G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

@Uncrustable:

It had been discussed and agreed upon.
Then was hijacked, and taken for a ride far off course.

Agreed upon by whom? How many players?

Agreed on what?
Even you was balancing between a 18 or 20 IPCs battleship?

And for those who would ask the same question about 11 IPCs Cruiser, advocating for it in G40e, what will you do?
They won’t be convince on a simple: “10 is better, believe me.”

And even if that’s true that it was “hijacked”, why was it necessary to delete the thread?
What do you loose by letting the thread lives by itself?

This Red…something was probably arguing a POV of many “historical accuracy” fans.
He was advocating the 20 IPCs BBs/ 11 IPCs CA

From my POV, it was very extrinsic reason (and clearly not a decisive one) but many players have this same opinion based on very different perspective.

My last post was trying to show that the cost structure can also satisfy someone which like historical accuracy (as far as A&A can go). That this cost structure can be “Master of both world” and by this way putting an end to this line of objection.

You didn’t even, let a chance to start another thread to discuss this specific point.
(Exchanges on forum are not a matter of minutes but often of 24H period to answer.)

And I wasn’t stuck on this historical aspect:
my post before the last was about the 7 IPCs Subs,
hoping that someone can add his part on this.

And how can you replace all the math stuff of KionAAA and his unique way of comparing unit?
Trying to balance BB/CA/DD/CV.

I’d rather see submarines @8 and if they are alone in a sea zone, then destroyers need to roll a hit to “find” the submarines first, then roll to kill them.  That way you don’t automatically just “block” them from running away.

Considering you added evasion to transports, I don’t think this is overly complicated or difficult to implement.

@Uncrustable:

Was 2 pages of history discussion. Which country made how many of which ship type…
I also mentioned several times, to no avail, that it was not the thread for that particular discussion. Also suggested a new one be created.

But I’d like to move on.

You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…

What do you think ?

Need time to cool off… :x

And some posts of KionAAA which would have help figure how different cost structure your suggesting are strictly balance or not from a statistical POV, have disappear…

Should of left it up to the moderator to decide to remove it. They will tell you if your off topic.  I agree with ya Baron and Red.

was not. :P  I never agreed that was best! lol.

I’m still kinda holding out hope for different abilities instead of lowered prices (maybe different abilities and increased prices…) But I’ve always been fond of naval conflict!

I still feel that no naval ship should cost an odd number of IPC.

The actual DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition

What does it mean?
Hit Point?
DPS?

@Uncrustable:

You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…
That is: When a submarine is not submerged, there are no special rules regarding aircraft vs subs. When a submarine is or is not submerged does not change from OOB. However a sub still can never act as a blocker.
While not submerged, or at the surface, a sub does not have a first strike ‘sneak attack’
While at the surface it can hit enemy air units, and enemy air units do not need a destroyer to hit the sub.
Once a sub submerges it can no longer hit aircraft, aircraft then need a destroyer to hit the sub.
A submerged sub retains it’s first strike ‘sneak attack’ as long as there are no enemy destroyers present.
Also a submarine may submerge and retreat the battle, without leaving the SZ. So long as there are no enemy destroyers in the battle.

According to the rules (if I’m not mistaken) a submarine is considered ‘at the surface’ or ‘not submerged’ until it’s owner decides whether or not to submerge it. Once submerged it remains that way until the end of the battle, where it then resurfaces.

Basically a sub has 3 options:
Stay at the surface (acting as a normal A2D1 unit)
Submerge (use current OOB rules)
Submerge and retreat from the battle (remaining in the SZ)

In OOB rules a destroyer effectively blocks enemy submarines from submerging.
With these rules a submarine could still submerge, but an enemy destroyer blocks both the sneak attack and submerge and retreat while allowing friendly aircraft to target enemy subs.

This would give subs a little more power.
However considering there is only 1 IPC difference in cost from a destroyer, and submarines cannot block, I think there will be good reason to have some of both.

Is this too powerful for subs?
With this they can now act as proper escorts for transports. Albeit at a very low defensive roll (1)
This would certainly change some of the core dynamics of the game.

What do you think ?

At first glance,
it seems non-historical, subs were very vulnerable against air patrol, once found by planes.

How about giving them a better stealth ability instead?
Since you raise the cost, it will probably lower the number of Subs. It can be a way to balance this rising price.

After first round, all defending subs can submerge and “retreat” from battle in the same SZ (and doing so, they can no more be hit by any units) even if some destroyers are present.

If it seems too overpowering, add this:
Defending Subs had a choice: after the initial roll of the attacker, whether roll for Defence @1 (as OOB) or submerge rather than rolling for defence.

Repeat this option every round after the attacker rolled and defender has chosen casualties.

So Subs will be more elusive, but at the cost of not defending against attackers ships on the first round or any subsequent round.

P.S. Please tell us if the idea of wiping this G40e scratches you.
I will at least reread it and make copy of interesting posts. If I’m not able to persuade you no to do so. No kidding. :wink:

@Uncrustable:

I was speaking of the other thread.
And i agree about the odd numbers,

Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18
Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.

Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports)

SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphib support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hit

The actuall DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare aswell

These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron aswell as myself

What is strange from a statistical POV is when you put Subs against other 1 type units on a same IPCs basis, it is the odds of survival are almost the same when you swap the side of attacking Subs into defending Subs.
Ex.: 18 SS vs 7 BB = 90% vs 10%
7 BBs vs 18 SS = 90% vs 10%.
8 SS vs 7 DD = 73% vs 26%
7 DD vs 8 SS = 79% vs 20%
Hence, Subs keep the upper hand on offence, but on defense it is clear that you better rely on DDs.

That’s why I think Subs must keep a better elusive capacity than OOB, to get some chance not to be obliterated as soon as they are in range of few attacking DDs with a lot of planes, and be able to make at least 1 decent attack move (in which they are clearly better) before being destroyed from above.

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1
If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.
If the sub submerges ad there is at least 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes
A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

I wonder if giving 2 attack value and 1 way to attack planes and not the other will not come to complex situation like this one:

6 Subs vs 1 CV+ 2 Fg + 1 DD
On first round: 4 A2D1 (submerge) + 2 (on surface) A1D1 (if that is possible to split the subs group?)
Let’s suppose the DD and CV are sunk but 2 Fgs weren’t hit (and there is an island to land the surviving planes).
Does the 4 Subs can go on surface to finish the jobs against Fgs?
Since their was a DD, does the owner can choose the submerge subs instead of the 2 others as casualties from planes?

If the 4 subs are stuck submerge, the question will rise: why they cannot be part of the continuing battle vs Fgs. Subs are submersible, it is not a one way ticket.

I’m trying to find the devil in the details, as you can see.

Rules can be simple, but complex in their application.

It will also imply some markers to be sure of each Subs status (to avoid discussion about what was doing one subs unit which roll “1”): on surface, submerged, submerged and retreated.

If I catched KionAAA maths (As far as I understand), I get this stats for Subs:

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

17/12= 1.42 Sub/DD  12/17= 0.71 DD/Sub

1 DD A2 = 1.42 SS  D1  or  .71 DD A2 = 1SS D1

8 IPCs  vs  (1.42 SS/DD * 7 IPCs/SS) 9.94 IPCs/DD,  8 IPCs too low for DDs on offense vs Subs.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

However, It seems that the 6 IPCs OOB cost of Subs vs DDs was correct for Subs on defence.

Since you are rising them to 7 IPCs, Subs on defence need a little something to be competitive vs DDs.
Battle calc have taken into account that DDs are ASW, so Sub loose all first strike.

It can make sense to give them a better evasive capacity when defending.

If I used correctly Btlcalc and KionAAA maths:

It seems that 1 Subs A2 First strike = 1 CA D3, 50% vs 50%
So a 7 IPCs vs 10 IPCs is clearly in favor of Subs.

Better way to see it, at 70 IPCs: 10 Subs vs 7 Cruiser = 94% vs 6%.

12 CAs A3 = 18 SS D1 = 50% vs 50%

18 SS/12 CAs= 1.5 SS/CA      12 CAs/18 SS = .67 CA/SS

1.5 SS/CA * 7 IPC/SS = 10.5 IPCs/CA very near the 10 IPCs G40e cost of Cruiser (and clearly not unbalance if we look above, when subs is the attacker.)

.67 CA/SS * 10 IPCs/CA = 6.7 IPCs/SS rounding up and it gives 7 IPCs, same G40e cost.

We can concludes that 10 IPCs Cruiser in itself is no problem vs 7 IPCs Subs.

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
The method was really the only thing even debated other than carriers (15 or 16).

To, at least, add another argument to prove that a 10 IPCs cruiser is at the right cost vs DD:

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

**0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs**

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

That’s the cold math.

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

For my part, I prefer even numbers: 8, 10, 16, 18.

And that the most expensive unit can be at an economic match with the more versatile DD+CA.

And, from an historical accuracy view, Battleship have the big guns and the big armor and no smaller warship was a real match against one.
So the combat stats can give her a little humph against smaller warships for the massive IPCs investment it takes in a game.

And maybe vs 16 IPCs Carrier, the maths could say that it is balance at 18 IPCs (I won’t do again what KionAAA did on the other thread).

So, it could be only against Cruiser that Battleship is under price from 1 IPCs (in fact .6 IPC)

Sorry if it appears as numerous boring maths posts but once I catch how do the KionAAA trick, I was curious to know the results.

Hope, this mathematical “demonstration” can also convince any skeptical about the due place of all warships units for a wargame simulation of WWII.

So it can gain a large consensus amongst member to endorse the G40e units price change from OOB.