Battle for Atlantic 2.0

You should make one, I don’t have a 1940 copy but have friends who do and would love to have one. Still I always like to put in a Bismark no matter what time period, just to stress Britian because they have vast, if thin superiority in the Atlantic ocan.

Thanks for the graphics, Black_Elk! Let me know if you have any thoughts, aesthetic or strategic, about this draft of a new map. I’m shooting for something in between 1942.2 and 1940 – I don’t want dozens of fidgity territories in the middle of nowhere that just require extra counting, but I do want to give people options to set up different kinds of front lines (and prioritize theaters) in new and interesting ways.

v5baseTiles.png
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb
v5baseTiles.png_thumb

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

Does anyone knows why the more expensive units (i.e. cruiser 12$ and battleship 20$) are not able to bombard a only one shot on the coast once they win a sea battle offshore?

For me, it seems many times you cannot use their only special capability.
For all other cheaper units their is no such thing.

In what way does this rule is necessary to keep the balance?

In game terms, since a turn is three months long why a cruiser or a BB cannot fight the enemy ships, then help the amphibious assault since you cannot make any debarkment if you are not able to destroy the enemy naval unit?

I’m pretty sure that, during WWII, many cruisers and battleships were able to destroy others defending surface vessels and, some hours later, support with their heavy guns the marines launching an assault on a beach.

If both battles have been simultaneous (like Leyte Gulf Battle) that would be OK, but, in the game, if you loose or retreat no transport can unload their troops.

Anyway, I wish to suggest a different rule to simulate that cruiser and BB can do many things during a three month turn. Or can make a more intensive bombardment if their is no other assignment.

1- Always allow one coastal bombardment per surviving cruiser or battleship after a naval battle and before the amphibious assault (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports). If the BB was damaged during the previous battle, halfed the attack: 1@2 instead of 1@4.
Or we can logically say that a damaged BB have to repair and is unable to support a debarkment. This would make sens.

2- When their is no naval battle, allows 2 rolls of dice per cruiser and BB present (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports) but take only the better result for each one (like LHTR for heavy bomber) .

Example: 3 inf are part of an amphibious combat, so 3 cruisers (A, B, C) out of 4 (D) cruisers offshore can roll dices @3:
A 1,2 / B 3,3 / C 4,5,/ D not allowed
thus making 2 hits even though four dices make 3 and under.

In this way, the expensive units can always be use at their full potential.

Option B: we can instead halfed the attack value of cruiser and BB that made naval battle before a debarkment: cruiser get 1@1/ BB get 1@2.
And a damaged BB have to be repaired and is unable to support a debarkment.

What do you think? Do you have some answers for my previous questions?
Thanks.

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

This concept will work especially well with HBG’s new infrastructure pieces.

Tekkyy? where are you ?