Posts made by Derek

The only other variable a cruiser brings is bombard.

It has been discussed to just give cruisers another ability. Such as AA dice or +1 movement.
But to do so would have greater balance implications in the game, with the potential to require setup changes and or other changes to even it out.

Changes the cost to 10 has almost no (if any at all) balance implications.
Cruisers changes from a ‘terrible’ unit to an ‘ok’ unit.
They would be no more powerful than a pure destroyer spam is currently OOB.

You say don’t just look at one unit type vs another…
10 IPC cruisers also creates a very interesting dynamic where it is beneficial to have a mixture of cruisers and destroyers than pure destroyer in pure combat.
It actually promotes a more combined arms approach.

All numbers aside, and all arguments aside…cruisers are almost never purchased, period.
And while you cannot use math as a be-all end-all, you cannot turn a blind eye to it either.
It is a little ignorant to totally ignore mathematical data.

You can use math to see why submarines and destroyers are nearly spammed to death in every competitive game, whith very few battleships (maybe 1 per game) and maybe a cruiser every 3 games
you can then use math (*gasp) to try to find a better cost of the units

It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC

this is a false statement, carriers are good because of their range and flexibility. they are subpar to submarines and destroyers however when it comes to pure combat.

please i would love to see a valid argument against 10 IPC cruisers.
Do you think they would suddenly become some super unit? (we already have those, there called submarines :P…)
They suck now, a 2 IPC reduction actually makes them ‘ok’ rather than ‘terrible’
At 10 IPCs they are on par with destroyers in combat, cruisers have bombard, destroyers are ASW and remain the better fodder unit

Not to mention zero change to overall game balance, fleet damage/hp would remain the same. It is the composition that would alter.

@knp7765:

Okay, I’m just curious. I understand the naval base in SE Mexico now. I am just wondering why SE Mexico and not Central America?

SE Mexico is adjacent to the mainland and an IC, making it easier to defend and quicker to mobilize units into the seazone if the situation called for that.

MrRoboto never even posted in the thread we are talking about.

Was pretty much just Kion, Baron and I. Untill it got hijacked … At which point it was just Baron and I with the thread pretty much at a close regarding the OP…

I have much respect for MrRobot, KionAA and Baron, and their opinions. All 3 have provided much insight with regards to adjustments in G40.

This should be a dead issue…

@Uncrustable:

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1

If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.

If the sub submerges and there is atleast 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes

A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

Well this is where im at right now as far as subs, if they cost 7 that is…

Maybe could give subs a 3rd convoy dice aswell to further boost them…

12 DDs A2 = 17 SS D1, 50% vs 50% it is a fair and even fight.

.71 DD A2 = 1SS D1
(.71 DD/SS * 8 IPCs/DD) = 5.68 IPCs/Sub, it means that 7 IPCs Subs are too high cost, it should be 6 IPCs.

Let’s try 6 IPCs Subs: 1.42 x 6 IPCs = 8.52 IPCs, that should be the balance cost of DD on offence (near a 8, so it is OK).

---

1 SS A2 = 1 DD D2, 50% vs 50%
7 IPCs better than 8 IPCs.
Subs are better on offence but only against warship, cannot hit air units. Seems OK.
But the A2 of Subs is less powerful than A2 of DD against warships with DDs.
But it is difficult to ponder how less powerful?

Yes its a conundrum because subs have a different attack on offense and defense.
Maybe with the other cost changes subs will be less powerful anyhow, and leaving them at 6 is the best option

35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD    43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA

0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs

1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Destroyers:

20 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 46 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

20/46 = 0.435 BB/DD    46/20 = 2.3 DD/BB

0.435 * 18 IPCs/BB = 7.83 IPCs/DD, rounding up: 8 IPCs

2.3 * 8 IPCs/DD = 18.4 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs
Posted on: December 12, 2013, 11:43:40 pm Posted by: Baron Munchhausen

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  shocked  tongue  rolleyes

That’s the cold math.

Great post.
I wish more people could understand this.

USA NB in SE Mexico on turn one, along with staging your fleet there, really puts some strain on the axis round 2, as the USA could go either way.
Also gives a lot of flexibility early game to the Allies strategy

It’s a win win for the allies, other than the 15 IPC cost that is

Really hoping it does aswell.
Need to get the word out to more people.
10k in 2 weeks is gonna be a close call.

The sub idea is just that, an idea.
Maybe add to it: if the sub chooses to not submerge and act as a normal unit during combat (no special rules) it will only hit on 1s whether on offense or defense. This means that in a battle vs planes it is at best rolling a 1 vs a 3 (air unit)

It gives subs little more power, which is ok under the new costs

If the sub doesn’t submerge: it becomes a normal unit A1D1
If the sub submerges and there is no enemy DD: it is OOB A2D1 that can retreat the battle without leaving the SZ and also retains it’s first strike ability. Can’t hit or be hit by planes.
If the sub submerges ad there is atleast 1 enemy DD: it is a A2D1 unit that cannot hit planes
A sub can stiller never block, a destroyer is required to block a sub (OOB)

This adds some flavor to subs, while buffing them slightly
I do not believe it is overly complex, but obviously my opinion could be biased in this case

What do you think ?

@Cmdr:

was not. :P  I never agreed that was best! lol.

I’m still kinda holding out hope for different abilities instead of lowered prices (maybe different abilities and increased prices…) But I’ve always been fond of naval conflict!

I still feel that no naval ship should cost an odd number of IPC.

I was speaking of the other thread.
And i agree about the odd numbers,

Analyze it anyway you choose
SS 7
DD 8
CA 10
CV 16
BB 18

Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
They require no other change to OOB rules.

Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports)

SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphib support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hit

The actuall DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition
And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare aswell

These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron aswell as myself

Any updates on the success/failure of this?

Really looks like a fun game, …95$ you get the game + more pieces who could resist that?

Star wars Darth Bane, just the first one. Baddass read

Also i loved the entire Dark Lord trilogy (Labyrinth of Evil, Revenge of the Sith, Rise of Darth Vader) By Matt Stover and James Luceno
A really amazing series that details the real story of Star Wars.
Probably the most well written of any novels in the star wars universe.

@ABWorsham:

I read the Star Wars Darth Plagueis Novel.

This is a good one aswell, gives you much insight into Darth Sidious who is basically the culmination of 1000 years of Sith growth that started with Darth Bane

I agreed with both Kion and you mr Roboto. And respected both of your opinions as they are insightful.

You pointed out a lot of things aswell did Kion,
However both Kion and I agreed (unless I am completely mistaken) on what are the best prices regarding gameplay/balance
And he used the math you speak on to prove it
We did initially disagree on carriers, but he was right to leave them at 16

The thread however was hijacked by red harvest

Yes deleting the entire thread was probably rash, I should have just ignored the run away train that the thread was turning into., and to Kion and baron m I apologize. Both had some very insightful posts

Maybe a mod can restore it

It was unilaterally agreed upon that 7,8,10,16,18 are the best prices for gameplay purposes.
The method was argued however, but the method produced near perfect results.
Regardless the end result was agreed upon, through various means.

Red I do find it amusing how much time you spent in that thread and this new thread trying to insult me, or whatever your trying to do.

We should both just move on from this incident.
Start a new thread discussing how many of which ship type each nation produced at what point in the war. Then make a stop motion movie of an A&A game being played out exactly how the war went.

Since were all talking about G39…
Does anyone know if there is a simplified version of G39?
I have the latest map, it’s beautiful. But a little too complex and too many outside pieces required.
To me G40 is a great ruleset.

I would love to play a version that is G40 style with 39 setup on the 39 map.
It would also be much more appealing to new players.

Need time to cool off…

Agreed.
Maybe a little rash on my part, but as I said, I mentioned 3 times over a period of 2 days that it was going way off course, and was beginning to devolve. I was curtly rebuffed.
I even suggested the off topic be moved, instead of hijacking the thread, and was ignored.
I’d rather delete the thread than have it completely hijacked. Just the American in me I suppose ;)
It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
The method was really the only thing even debated other than carriers (15 or 16).

@Cmdr:

I’d rather see submarines @8 and if they are alone in a sea zone, then destroyers need to roll a hit to “find” the submarines first, then roll to kill them.  That way you don’t automatically just “block” them from running away.

Considering you added evasion to transports, I don’t think this is overly complicated or difficult to implement.

You want to increase cost of every ship?
Or just sub to 8? With increased dice values im assuming?

leaving stats other than cost OOB, here are a couple sets that are pretty balanced:
SS 7, DD 8, CA 10, CV 16, BB 18
SS 8, DD 9, CA 11, CV 17, BB 19
SS 9, DD 10, CA 12, CV 18, BB 20

But the first one is both more balanced and closer to OOB, less game changing. And i think most would prefer lower costs over higher costs for naval units.

destroyers countering subs on a 1:1 bases i think would create either a sub/destroyer spam or OP subs, neither of which is good for the game.
rolling dice to detect subs is also a little more of a ‘tactical component’, i have played with it before back when i played revised alot, and it just felt out of whack for a grand strategic game, and again it gives more power to submarines, which at 7 IPCs are still the best offensive naval unit in the game.

I posted 3 different times that it was off topic, over a 2 day period.
I also mentioned that i had no interest in a history simulator, or history reenactment and that a history discussion belonged in another thread…

It sounds to me you are the one throwing the ‘temper tantrum’ as you say…

but…whatever makes you feel better ;)

With all the complaints they are getting they’ll prob just scrap 1914 altogether
Though it is a direct result of WOTC being cheap and lazy…clearly wasn’t play tested well and severely skimped on pieces

I do not think it is playable as is, as by round 3 your about out of several different prices, by round 5 the fun is almost completely sucked out by running out of several different types of pieces constantly

The thread had gone severely off topic, for several pages.
Maybe next time you start a new thread instead of hijacking someone else’s.
I asked politely for exactly that, to no avail.

Oh well…