Better then the 8D dice system.

YG wanted to solve some balance issues, not just toying with 8 dices.
At least, he might get credits with tweaking subtly with balance without radical change.

new version of these optional rules

TECH via a POINT SYSTEM v4.0 Feb 2018.doc

Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

add an arbitrary 1001/6= 16.667…
So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.66731 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)

If I’m going to move forward with my ideas, I want to do so in a user friendly manner. Thanks to all who respond.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.

I also prefer the roll of the dice.  I suppose I ought to be careful as I have never played out a game in LL.  I really enjoy the different directions that game often takes based on dice rolls.  Every game can be a different game whereas in LL I can see the game tending to play out along predictable ways.  That being said, re-rolls of early outrageous dice should be considered and I have allowed it and suggested it in my games when I was the beneficiary of the opponents bad dice.  If I win, it’s not going to be because my opponent got diced early.

I think it adds to the game when you have to consider and plan for unlikely outcomes.  It forces you to use more forces than you would like to and to hold some forces back for contingency plans.  Everyone is a competent general and planner when the dice are going their way.  The mark of a truly good tactician is the ability to build in flexibility to account for unlikely dice outcomes.  If dice are always determining the outcomes of your game then maybe you ought to play a bit differently.

I’m not impress.
I have done my own convoy rules with real cargo.
Much significant for Allies build if you lost too much cargo.

ttt, discussion about tech over at AAMC.