Topics created by baron Münchhausen

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

You could argue for secondary capitals i.e. use victory cities as such. If the major capital is capture as long as a nation holds it’s own VC it can collect 1/2 it’s income. Just a thought.

Good idea!

However, I think that simply the face number of IPCs income from territory will already be very reduce for a capital in exile. I wouldn’t cut in half this meagre resource.

Actually Baron you are right. I think a country should collect all it’s income until ALL it’s originally owned VCs are captured. The US if invaded by a foreign power would not give up. USSR is also a good example.

I for one hate the notion of zero IPC territories altogether. Regardless of where they are on the map.

I would be in favor of doubling the value of all territories, making 0 IPC tts worth 1

Right now most nations income is much inferior to their production capabilities, ICs are sometimes a rare purchase

Doubling the IPC values of all territories would swap this, nations would have insufficient factories to start the game, and would likely purchase additional ICs and/or upgrade the ones they star with
You would obviously have much more units on the board, but this I believe would lead to less board space being ignored for large portions of the game
Battles would also average out better with regards to dice rolling

Just giving a possible solution and arguments for it :)
It may be a terrible one, but it’s more feasible for F2F games with marking all over the map

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

@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:

@Uncrustable:

Honestly the problem is not broken bombers
But broken AA, would bomber spam work vs classic AA? Or even pre alpha AA?
It likely would not

I think that the AAA unit was going to be used in an entirely different way than what we have now. I just don’t see making an entirely new sculpt that’s nation specific, that only moves defensively, but gets destroyed. They could’ve used the old plastic guns like before. That’s a lot of money and production for something that works as strangely as it does.

That’s why I see a better future for  an artillery division unit like this one, as first proposed by Uncrustable :
AAA A1D1M1C5-6 + when on defense as OOB rule vs 3 attacking planes.
It would be far more integrated in the A&A system rules.
And keep the old AA linked to IC, NB and AB.
It was absurd to protect preemptively a large territory against all planes.
But it make sense in a limited area like ICs or bases when it is heavily protected by AA guns.

And if Bombers spam still need a fix via AAA, give them AAA vs 4 or even 5 planes, but not unlimited preemptive strike @1 vs all planes.

About AntiSubWeapon and Mission,
I have a different idea than:

The sub rule we are trying now is 2-1-2 unit as in 1940G OOB but each DD that is declared a sub hunter rolls a die and sinks the sub on a one and locates on a two.
Located or detected subs can then be attacked by CAs or additional DDs.
If sub survives first round of combat then it defends at one or submerges.

When DD are on attack vs Subs, I will let the OOB DD A2 ASW as usual for getting a hit.
If any DD roll “1” or “2” it is a hit, or if roll a"3" then Planes can attack located subs.

If all DDs roll only “4” or higher, then no planes can attack subs, since no DD detected them, however they can still hit any other units in the sea-zone.

I find interesting to let the defending subs to submerge instead of taking defensive roll.
I would rather let this submerge possibility only if all DDs roll “4” or higher.

This will have the effect of drastically reduce the odds to find Subs by 50% instead of an automatic finding. And it gives an increasing importance on having much more than a single DD for ASW.

I will not forbid cruiser from attacking Subs since I already agree to forbid attacking BB vs subs.
It will let cruiser somekind of specific effectiveness vs subs that don’t have BB.

However, Cruiser would not block the subs from submerge, instead of defending.

Because I don’t have enough time to play Global.

I like to have an historical style A&A.
Convoys rules are interesting for representing the economical effect on UK of U-Boats warfare ETO and on Japan of USA subs warfare PTO.
It is an interesting alternative to SBR.
Subs can be useful outside direct naval battle.

I put some HR and new units in 1942.2 (like antisub Escort Carrier, mechanized infantry, TacBombers) because it is a smaller scale than Global but still complex.

When I have only 2 or 3 hours with friends, we play 1941.
But it is not a game intended to have HR because even OOB rules from 1942 can ruined the balance.
We play it OOB rule only.

Maybe the website I got the French DOW on was wrong, or just listed the allied ones - since many times they reciprocate a dow even though they don’t need too…

Anyway, Germany was perfectly happy sitting there and doing nothing before Russia decided to stick it’s big fat nose in things, then France and England decided to fight Germany (DOW or not, they did cut off transport and trade with them, so in effect, they did declare on Germany even if it wasn’t on paper)

It’s clear that the side that supported the rebellion against the law abiding, peace loving states of Germany and Austria-Hungary are the aggressors, Germany and Austria-Hungary just defending themselves from unwarranted and unwanted attack. :P

And Belgiums a country?  Sheesh, I thought it was a truck stop on route to Paris!  Next you’ll be telling me Rhode Island is a state in the United States of America and not a gas station with delusions of grandeur!

Some treads treat this subject but I wanted a new start here in house rules.
I have summarize some ideas to make these two units:
No more than 1 type of unit/territory.
Allow up to 2 bunkers or pillboxes/territory (2IPs allow 1 additionnal hit).
Also allow up to 2 heavy weapons fortification: cost 1 IPC and give +1 def 1 Inf/Art.

Cost   Move  Att  Def              Special
Coastal fortifications: 10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Ship Gun
Inland fortifications:  10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Tank Gun
Coastal fortifications work only against amphibious assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by land.
Inland fortifications work only against land assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by amphibious assault.

Both share the same other traits:
Take 2 hits, repairs as BB/ 6 damage points, repair at 1pt/1 IPC
Give up to 3 (Inf or Art) +1 defense/
AA in-built against SBR from SBs & TBs/

3 coastal guns ASG each@1 pre-emptive against support ships during amphibious assault, in order BB/CA/DD: once hit a BB cannot bombard, must repair.
Or
3 Anti Tank Guns 3@1 (pre-emptive strikes vs Armors)
It must take 2 hits to be destroy, or the territory has been captured.

Even if the 3 defenders has been killed, but take only 1 hit, as long as the territory is not captured then it can be repaired at no cost, as BB. Except for a Strategic Bombing Raid:

Can be SBR (damage are cumulative, up to 6 points) but do not affect the number of hit that unit can absorbs:
1-3: no effect
4: -1 def 1 Inf or Art/ -1@1 ASG (2 coastal guns attack)/ATG (2 anti-tank attacks)
5: -1 def 2 Inf or Art/ -2@1 ASG (1 coastal gun attack)/ATG (1 anti-tank attack)
6: -1 def 3 Inf or Art/ no coastal gun attack / no ATG attack

Even after taking 6 points of damage, it can still take 2 hits before being destroyed.

Special features:
The bombers (SBs/TBs) can make their first shot an SBR against these complexes (before the amphibious assault/ or normal combat occurs) and makes normal attacks against any ground units after the first round.

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this Collect income phase… thread (much harder to find with google search).
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.

@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. :-)

@Uncrustable:

Tac bombers need something, they are rarely produced relative to fighters and strat bombers

I would also suggest letting tanks roll a 4 for each tac bomber present if air supremacy has been achieved, that is for each tac bomber one tank rolls at 4 instead of 3. Tac bombers do not change
This even further increases air buys and also gives tanks a buff which they need

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Air supremacy is checked for each round of combat, before any dice are rolled for that round

These rules will magnify both fighters and tac bombers buys as well as tanks, and also promote a combined arms approach to purchases similar to artillery and infantry

You want enough fighters to achieve air supremacy, but also a good even amount of tac bombers and tanks to maximize air supremacy when you do achieve it

This kills multiple birds with a single stone
It should reduce somewhat the infantry/mech spam with sprinkles of artillery that we see now
It also indirectly buffs AAA as each AAA adds 3 more dice to the air battle in defense, and increases your chance of gaining control of the skies

Very thoughtful ideas. I like them.
However my first impression is your HR change much more the balance.
I’m looking for just small changes.
I will come back on this.
You have some compelling reason like this one:

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Thank you very much for your challenging ideas.