How to make battleships a more attractive purchase

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

To follow up on this, here’s the interpretation I’d put on the concept of fast versus slow groupings of capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) with other ships.  The concept did exist in both WWI and WWII, but it took different forms.

In WWI (and the decade leading up to it), naval technology such as turbine engines and face-hardened armour, plus ship design philosophy in general, had progressed to the point where the dreadnought-type capital ship (uniform-caliber main battery in more than two twin turrets, good protection, and fairly high speed) had become feasible, but it had not progressed to the point where all three features (firepower, protection and speed) could be optimized at the same time.  That would have to wait for WWII, when the true “fast battleship” type emerged.  (The same thing happened with tanks, but with a one-war difference: in WWII, tanks could be optimized for two of three features, or have medium performance in all three areas, but it was only during the Cold War that technology allowed a tank to have excellent performance in all three areas.)

During WWI, technological limitations (plus the considerable influence of Admiral John Fisher, who was a visionary in both the good and the bad sense of the concept) led to the emergence of two varieties of dreadnought-type capital ships: the battleship and the battlecruiser.  Basically, dreadnought battleships were reasonably fast (but not as fast as cruisers), and had both heavyweight firepower and heavyweight armour that allowed them to slug it out with anything afloat; the rule of thumb was that a balanced battleship design had “proportional” armour capable of dealing with an enemy ship carrying the same caliber of main guns as it itself carried.  Battlecruisers were similar to dreadnought battleships (the British, in fact, tended to create a parallel class of battlecruiser for its respective battleship classes), but they carried fewer main gun turrets and had less armour so that they could achieve higher speed than a battleship; they were roughly as fast as a normal cruiser, considerably better-armed, and somewhat (but not always by much) better protected.  Battlecruisers, according to British doctrine, were operated as part of what could be called “fast heavy scouting divisions,” in advance of the main formation of the more powerful but slower battleships.  For a classic example of this, have a look at the two main British formations at the Battle of Jutland: Jellicoe’s slower battleship force, and Beatty’s faster battlecruiser force.

In WWII, the picture becomes more complicated.  There were relatively few battlecruisers at that time, and they were a strange mixture of British and Japanese WWI hold-overs, weird German designs reflecting (or intended to cheat) treaty limitations, clear-headed French and Italian modern evolutions of the battlecruiser concept, plus the well-made but rather pointless American Alaska class (which the Americans denied were battlecruisers).  To me, these odd ships muddy the picture more than anything else.  In my opinion, the real fast-versus-slow capital ship distinction in WWII wasn’t between battlships and battlecruisers, it was between the modern 1930s- and 1940s-era “fast battleships” on the one hand and the surviving WWI-era battleships (some of hwich had been modernized between the wars) on the other hand.  The classic example of that distinction can be found at Leyte Gulf, where the Americans assigned their old slow battleships (plus some escort carriers) to support the amphibious invasion directly (I think they were officially under McArthur’s command), and assigned their fast battleships and their fleet carriers (under Halsey) to fight the main Japanese fleet if it showed up.  Halsey’s carrier pilots did take a substantial crack at the IJN during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (they sank the Musashi, notably), but Halsey later took the bait of a Japanese decoy operation and charged off to the north with his fast battleships and his fleet carriers to engage Japan’s remaining fleet carriers (which actually had few or no planes left aboard, and were simply meant to draw him away from Leyte Gulf).  As a result, the Japanese surface-combat forces (in two groups, operating well away from the decoy force) had a clear shot at Leyte – and the American forces which ended up stopping them were, respectively, the US Navy’s older battleships at the Battle of Surigao Strait and a force of escort carriers and light surface-combat vessels at the Battle off Samar.  In the latter engagement, the hopelessly outclassed (if you go by the raw ship types and numbers) Americans engaged the Japanese battle fleet so aggressively that the Japanese commander, Admiral Kurita, ended up retreating because, in his mind, the tiny American forces couldn’t possibly be attacking him so energetically unless they were expecting massive US Navy reinforcements to arrive at any moment.  In fact, Admiral Sprague, the US commander on the spot, knew perfectly well that Halsey was nowhere near him; he dealt with a hopeless situation by going on the offensive because that was he was a leader in the tradition of WWI’s Ferdinand Foch (who at the Battle of the Marne reputedly signaled to his superiors: “My left flank is driven in; my centre is giving way; the situation is excellent: I attack!”)

@Charles-de-Gaulle

I noticed that you don’t allow the US to activate Brazil when neutral in another game (your blog). Would you say that applies to your rules as well? Thank you!

@Der:

@simon33:

You can look at it like that. I’m looking at it from the point of view of what makes the game more fun. If I take your baking a cake analogy, do you read the recipe before shopping for ingredients? The current turn order is basically, buy some ingredients, read the recipe (combat movement), bake cake (conduct combat). You have to prognosticate what will be in the recipe to know what you need to buy.

No combat movement would be moving all of your ingredients to stove. ;)

I think my analogy is every bit as valid as yours.

The point is that the need to prognosticate the likely outcome of the board at the end of your combats is unnecessary, time consuming and reduces the fun. Whether the current rule makes sense or not isn’t really relevant.

The point about forgetting to purchase isn’t really valid with a Triple-A game because it prompts you. You can say that a forgotten purchase is a zero purchase if you apply the rule strictly. In general I would expect so if a retrospective purchase gives an unfair advantage.

Face to face, I use a merged purchase+combat movement phase. Probably why we can play a game in a day.

@Young:

@BM,

During Alpha 2 I was upset that each interceptor got 1@2 and each escort and bomber were 1@1. This prevented any SBRs being attempted and a game mechanic I loved in classic was now extinct in 1940 Global due to the risk vs. reward. Than Alpha 3 came out with all air units hitting @1 during air battles and I was so happy because if I wanted to conduct a SBR, my teammates couldn’t scream “PLEASE DON’T” at me for tring a foolish strategy. So, I’m happy for the way things are and my lone bombers without escorts can still have a chance to get by (there were lots of guns on bombers, so I don’t have an issue from an historical view point). The problem with the India bombing raids is not the air battles or the fact that it can get maxed with a couple of raids, it’s the UK Pacific income and the inability to repair faster than it gets damaged. The SB+AB=+2 DMG house rule helps the UK Pacific problem without hurting the Europe theaters because there are lots of Air bases in Europe. If attacking bomber gets zero defence capability against interceptors, SBR would go extinct like Alpha +2 IMO. What would happen is I would raid India with 2 bombers against 2 interceptors and the UK could just roll 4@1 if they like (interceptors + AA Guns) I would not expose my bombers to those odds if I can’t fire back, plus American players who have watched Memphis Belle a hundred times would wonder why their Super Fortress bombers don’t have a least a 1/6 chance to hit in an air battle during SBRs. The way I see it, the SBR mechanic doesn’t need changing IMO because you never see it too much or too little (at least in our groups), there are problem areas with the rules like cruisers, neutral territories, the victory conditions etc…. but I’m happy with the balance of SBRs.

I’m very grateful Young Grasshopper for this deeper and more extensive answer about what criterions where important for a good SBR.

There is at least two points which are beyond statistics comparison.
Even if odds are really goods for the attacker (with higher bombing damage such as 1D6+3), having a defenseless Strategic bomber @0 in dogfight is quite an intuitive deterrent to use bombers in Strategic Bombing Raid. And it is less funny to have those big and costly unit being passively slaughtered.

Also, the historical depiction is a pretty good annoying argument against a zero-attack strategic bomber.
Flying-fortresses defensive formation were not defenseless planes, even if they were still vulnerable against interceptors.

Also, if YG’s fellow players feel that Alpha 2 SBR was a wasted strategy, while the actual G40 OOB SBR is sound, this give me another target.
Any viable SBR should be pretty much as efficient as it is actually with OOB G40 SBR.
And odds clearly reveals how G40 OOB SBR gives pretty good ones for the attacker.
One issue is that the actual values are so against interceptors, that defender decision to keep all his fighters grounded is most of the optimized one. While intercepting is much like a gambit than a sound tactics.

Now, with your answer YG, I really made my decision on which of the many values I calculated is the optimized one, funnier, historical, at least as balance as the actual OOB SBR rules, and to have the better incentive while staying as close as possible with the odds of OOB G40 SBR.

So, thanks a lot YG.
I will probably submit a more complete post with all the reasons which make the most interesting SBR.
For now, here is the real winner for Global 40 SBR after a closer analysis and comparison.

I already provided the answer elsewhere, the only difference is that I would advocate for a bombing damage of 1D6+3, instead of 1D6+2.
And I would use oztea idea, but rise to +3 minimum damage per StB shooted down by IC’s AA, instead of +2 minimum damage:

I still recommend D6+2 (+2 minimum damage) for 1942.2 SBR, because the economy is so much lower than Global.

If you take a look at the table below and compare D6+3 with OOB G40 SBR, you will find that the numbers are pretty close from each other, except when there is no interception, but the overall odds stay similar and you gain a much more interesting dynamics which provides a lot of incentive to make such interceptions as a vital and optimized defense against bombers run.

@Baron:

@oztea:

Totally different suggestion I have been considering.
Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
To make SBR more attractive.

You could consider this rule to offset your beefing up of fighters.

From a realistic standpoint it has always been gut-wrenching to send over 2 bombers and get snake-eyed. Knowing that you just sent over probably 1000 bombers and not a single bomb fell on anything important.

Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
Do you also imply when destroyed by interceptors, Bombers can still do +2 damage?

After a fast review, I think I would add your idea as integrated part of the above SBR HR, since it has a small statistical impact (approx. 3,00 IPCs/SBR instead of 2,583 IPCs/SBR.)

I would keep the +2 damage only if hit by AAA exclusively, when an interceptor hit bombers, it is destroyed with no compensation.
That way, it would provide an additional incentive to intercept bombers to wholy protect IC.
And this is a double lever effect.
Attacker will more willingly commit bombers and defender will be more incline to throw fighters against them.
And this is in addition to the fact, that interceptor’s hit must be on bombers first.
It is a much more interesting target.

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, and the winner is…

A more historical depiction of SBR which keeps interesting odds compared to G40 OOB.
In this one, intercepting Fighters are targeting attacking Bombers (TcBs or StBs) first, then escorting Fighters.

There is also a special attack (as an AA gun @1 first strike against up to 2 Fighters) for each Strategic bomber (whichever the lesser number between Fgs or StBs) in air-to-air combat which provides some restriction about Bombers spamming strategies (Darken skies), see above chart for comparisons:

Strategic Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR or TBR damage 1D6+2. [EDIT: 1D6+3 for G40]

Tactical Bomber
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
TBR damage 1D6.

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2
Always hit Bombers as first target, whether Tactical or Strategic (owner’s choice).

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike* as an AA gun @1 against up to 2 intercepting Fighters, whichever the lesser
Bombard Industrial Complex or Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6+2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike
Bombard Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6

IC’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

I will explain sooner how I came to this conclusion.

Follow this line in each combat situation (fs= first strike):
D6+2 (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1)

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008

Here is the minimum damage for each StB killed by AAA according to SBR basic damage:
D6: +1 IPC
D6+1: +1 IPC
D6+2: +2 IPCs [Edit: 1942.2]
D6+3: +3 IPCs [[color=red]Edit: Global 40]
2D6:+3 IPCs

SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +4.375 - 4.778 = -0.403 IPC damage/SBR / -0.283 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.440 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.162 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.463 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +5.186 - 6.321 = -1.135 IPC damage/SBR / -1.040 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.473 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.095 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.764 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.870 - 8.667 = -0.797 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.723 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.241 - 8.667 = -0.426 IPC damage/SBR / -0.352 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR / +0.092 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.536 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.722 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +8.095 - 7.556 = +0.539 IPC damage/SBR / +0.626 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.530 - 7.556 = +0.974 IPC damage/SBR / +1.061 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR / +1.583 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.104 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.322 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.835 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.751 - 9.556 = -0.805 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.631 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.746 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.124 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.726 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1): / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.550 - 4.777 = +1.773 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.893 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +7.152 - 4.777 = +2.375 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.495 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.218 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR / _+3.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.241 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.690 - 6.778 = -0.088 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.153 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.125 - 6.778 = +1.347 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.588 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.264 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR / _+4.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.658 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 STBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.168 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +7.500 - 4 = +3.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.832 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR / _+7.834 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR / +8.666 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR****

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.

@MGregersen
As I was looking into an AAA acting like regular unit as most as possible, except for targeting aircraft, I found this interesting post in my Quora account:

It was one of these:

That’s a 20mm autocannon on its trailer. You could either take the gun off and sit it on the ground or the back of a truck:

…or you could just keep it on the trailer and manhandle it. Obviously it was towed by a vehicle most of the time though. It’s called a Flak 30 or Flak 38 2cm gun.

0aced230-543d-413f-be12-f88ef28b655f-image.png

It’s an automatic weapon firing about 5 high explosive 20mm rounds at you per second. 20-round box magazine. It can easily reach out and tag you from several hundred metres away. So yes, if someone points it at you you’re going to experience at best a very emotional moment in your life, at worst you’re going to get disassembled.

Technically you’re supposed to shoot down aeroplanes with it, and it does an ok job of that, but the Germans loved it to bits for infantry support too. They were the most-produced German gun of the war, reliable, punchy, manoeuvrable and available.

https://www.quora.com/In-Saving-Private-Ryan-what-was-the-wheeled-weapon-used-by-the-Germans-in-the-final-battle-Was-it-really-as-devastating-as-portrayed

They’re going to mix A&A with an RTS engine?! Hmmmm……we’ll see how it turns out.

If you’re looking forward to playing a WW2 RTS game, check out:

Blitzkrieg

I didn’t like Sudden Strike, and I thought that RTS wasn’t for the WW2 genre, but this game changed my mind. It reminds me a lot of Panzer General II, but with rad graphics.