G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron
Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod. Think I’ll just leave it active and people can player enforce for testing. Might be able to get something out tonight

Which do you prefer ? No sbr for tac or can hit factories ? Or : ) ?

@barney:

@Baron
Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod. Think I’ll just leave it active and people can player enforce for testing. Might be able to get something out tonight

Which do you prefer ? No sbr for tac or can hit factories ? Or : ) ?

Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod.
What I understand is that your XML files provide this possibility.
I don’t think it is necessary to make another game file.
Player can easily choose and agree on which one they want.
If they allows TcB to bomb or not IC. Once a TcB is part of the assault, it is easy to divert it on AB or NB only.

For play testing, I believe your versions are OK.
But I’m not the chief architect of it, here. Rather Black Elk may have another opinion. It is up to him.
No need to create a restricted one in that alpha testing stage.

@Black_Elk:

Personally I don’t have the same issue with a fighter based air umbrella strategy vs fleets under AB+2, that I do with an OOB Strategic Bomber proper “dark skies” strategy.

The strategic situation with fighters and AB+2 is sufficiently different from the OOB dark skies with OOB Bombers, that I don’t think you could really call it the same thing.

Fighters by themselves only offer an attack 3 on the water.

Fighters without an AB+2, don’t have anywhere near the same mobility over multiple turns, when compared against the OOB stratB. For example, fighters parked in W. Germany cannot reach Moscow in one move for an attack (even with the AB+2). They are 1 move shy of a landing spot. Even if they were close enough to fly across the continent to attack Moscow and land in an adjacent space, they won’t be able to immediatrly return to W. Germany the following round (because without the AB they only have 4 movement.)

Fighters can’t bomb factories.

Agreed on all counts. I think that with a base Attack of 4 for a Tac, the comparison would be much closer, but given the conclusion we have come to, I am comfortable with it personally.

@Black_Elk:

Whether the OOB tacB is an attractive purchase vs the OOB fighter (either under normal or the new AB+2 conditions) is a somewhat separate issue.

After we have a solid footing for SBR and escort, we can move to more nuanced problems… Such as the general unattractiveness of TacBs as a purchase option. We face a similar issue with cruisers, battleships, and aaaguns. But again, I think it might better to pace ourselves here.

Agreed here also. There is just so much to get into that it can be hard to do only a couple at a time.

Right on Guys ! Baby steps as they say :)
M6 min for all air is powerful. No AB and your’e at a M4 though…and yea. : )

Think it represents the difference between land based and naval air as well.

Heh Heh is right : )

Those German and JPN bombers, especially German, are missed. Idk about long term impact, but hey, why not find out ? :)

@Black_Elk:

Right on. I think I’d prefer an OOB tacB for general testing. If only because it’s easier to float on the boards, like “grab this and go.” With less chance that players get confused or distracted by the tactical bomber. I’m kind of curious if the Strategic Bomber and Airbase changes alone might produce a game which is balanced by sides? Because that would be a major windfall and a great selling point for the HR. Get the Allies away from these 30+ bids that are needed OOB to realistically win against Axis experts, who know how to employ the OOB strat bomber to full effect.

No rush though. As of now it’s basically just like 5 of us in here, so it’s not as if we need to strike while the iron is still hot or anything. Hehe
:-D

Probably never balance it for everyone but … I’m seeing possibilities :)
It’s a good thing. Gonna try it soon.

@Black_Elk:

Right on. I think I’d prefer an OOB tacB for general testing. If only because it’s easier to float on the boards, like “grab this and go.” With less chance that players get confused or distracted by the tactical bomber. I’m kind of curious if the Strategic Bomber and Airbase changes alone might produce a game which is balanced by sides? Because that would be a major windfall and a great selling point for the HR. Get the Allies away from these 30+ bids that are needed OOB to realistically win against Axis experts, who know how to employ the OOB strat bomber to full effect.

No rush though. As of now it’s basically just like 5 of us in here, so it’s not as if we need to strike while the iron is still hot or anything. Hehe
:-D

There is many good things with bombers and Fgs which make SBR not as destructive as OOB but noone will be scared of a flight of bombers. Intercept going to be normal thing to do.
Player will not be too desperate to loose 5 IPC unit. And may even add some Fg in hope of destroying an interceptor. @1 per Fg is not so high.
It is clearly better incentive than Balanced Mode SBR, not adressing any critic on other things which seems pretty good.
Maybe some will want more Fg A1 vs D2 to better depict the homeland advantage for interceptors.
But StB A0 vs Fg D1 is already a massive incentive and clearly depict how Fg can slaughter bombers.

Also, from attacker POV, bringing Fgs for a single combat round instead of ground support @3 for many rounds is not such a good investment: not knowing if defender will commit Fgs for defense. So A1 vs D1 remains a balanced choice, in that case.

TcB and Fg gains much air cover with +2 bonus and also be part of long range SBRs.
This provides also a better historical depiction about StBs vs Fgs escorts range.
Now Fgs can escort bomber from Iwo Jima. Or starting from Midway, can be escorted by Fgs at Iwo.
ABs in PTO now allow Fgs to bring ground support in adjacent island invasion.
Giving 8 move to armless StBs for regular combat have no impact.
That’s the beauty of this 0 hit bomber.

If eventually someone is longing for some attack factor for Bombers in SBR.
It will be easy to provide some idea coming from TP thread to add a weak attack, like:
Young Grasshopper 1A@1 for whole bombers group.
Or any and only shot down StB by Fg get a one shot last defense roll @1.

I’m very confident of this whole change.
And if A4 is missing to many, then you have TcB A4 D3 M4-6 C12 in back pocket.
It will not be exactly as StBs for sure. And in regular combat, it may shines with less projection of power and mobility.

If you’re going to take the combat ability away from Str then perhaps consider allowing them to transport infantry too instead of just Strategic bombing missions. If you don’t want to add paratroopers then use as a transport only on non combat movement and make them land before infantry unloads at the end of Str movement.

Just a thought.

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2  Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

@GeneralHandGrenade:

If you’re going to take the combat ability away from Str then perhaps consider allowing them to transport infantry too instead of just Strategic bombing missions. If you don’t want to add paratroopers then use as a transport only on non combat movement and make them land before infantry unloads at the end of Str movement.

Just a thought.

It is a possible optional feature in G40 I believe, 1942.2? not sure.
You can download files general Hand Grenade, and try a game.
I’m not sure it will be balanced however. Too many Infantry mobility, IMO.

I’d scrap the carry 2 inf on NCM. Air transport planes is 8 icps. Probably end up not buying any Transport planes in game.

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2 Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2 Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

I have been ignoring all the Tech Research upgrades as they relate to these modifications for a couple reasons. I think we can make them work in the new system if given enough attention. But the general consensus seems to be that people either don’t like or don’t play with Tech anyway, so not having an immediate answer for Tech like Heavy Bombers or Long Range Aircraft isn’t a huge deal.

@Baron:

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2� Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2� Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

Are these values for Heavy Bombers ? Cost seems to low.

@SS:

@Baron:

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2 Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2 Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

Are these values for Heavy Bombers ? Cost seems to low.

The issue is about balancing between bomber (D12) A0 D0 C5, SBR @2, 1D6 damage vs Fg A4 D4 or 5 C7 and heavy bomber. At 10 IPCs, it is rather better to buy 2 bombers C5, 2D6 dmg than investing in a Heavy 1D6+2.
Since move is 6-8, rising to 7-9 will be unhistorical. So, the only increase seems OK is to introduce it as a combat unit with no defense for 3 IPCs higher than bomber, with small increase in firepower. (C8 is same as DDs)

SS is going to play on week end.
And he was trying Fg vs TcB of my own HR but wanted to introduced StBs in the mix.
Since he has a lot of units in his Global War customized version, one thing call the other.
That is why I made a suggestion for relatively balanced Heavy Bomber. That way, Bomber A0 D0 C5, A0 D6 (in his game StB have A2 (D12) in SBR to balance for Fg A4D4 C7 targeting plane) damage remains play-testable without scraping units of his roster.

Thank You Baron for posting this. You beat me to it.

I will be posting results in the Global War thread in the Global War 1940 2nd Edition post.

I throw the ball.
Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
@Black_Elk:

I’ll admit to being somewhat torn. On the one hand I think Baron’s unit interactions are excellent and very well thought out, and I also recall the development process over time in countless threads, so I’ve seen how its grown into a pretty complete overhaul. But I also know that people may be reluctant to adopt a series of sweeping changes to the roster. For those who want the familiar OOB combat system just with a different “campaign” dynamic (different NOs, incomes or starting unit distributions) a complete redux of the combat phase might put them off, since it requires you to learn a lot of new things.

I would say that threshold here for me is whether or not the unit interactions can be easily handled in tripleA, without requiring a bunch of new code, or the introduction of new phases and the like.

Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.

DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C5 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.

SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C6 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.

TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .20) ratio probably requires  changing a few warship cost.
CRUISER A3 D3 C10 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @3.

Battleship A4 D4 C18 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @4.