@Navalland said in New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively):
I was extensively considering this idea and concluded that having a unit serving to only one purpose is a bad idea. It means less flexibility and more predictability.
As long as you replace this role function with Tactical Bombers, there is no big issue. I played a lot on a Triple A 1942.2 variant which includes these 3 aircraft, it works pretty well. Strategic are used as strategic, that way.
@Imperious-Leader said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:
Cruiser is CA, light cruiser is CL. Even though a CA is technically a Heavy Cruiser, the most common form of the two is CA which if you use one term the CA is always that acronym.
It is almost a Zombie thread which is being revived. LOL.
I totally agree with you IL. A&A sculpt are CA. My original intent was about using a lower cost to make Cruiser A3 D3 M2 C10, 1 hit as the lighter version of Cruiser. At 10 IPCs, it leaves room for an Heavier and costlier Cruiser.
For instance, an Heavy Cruiser can be A3 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits.
Of course, it is an hypothetical cases, because people need to have both type of sculpt.
@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:
If fighter and bomber remain the same then destroyer cost should absolutely not be decreased. Cruiser could be either 10 or 11, but 10 ipc could make battleship very bad unit.
I totally agree.
I suggested this scale in a quote below:
Subs, DDs and Carriers are already interesting buy at their OOB cost.
Transports 5 ipcs
Subs 6 ipcs
destroyers 8 ipcs
Cruisers 10 ipcs
Carriers 14 ipcs
Battleships 18 ipcs
@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:
Decreasing naval unit costs are good, but its stand alone horrible idea since it totally negate all air coverage tactics especially for Germany. Air units should always have overall upper hands against naval units.
Air unit costs should be decreased in this case which will cause an unbalance between air and ground units.
You cannot conquer land without land units, and aircraft provide coverage for both land and sea. This is a good benefit compared with any investment in sea unit. They can becomes powerless if your invasion goes beyond the second round of combat or the second territory within a continent.
So, making Cruiser in par with Fighter or TcB is a small issue, IMO.
Maybe I feel it wrong because both 2nd and 3rd objectives are not clearly historical nor tactically working objectives.
During war, there was 3 Army groups with different and sometimes competitive aims.
To illustrate my point (trying to keep the 2+),
GERMANY
- Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
- Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: EASTERN UKRAINE, BELORUSSIA, CAUCASUS
- Northern shortcut of Seaports – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Karelia, Archangel, Belorussia
- Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Archangel, Eastern Ukraine and Kazakh
That way, USSR might have different ways to shut these NOs, mainly through control of Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine.
I feel it worth a try to add Bulgaria/Romania to Softbelly. Ploesti oilfield were vital for Third Reich War effort.
@Argothair
Hi Argo,
I really like all these Allies NOs with “…no Axis warship in xyz SZ.”
It is a way to simulate U-boats impact on Allies trade and merchants ships war goods delivery.
All Ukraine was wheat basket.
Any way to add Eastern Ukraine into the NO mix?
I hope your Triple A playtest is going according to plan.
Just a 2 cents idea:
GERMANY
- Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
- Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 3+ of: Karelia, Ukraine, EASTERN UKRAINE or BELORUSSIA
- Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control ALL 3 of: Archangel, CAUCASUS, and Kazakh
Second one is easier, third is tougher to get.
Might be also:
@Azod
Just wait and hope that Japan Fighter is taken as casualty. So you have not to go into Hawaiian SZ. I tried as much as possible to fully load this Carrier, I will try to join a Battleship or returning to Japan, to protect newly built transport. And, if building 1 Fighter along 2 TPs, it can land on Carrier, too.
There is at least 1 Fighter which need to land in Wake, Solomon or on the Carrier. IMO, I would land Japan bomber and this Fighter together to protect the bomber.
Dead zoning SZ is an important part for Japan. You have to think that fleet is better at defense than offense. So, be sure to have Subs or Bombers to support any attack on US or UK fleet.
@Azod
Do you crush UK’s fleet (as much as possible, or do you lose all East Indies fleet?) and do a light Pearl Harbor raid (with 3 Fgs, Cruiser and Sub and even the IJN Bomber) on J1?
Usually, building TP and ferrying toward Indochina/Japan while using IJN fleet to protect TP (from India’s Air) and keep US at bay from Solomon Islands should be a standard.
HTH ;)
@baron-Münchhausen said in Convoy Disruption for 1942.2 & G40 Submarine economic warfare:
It is a punitive mechanics, as OOB G40 instead of a bonus mechanics develop previously on this actual thread.
It is yet to be play-test to see if this can be balanced somehow.
This new sequence with modified SZs is inspired by the quoted post.
Now, I can provide a revised for Redesigned National Convoy Disruption House rule for 1942.2.
First thing, the Convoy SZ is to be identify with Power’s Convoy Marker on map.
All Convoy SZs worth 3 IPCs and are bordering at least 1 TT or have an island group in it. These TTs can worth 0 IPC to many IPCs, this doesn’t change the 3 IPCs Convoy SZ basis.
Here is 1942.2 modified map (for more action into Pacific Theatre) Convoy SZs I would implement (some such as SZs 2, 3, 34, 45, 53, 57 can be considered as Allied lend-lease shipping SZs coming from either UK or US toward Russia or Australia) :
Soviet Union 25 IPCs
3 SZs x 3 IPCs = 9 IPCs max.
SZ 4 (Karelia and Archangel)
SZ 34 (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Persia),
SZ 63 (Soviet Far East)
United Kingdom 40 IPCs
10-12 SZs x 3 IPCs = 30-36 IPCs max.
SZ 2 (Greenland)
SZs 3 (Iceland), 7 (Northern UK), 8 (Southern UK),
SZs 10 (Eastern Canada), 13 (Gibraltar), 23 (West Africa),
35 (India), 40 (New Zealand), 45 (North Eastern Australia)
If captured by Allies: 37 (East Indies), 44 (Solomon Islands).
United States 50 IPCs
9 SZs x 3 IPCs = 27 IPCs max.
SZs 2 (Greenland), 11 (US East Coast), 18 (Caribbean), 22 (Brazil),
SZs 53 (Hawaii), 55 (Mexico West Coast), 56 (US West Coast),
SZs 57 (Midway), 65 (Alaska/Western Canada)
Germany 45 IPCs
2 SZs x 3 IPCs = 6 IPCs max.
SZ 5 (Baltic)
SZ 15 (Italy)
Japan 35 IPCs
6 SZs x 3 IPCs = 18 IPCs max.
SZs 36 (Malaya), 47 (Borneo),
SZs 48 (Philippines), 60 (Japan), 61 (Costal China), 62 (Korea)
An important thing to note :
lf at least 1 territory bordering (or the Island group within) the Convoy SZ is taken from his original owner and the Convoy SZ belong to the same owner, then this Convoy SZ is deactivated and can no longer be raided by enemy’s of the original Convoy SZ owner’s which have his control marker in this Convoy SZ.
When such Convoy SZ is deactivated, simply place a Nation Control Marker from enemy power onto it.
Only Submarine can raid Convoy SZ.
During Phase 1 of a Power’s turn, renamed : Convoy disruption and damage repair on IC and 2 hits units.
Each enemy’s Submarine present in a Convoy SZ of the Power’s turn makes a Convoy raid (Convoy Disruption).
Even if there is warships (including Destroyers) in Convoy SZ, Submarine can still make such raid. Once the raid is done, Submarines stay in raided SZ.
Each Submarine can make up to 3 IPCs damage, by rolling 1D6 divided by 2: 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5-6 IPCs = 3 IPC damage.
So a single Sub always does at least 2 IPCs damage on average.
There is no defense roll and Destroyer cannot do anything about it.
It is up to the Convoy SZ owner’s to send Destroyers (and more) during his turn to retaliate and sink Subs in combat phase.
Damage are immediately remove from Convoy owner’s hands, never more than 3 IPCs per SZ.
*Exception: when there is two Convoy markers (Greenland SZ 2).
Such a raid is still up to 3 IPCs per Power’s turn, but can reach up to 6 IPCs, when UK’s and US’s damage are summed up. *
Below, you get the picture of a modified 1942.2 map marked with these SZs.
@SS-GEN
I mentionned the OOB ways in beginning of my last post.
@SS-GEN
I would say that both Powers have a few optimal attacks to do then, according to results, will judge how they can coordinate or not. It was more like Sea Lion or not? Hard Barbarossa or more ressources in Africa., for Germany.
For Japan, it was more always mainland Asia between India or North in USSR, and about reacting to UK and USA.
IDK if we can simply assumed the same on this map. I hope not.
So, what works for OOB might be quite different on PTOIA map.
@SS-GEN
From my limited experience, I would say USA player is doing 80-20% whether KGF or KJF.
Splitting economy more 60-40%, makes for a longer game. But I played many like that on OOB map.
But now, with ANZAC IC and all the changes in PTO I don’t know if it is possible to do KGF and only invest 20-80.
@SS-GEN
Not necessarily. IDK if it can be optimal on this map (in which UK already got 3 IC) to built IC in Cairo (instead of Union of South Africa).
I know that on OOB 1942.2, Cairo’s IC is a valid option for a KGF.
My own playtests had heavily focused in KJF, so I kept minimal and played very defensively Cairo. Sometimes, I exchanged it. On one case, USA landing and Germany’s landing in Gibraltar (in preparation for Sea Lion), Germany was not able to conquer Cairo.
It is mainly UK which decides whether going KGF or KJF and it is all about Indian and Cairo’s fleet, and what you do with Cairo and India. Otherwise, if USA going the other way, might be a bit of an unoptimal strategy if UK invest massively into Asia while USA going Atlantic.
@SS-GEN
Cool to see that your playtest continue today.
A Fighter help against SBR for sure. At first, I was opened to the idea of removing one Inf for 1 Fg in India, but then I realized how such would impact the initial KJF move which brings all Indian and ANZAC fleet against IJN Carrier group in East Indies.
Thinking deeper, I also realized that the additional Indian’s Fg purchase was built into a factory in Cairo… That is the tough call UK have to make.
However, more IJN Fg in mainland means less against USNavy…
About : “But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense.”
It is another reason which inclined me to add an Artillery unit in China. No need to rely only on Fighter for attack punch.
I will adjust that one into TripleA and the word file.
About: “This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory.”
That is a factor on why Fighter dogfight values are Attack 1 but Defense 2. Attacker need to bring a ratio of 2 escort for 1 interceptor to be in par.
As in regular combat, defender get a small advantage over attacker.
@SS-GEN
With 5 IPCs value, it means that when maxed out at 10, you need to repair 6 IPCs to at least being able to built 1 unit.
So each damage point made by a bomber means 1 unit which cannot be built. When you reach the nominal value of the territory, there is no built possible without repair. What is above this level, is additional damage up to double the nominal value.
So 8 damage means repair 4 to be able to built 1 unit.
@Imperious-Leader said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:
The setup is not LH gen con and what are the adjusted IPC totals per nation ( UKR, West Russia, et al 3 IPC areas)?
It cannot be exactly the same but it was the initial basis. Of course, after, it evolved in its own direction.
For now, as a work in progress, the IPC total is:
USSR : 25 IPC
UK: 40 IPC
USA: 50 IPC
Allies: 115
Germany: 45 IPC
Japan: 35 IPC
Axis: 80
Map total: 195 IPCs.
Besides many zero IPC TTs which received value, West Russia and Belorussia are 3 IPC, Ukraine SSR is 4 IPC and Caucasus is 5 IPC.
Carolines are 3 IPC. Japan only 4.
West Australia is 2, East 3 and New Zealand 4.
Alaska is 4, Wake 2, Hawaii 4, Mexico 3, East Mexico 1, Central America 3. Central USA is 4.
@SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:
Here’s a pic after 2 turns.
I also noted that you built an IC into Ukraine SSR. Good idea. I never thought about purchasing IC as a valid investment for Germany. Since Ukraine is now 4 IPCs, it worths something to built and purchase unit for this TT.
@SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:
Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unnecessary for them.
Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.
I like your observation about Cruiser or Battleship to escort Carrier group. It is clearly what was intended about Redesigned rules, to improve the need to purchase these two warship types. A Task force needs naval firepower to protect Carriers and it is not with Destroyer or Subs which bring it.
2 or 3 Destroyers (10-15 IPCs) do not bring same kind of firepower. So, each warship has a better fitting niche.
Talking about China, I saw that all US troops were pretty much erased by Round2. I wonder if instead of adding 1 Infantry into Szechwan, an Artillery could improve the possible reaction against IJA advance. (Set up for Szechwan would then be: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fg.) To improve the aggressive stance, instead of the defensive posture which Infantry incarnates.
In this game, there is no Burma road. So, since Japan get an IC in mainland Asia right away. Maybe making it tougher for round 1 and 2 can make it better than a free ride toward Moscow?
I agree that, without Mechanized Infantry, it is difficult for Germany to bring Infantry on the Russian front, and more often it is German’s tanks which received the blunt of USSR Infantry counter-attack. And, if possible, two TPs in Baltic helps a litttle toward a faster movement of Infantry eastward.
@SS-GEN
About SBR, for sure, there is no prevarication about doing or not doing SBR. The question is: where do I send my Strategic bombers squadrons?
If you don’t sent them, it is a lost occasion. You will find that Germany has plenty of IC and can be targeted with less risk because Fighters cannot be everywhere. In addition, if UK’s TcB is without tactical objective, you can send it into NWEurope to bomb the IC.
Another point about US StB into Eastern Australia. StB on defense are treated like defenseless transport and taken last. So, it will not help against any invasion. So, as soon as possible, you may transfer StB in Solomons. Round 4, you may be able to SBR Carolines.
@SS-GEN
Very instructive to see how it evolves when new to the game and setup.
About Subs vs Destroyer. Subs have a stronger offense but cannot block any unit. Only DD or other warships can block. And, of course, you cannot attack other Subs with your Subs. So, Destroyer remains the better cost efficient for defense while, for attack at warships, you can count on Subs.
