Posts made by baron Münchhausen

Toying on AA Capacity: giving to Naval Fighter
you may look at them (D12) so to use a same combat value in all context.
And allows for a much higher attrition rate amongst aircraft due to lower cost.

Naval Fighter C7 A3 D4 M4-5 (0.73 , 0.98), same value in dogfight and hits aircraft first in regular combat.

Naval Dive Bomber C7 A4 D3 M4-5 (0.98 , 0.73), pick target for each successful hit.
Dogfight values might be A2 D1, for instance.

Land-based Fighter C8 A4 D4 M5-6 (0.75 , 0.75), same value in dogfight and hits aircraft first in regular combat.

Tactical bomber C8 A5 D4 M5-6 (0.94 , 0.75), pick target for each successful hit.
Dogfight values might be better, so A2 D2 or A3 D2.

Fleet Carrier can remains C14 A2 D4 M2-3, 2 hits.

To adjust set up:
Example, 10 Naval Fighters C10 A5 D7 C10 = 100 IPCs, A50 D70 for 10 hits=
Sum: A500 (/3) D700 (/4) to convert into C7 A3 D4 = A166.67 D175 square roots of each = 12.9 vs 13.23 so, it is around 13 units.

So, you need to add 3 Fighters into this initial set up of 10 Naval Fighters.

To provide the same cover at sea, you may decide to put in SZ, 1 additional Carrier to hold for the additional Naval Fighters and place 1 last into a scramble SZ within reach of carriers.

Same ratio of 10 to 13 for Naval Dive bomber.

10 Tactical bombers C11 A7 D5 = 110 IPCs, A70 D50 for 10 hits=
Sum: A700 (/5) D500 (/4) to convert into C8 A5 D4 = A140 D125 square roots of each = 11.8 vs 11.3 so, it is around 12 or 11 units.
So, you need to add 2 Tac Bombers into this initial set up of 10 Tactical bombers. A simpler rate of 1 additional TcB for each 5 initial on the setup.

@Guam-Solo said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

@baron-Münchhausen Wow, that does change it - and certainly distinguishes the battleships and cruisers from destroyers/subs. Have you been in a game with this rule? I would think that buying 2 cruisers is better than 1 battleship (4 rolls vs. 2)? Did YG also lower the cost of battleships to adjust for this?

Hi Guam-Solo,
it depends if you only consider having 2 Cruisers for 24 IPCs against 1 Battleship for 20 IPCs.

In that case, yes. Simply because you have more IPCs on Cruiser side.

However, if you decide to compare on same IPCs basis, Battleships will get the upper hand.

Formula: 30 pips * 5 hits = 150 pips by hits
Unit: 5 Cruisers, 12 IPCs 2 dice @3
Combat value (total of pips): 3*2 * 5 = 30
Number of hits: 5

Formula: 24 pips * 7.5 = 180 pips by hits
Unit: 3 Battleships, 20 IPCs 2 dice @4
Combat value (total of pips): 4*2 * 3 = 24
Number of hits: 3
Double hit with no dice loss: number of hits * 2.5 (approx)
3 * 2.5 = 7.5

I’m still working on the double hits Battleship formula.

But, if it was like loosing a dice per damage Battleship, it would be easier to calculate:
Formula: 24 pips * 6 hits = 144 pips by hits
Unit: 3 Battleships, 20 IPCs 2 dice @4
Combat value (total of pips): 4*2 * 3 = 24
Number of hits: 6

Comparing 144 and 150 points, and assuming that a damaged Battleship can still roll 2 dice, you can conclude that these 3 BBs are going to be stronger than 5 Cruisers rolling 2 dice each.

I hope your are convinced that on same IPCs basis, BBs in that configuration are going to be more optimized.

In that specific HR in which both Cruiser and BB roll 2 dice, you can decide that:
a damaged Battleship loose 1 dice and just roll 1@4 (per OOB rule), so you are going to be almost even with 1 hit 12 IPCs Cruiser rolling 2@3.

@SS-GEN
Was it dedicated prior to the roll? Or do you decide after rolling?

@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

@baron-Münchhausen said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

Watch out ! Baron’s back and lurking !

No kidding !!!
Somehow, YG provided the mechanic to solve the Cruiser and Battleship issues with other warships.

Simply give 12 IPCs Cruiser two dice @3 for attack or defense and 2 hits 20 IPCs Battleship two dice @4.
That way, their firepower will be emphasized over Destroyer or Subs.

Nothing else to change, except considering the opening setup which was not built for real gunboats.
In that case, round 1 can be an exception. Assuming full power at the beginning of second round.
You saying 2 hits for cruiser or battleship only in your wording ?
Is the 2 dice for first round only ?
Is the 2 dice with fleets with planes only ?
Battleships shouldn’t get to take a hit on a plane if 2 dice are representing AA gun.
I can see giving Cruiser 2 dice but first round only.

I am testing my cruiser at d12
A4 D4 M3 C10 SH3 can take a hit towards a plane or ship for every round of combat

Hi SS,
do you mean rolling 1 dice and picking target between aircraft or ship if it is a hit?

@Guam-Solo said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

@baron-Münchhausen Do both dice count as hits, or are you taking the best roll of the two dice for one hit?

Both dice will count in that case.
Making it possible that 2 DDs attacking 1 Cruiser, every ships can sink in a single combat round.

@SS-GEN said in [Global 1940] Reasons for a cruiser.:

Watch out ! Baron’s back and lurking !

No kidding !!!
Somehow, YG provided the mechanic to solve the Cruiser and Battleship issues with other warships.

Simply give 12 IPCs Cruiser two dice @3 for attack or defense and 2 hits 20 IPCs Battleship two dice @4.
That way, their firepower will be emphasized over Destroyer or Subs.

Nothing else to change, except considering the opening setup which was not built for real gunboats.
In that case, round 1 can be an exception. Assuming full power at the beginning of second round.

@vodot
Sorry, it has been a while…
In my own houseruled game, each TP is 1 hit…
The collective roll is for defense only.

@axis_roll said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:

Above list was a combination of OP and best thoughts (IMHO) from thread.
Couple of points/questions in above list.

Other points: That’s allot of USA bonus money, Could be easily at +$20 round 2 ($60 USA IPCs!) , going forward… plus an attainable $10 more if full effort against Japan. May need to lower some of the pacific NOs to $3

Yes, it is a lot of money for USA.
However, Japan has the initiative and can deny a few of them, with not so much effort besides delaying money grab.
The 5 IPCs was two purposes: a single IPCs number easy to calculate, a high incentive to fight in Pacific theatre. By proposing mostly 3 reachable NOs in PTOs compared to 2 from ATOs, USA get big money to defend PTOs islands.

Don’t forget this get rid of US homeland NOs, there was initially 6 IPCs for 2 NOs. Now it is 5 IPCs for 1 NO?

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

@Baron:

I played a few times with Cruiser and TP moving 3 SZs.

Clearly, on wide map with a lot of SZs, it increase the pace of invasion and add more smaller fleet battles because other warships moving only M2 cannot follow as much as they wish.

The issue to incentive more amphib landing is to give a bit of escort to Transport, Cruiser get this more specialized role without being able to protect against Subs.
The lust for gain to conquer an Island may outweigh the risk of placing a few ships in vulnerable SZ (which can be in a deadzone from a few enemy’s units).

Another possibility, is to give a complete defense  @1 out of 12 per Transport with M3.
This will generate more amphib with TPs being use as expendable unit to grab land.
Of course, cost should be increase compared to defenseless.

Yes Japan did sacrifice 2 transports to take Midway. I believe the transports missed there plane defense shots. But it kept them at home for a extra turn. So without seeing Europe side outcome yet dont know if it hurt US. But they didnt seem to have a problem getting down to New Guinea. I can see in future games now Japan needs to stay at Carolinas and then get Manilla at a later turn instead of moving away as the case in the pics in above posts.

Also those M4 Cruisers in non combat can support small fleets or big fleets coming from Toyko to Carolinas and US from LA to Australia and New Guinea islands.

But Cruisers  can only move 3 in combat so its not a total crush.
I can see where the Transport would be nice also to M3 in combat and 4 in non combat in my game.
Transport now in game which I think I didnt change in list is if you take a transport as a casualty you do not get the D@1 against a plane. If no attacking planes then they get the escape roll.
If the transport went to a M3 would that be to strong on the Europe side for US ? I think it depends because if you spend to much in the Atlantic as US then Japan with M3 Transports in combat and M4 in non combat will be all over the islands. So this would keep both sides in Pacific honest to protect other side from total island control.
Im trying to get also a more of a 50-50 60-40 US spending in game.
Transport
A0
D1 At 1 plane only if taken as casualty
M3
C8

The M3 Transport would have to be tested later do to testing the island group campaign that is being tested now and in a game coming up but aways off yet. But will play test where will just do like a 3-4 turn test games before group game. Could test transport in those 3-4 test turn games also.

Did such TP unbalanced ATO?
You have numerous SZs on your Atlantic map, even a 4 NCM move from Florida SZ is not able to land units on Continental Europe.

@SS-GEN said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:

I removed the Anzac NO Black Chip group. Gave US a new NO 3 island group.
Solomon
Gilbert
Johnston

Not in this pic. After play testing

I did not want to derail Argo’s thread.
Does these three islands are all south of Hawaii on your map?

Why did you remove the first Black NO group?

After thinking on AA50, I wonder if South New Guinea (Port Moresby), Solomons and New Hebrides would have made a better thematic for an ANZAC NOs linked to trading with US and receiving Lend-lease from USA.

@SS-GEN said in Axis & Brollies: D12 Unit Profiles:

Run T run 😀

Don’t worry SS, I’m not in the mood of tweaking out units values at all this time. ;)

I’m more into talking about gameplay experiences about this feature.

@Admiral-T

Hi,
you have an interesting feature which I played and toyed a bit with.

I’m very curious about how players dealt or felt toward your fighter unit?
What are the comments and feedback from all your playtests?
Fighter (D12 dice)
Cost 6
Attack 4
Escorting : 1
Defense 4 (6)
Intercept: 1 (3)
Move 4
● Escort / Intercept value 1
● +2 Defense and Intercept if with an operational Air Base.
● All hits are allocated to air units first

Another question is why do you keep such a low combat value @1 in escort and intercept?
Since, it is a one round dogfight (OOB) and, with “All hits are allocated to air units first”, each regular combat are already working like dogfight for Fighter and enemy’s aircraft. Basically, you are nerfing SBR dogfight (which are OOB suppose to allow air-to-air direct combat with no ground units shield).

@SS-GEN said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:

I like the NO where both US and Japan get if either one controls. Now you can have more islands involved but probably not the way Argo wants to go.

Which NO specifically you are pointing at?

@SS-GEN
You can edit easily your post on this forum.

@SS-GEN
That is what I was trying by giving easy 10 IPCs from 2 NOs and moderately easy 10 IPCs additional from 2 NOs compared to OOB USA NOs:

5 for control all of the following territories: Western United States, Central United States, and Eastern United States.
5 Control at least three of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, and/or Solomon Islands.
5 Control the Philippine Islands.
5 Control France.

@SS-GEN
Good questions.
Cutting down starting IJN TPs seems a working way to delay Japan expansion. IMO, it is detrimental to the funny aspects of J1 turn however. For my part, I would not go in this direction.

@Argothair said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:

As far as bumping the European NOs back up to 5 IPCs each, I can’t please both you and @axis_roll! He wanted them lower to encourage more action in the Pacific. I certainly understand the urge to make calculation easier, and I support that goal, but I can’t have it both ways.

To make NOs simpler, I would get ride of the WUSA, CUSA and EUSA NOs.
Just keeping Greenland, Mexico, Panama, Cuba and Brazil at 5 IPCs and Morocco at 5 IPCs too. If you have both, you get 10 IPCs instead of 9 previously.
All Pacifics NOs at 5 IPCs make protecting them more incentive.

UNITED STATES
Arsenal of Democracy:
Northern Pacific air and sea ways control (Lend-lease toward USSR):
5 IPCs if Allies control Midway, Hawaii, Alaska and Western USA.

Southern Pacific sea ways control (Lend-lease toward UK-ANZAC allies):
5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, Solomons, Hawaii, Western USA
(Hawaii and Western USA capture by Japan is meant to cut down 2 NOs.
I replaced New Guinea with Western USA, so Japan capture of New Guinea will not cut down 2 NOs: 1 US and 1 UK.)

Capture of Major Pacific Imperial Japanese Navy bases and airfields:
5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese Islands: Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Carolines

USA Pacific Command Center:
5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines

Monroe Doctrine, no European interference in Americas countries and territories:
5 IPCs if Allies control Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil and Greenland.

USA Military Support of European Allies:
5 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW Europe

JAPAN
Japan Outer Defense Perimeter:
5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Iwo Jima, Carolines, Alaska, Midway, Hawaiian Islands, Wake Island, Solomons
5 IPCs if Axis Powers control at least one of the following territories: India, Australia, New Zealand and/or Western USA.

“The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”:

• 5 IPCs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, Fukien, Kwantung, and French Indochina/Thailand
  5 IPCs if Axis control Borneo and/or East Indies, and no Allied subs anywhere in SZ 49, 50, 60, 61, or 62

UNITED KINGDOM (South-East Command NOs)
ANZAC Coordination Centers:
5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand.
UK-Pacific major Bases to oppose IJA advance in Asia:
5 IPCs if Allies control India, French Indochina, and Kwangtung.

@Argothair
I got rid of Wake in USA NO while keeping it into Japan NOs.
Hawaii is major for 2 USA NOs but not necessary to block these NOs by Japan.
However, invading Hawaii is killing 2 birds with one stone for IJN.

Maybe this might better suit your taste?

Northern Pacific air and sea ways control (Lend-Lease toward USSR):
5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, Midway, Alaska and Western USA.
(Western USA capture is still meant to cut down 2 NOs.)

Southern Pacific sea ways control (Lend-lease toward UK-ANZAC allies):
5 IPCs if Allies control Hawaii, New Guinea, Solomons and Australia
(Hawaii capture is meant to cut down 2 NOs.)

Major Pacific Japanese land bases:
5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese TTs: Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa

US Pacific command centre:
5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines

JAPAN
Outer defense perimeter:

• 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Alaska, Midway, Wake, Solomons, Carolines, Iwo Jima
• 5 IPCs if Axis control Western USA