Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

@Narvik:

@simon33:

If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.

That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.

Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.

About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.

IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.

Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.

@Larrie:

Wow, things can really get out of hand, can’t they? First of all, I stand corrected, but only to a point. What I mean by that is, Baron, you are correct, all planes would be defending, therefore they would be in the air to begin with. What I was still trying to address is the statement, Cannot carry plane when damaged. That is still incorrect. If say A British carrier has one British and one American fighter on it and is in the attacking force, and it is the British turn, then the American fighter of course would not participate in the attack. It would be relegated to sitting on deck, and if the carrier is subsequently damaged, the American fighter would still be on deck, not able to take off on the American turn. Again I am addressing Cannot carry plane, not anything else.

You were right about this statement, it was too absolute and didn’t accurately describe OOB rule.
That is why I answered by adding the point on friendly aircrafts trapped in a carrier.
But, if your carrier is damaged, it is not possible to trap your own aircrafts inside.
This last point wasn’t clear, especially when subs only are attacking @2 first strike carriers with no destroyer escorting. I returned to the rulebook to be sure about it.

@Baron:

@Larrie:

Baron, I have to disagree with you on the cannot carry plane when damaged statement. They cannot launch or receive planes after being damaged, but if for example a loaded carrier was surprise attacked by a sub and only damaged and not sunk, then I believe the plane(s) would be trapped on the carrier until such time as it was repaired or sunk.

Talking OOB rules, …

On offense, only friendly plane(s) carried on board is/are trapped if the carrier was damaged in combat.

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.

@barney:

yea I’m a little concerned this would boost the defensive values of fleets even more. I also added DK’s cruiser gets one AA shot which is another defensive bonus.
I wonder how much super subs would counter that? I’m trying not to tweak things price wise at the moment but I may eventually incorporate your entire cost structure.

Good explanation on the destroyers vs EC’s. Having a fighter that hits at 4 could be appealing though.

Good stuff Baron

If I introduced AAA Naval capacity at such low cost (Advanced Shipyard) it would be in a combined arms bonus and not for a single unit.
Maybe just up to 2 AAA preemptive shots against 2 planes when 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser are protecting a Fleet Carrier, and only this kind of unit, not any Escort Carrier.
Each have their specific mission, Fleet Carrier have a more consistent AA batteries and CAP (Carrier Air Patrol) while Escort Carrier groups were assign Anti-Sub Mission.
So, to get Naval AAA buy all the three warships: Battleship, Cruiser, Aircraft (Fleet) Carrier.
In counterpart, these costlier warships units would still be vulnerable against Subs while Escort Carriers and Destroyers will be vulnerable against planes but much able to defend against Submarines.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.
I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

@toblerone77:

@knp7765:

I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.

Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.

A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.Â

Interesting extrapolation.
It could be used by cruiser and BB in addition to their basic bombardment.
We can even consider more boosting power toward BB.
Cool. :-)

ok good.