely favor the attacker.

You don’t say!
That’s the purpose.
You don’t argue against bombers, saying “bombers at attack 4 would favor the attacker”.

@Uncrustable:

If USA were on the offensive vs Japan, USA can (for 8 IPCs) purchase a unit with 3 attacking power (same as cruiser). USA would almost never need to purchase cruisers or battleships.

Japan could do the same? And yes, they’d never need to purchase cruisers or battleships. Like right now already. Both of them need an overhaul anyway.

@Uncrustable:

And how would Japan have a chance defending against a 3hitpower unit that only costs 8 IPC?

1.) Counter them with carriers. Submarines are horrible in defense …. especially against planes. Both sides need to care for air-only attacks, so you can’t go for subs only.
2.) Build submarines too. USA would never be able to position itself at, say, philippines, if the Japanese fleet is at FIC. If USA spams submarines, they can’t defend their fleet.

@Uncrustable:

And for the sake of logic, why would a submarine be 200% better in an offensive?
Whether in defense or offense, it is a fighting submersible on open water.

How shall I answer this question? Sorry, but I’m neither an engineer, nor an ex-marine or whatever. I guess for the same reason it’s 100% better in an offensive already. My general understanding of a submarine is that they have huge torpedoes with dangerous offensive capabilities but defensively basically rely purely on being hard to find submerged.

You can go in between with subs:
A2D1M2C7 +1A when paired to another subs (Wolf pack attack capacity).
1 Sub A3D1 and the other Sub A2D1.

Basically, 1 Sub have 3 A/D pts for 6 IPCs = .5 A/D pt/ IPC
2 Subs get 7 A/D pts for 14 IPCs= .5 A/D pt/ IPC

A lonely sub is getting weaker now.

@Uncrustable:

So on defense a submarine would not use it’s torpedoes?
Lol “we are under attack, don’t use the torpedoes”

But you make overall good points Roboto.
Maybe submarine should be left alone afterall.

Baron:
You combine attack and defense and use that total value to compare units, this does not translate to any real game scenarios.
Tacbomber: For 2 IPCs you get +1(to +2) attack, with same defense.
Very useful for a nation on the offensive (Germany)
The fighter however is the same defense but 2IPCs cheaper. By far better at defense (Russia)

When you compare units for buying, you balance all aspects: A/D/C/M and strategical potential.
Fg at 8 IPCs is costlier than Armor at 6 or 5 IPCs,
on defence, have same number @3 but not the same odds of survival on IPC vs IPC basis,
on offence, it is outmatched by Armor @3,
and only move 2 spaces further (but can fly over SZ or an enemy territory),
can not stay in a conquered territory,
can not conquered any territory.

Russia will buy Armor instead of Fg and for plane will buy TcB.
Germany will do the same for sure.

You combine attack and defense and use that total value to compare units, this does not translate to any real game scenarios.

I’m not sure to understand your meaning here.
For me, it is not about game scenarios, it is about game mechanism for balancing units.
There is some gross rule of thumb to apply for ground units, naval units, and air units.
In enhanced HR, you downsized the Fighter’s OOB stats, so I apply the ratio of this unit specifically.

If you don’t believe in this way of reasoning, at least take a careful look about carrier+planes and Fighters vs Armors.

The missing D+1 will appear when you compare the units and want to get an optimized purchased as any player will do if he plays a 1940 enhanced game.

@Uncrustable:

So on defense a submarine would not use it’s torpedoes?
Lol “we are under attack, don’t use the torpedoes”

In Atlantic sub warfare, when a single sub was find, it didn’t have a lot of time to launch a torpedo (much less time against a destroyer going toward them) : on surface, they have same speed as merchant’s transport, submerged they were slower. Destroyer were all the way faster. In addition, Sub wasn’t able to dive and launch torpedo at the same time. Torpedoes weren’t that accurate at that time. (More develop at the 9th minute of the last part doc below: Death blow 2/4.)

The only escape was going under the sea, as much deeper as they can and have to wait until the DD abandoned or believe the sub is destroyed.
“Subs were only running silent, running deep.” Nothing else they can do.
There is many rationalization behind Subs defending @1.

Here is a good documentary about all this:
First part describe Subs on attack vs DD defense of convoy:
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 1/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMiXJuJkpTA

This part describe better the Subs on attack but under counter-attack from DD.
Around 2 min 30 s.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 2/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBW7aEk4VHw

Convoy: War For The Atlantic: Wolfpack Rising 5/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjm-SD3Os80&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

This part describe better the Subs on defense and under attack from aircrafts & escort carrier.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: The Hunt 5/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfP8o_OPX_Y&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

Around 7 min. 30 s.
Convoy: War For The Atlantic: Death Blow 1/4 and 2/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNV4IBWMfNA&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

5 first minutes, after it is carrier,  aircrafts and DD on patrol against Subs “on Defense”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D92MTIYBiX4&list=PLE634AAF2A4CAB877

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

The US and Germany used their submarines to destroy convoy and supply lines. The German submarine was actually a Swedish design they copied. They maximized patrol time and efficiency at the cost of crew comfort, and focused on primarily on convoy raiding. The US did the  same but due to longer patrols and generally being able to provide US servicemen with more comfort across all branches, US submariners had an easier patrol. Both the German and US submarine services however had essentially the same goals.

The IJN was different as their submarine force was primarily focused on destroying large capital warships and toward the end of the war began designing “wonder weapons” such as submarines that could carry aircraft.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

@toblerone77:

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

I agree with you.

I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.

I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.

It is the best I could do to :

model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.

Once I said it,  it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.

On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Baron given the scale and scope of the game I’m not sure we can model all tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare. Each nation had differing ideas of how to use their submarine services.

All this aside submarines of all nations were primarily offensive weapons and had had very little ability to fend of attacks once detected.

Game-wise I am not for changing stats on submarines in any aspect. This is just my opinion. I think the OOB stats reflect and simulate their role in the game just fine. Your “wolf pack” idea is good and I like, it but as a collaborative effort and for need of simplification in relation to the AAG40Enhanced project, I would leave the OOB stats as is without revamping the entire naval OOB statistics structure.

I agree with you.

I put the references of the Docs to help understand tactical aspects of how Subs were vulnerable and don’t have that much capacity to be underwater and throw torpedoes against warships attacking them.

I input the 7 IPCs Subs + wolfpack giving 1@3 as a suggestion because of the discussion turn around the idea of a 8 IPCs A2D2 or A3D1 Subs.
I found it a better way to get a…
1- costlier sub unit than the 6 IPCs A2D1,
2- some historical accuracy about vulnerability on defense (keeping D1),
3- and larger group of subs attacking for more efficiency (working in pair giving bonus),
4- hence Wolfpack strategies, and giving the ability to 1 sub unit 1@3 when paired to another.

It is the best I could do to :

model tactical and historical depictions of submarine warfare.

Once I said it,  it is up to Uncrustable to pick it or not, as he sees fit.

On another point, the docs shows clearly how planes never need DD to go Anti-Sub Warfare.
That’s why I was developing other Sub Warfare basic principles in my specific thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515

Baron,

Please understand I did not mean my post to be offensive. Essentially this effort to create a G40enhanced is a worthwhile effort. However I have my own house project that I am working on which has nothing to do with this. My understanding is that this is a collaborative effort with hopes of becoming an officially endorsed variant. I have many disagreements with this variant, but I also understand that many of my views/opinions are in the minority and are not supported by those competing in league, online and TripleA.

With that said, I have some disagreement with what has already been semi-finalized in this thread. I also realize through consensus that there is relative agreement already established in this project. I agree with you on much of what you have posted in this project. However it is a “democratic” project and all who participate have some say. You could debate any issue or proposition of this project infinitely. Ultimately however it will depend upon those who choose to support this project and want to play it to come to some sort of agreement.

Honestly I like “chiming-in” on this project but I still will probably operate my games in the same way I always have. If I chose to play online, and should this project become an “official” rule set I may give it a go.

Lastly, I would love to see people like ImperiousLeader, CommanderJen, Gargantua, Wittmann, Gamerman, and any others who are active and wishing to enhance G40 to please contribute.