Posts made by Mr Andersson

What about:

Rocket Artillery
Your AA-Guns can conduct rocket bombardment attacks prior to land combat. This special attack is made immediately before normal combat occurs in the territory under attack and require that one of your AA-Gun is moved into the territory under attack during the Combat Move phase. Your AA-Guns can only fire at defending infantry units and only during the first round of combat. Roll one die for each defending infantry unit. On a roll of 1, that infantry unit is destroyed and immediately removed from the game without any ability to counterattack any attacking units.

Is it a better tech than Advanced Artillery, anyone? Or do you find it balanced at all, good or bad?

@Imperious:

…Im looking at AA50 rules which is the most standard game at this point. Under these rules you pay just 5 IPC and each turn you get a free roll for technology, when the tech is finally achieved the researchers go away…

According to AA50 rules the math says the following:

If one choose to role one die each turn the tech will on average cost 15 IPCs and take 3 turns to develop
If one choose to role two dice each turn the tech will on average cost 20 IPCs and take 2 turns to develop
If one choose to role three dice each turn the tech will on average cost 22.5 IPCs and take 1.5 turns to develop

I like the semantic of yours for cruisers. I will think about the advanced cruiser tech compared to fast capitals.

@Imperious:

…Also, each researcher invested keeps rolling so your not spending 30 IPC to get a technology. On average spending just 5 IPCs will generate a 50 % chance of getting a technology after 3 turns, so its hardly a valid point to make about “the math” making the second candidate a useless technology.

About the math I was wrong, it is 15 IPCs on average. I was stuck in the old days, sorry. This means that I will need to change me techs, any suggestions?

@Imperious:

Your post does not answer the question.

If these cruisers you propose with the new technology as a 4-4 unit moving 3  VS:

A Cruiser with ASW capabilities , a 4-3 unit that moves 3 spaces and can allocate its remaining movement after combat gives this second choice enough glitz to make technology investment worthwhile.

If i had a choice i would easily take the second choice. It offers greater utility to the cruiser.

I would choose the same as you here, but the ASW capability is not the purpose for battlecruisers. I like the special NCM ability, as I told you before.

@Imperious:

…The Battleship moving three represents that they also have long range as well as speed. They do not have long range, rather this is a trait of cruisers and possible carriers. Battleships suck up too much fuel to patrol the distance of 3 sea zones unless they carry tankers and that never happens when they are in battle because tankers move very slow and if the tanker is sunk the Battleship is helpless in the middle of the ocean. Also, warships need to move a high rate of speed when in battle and suck up fuel even worse.

Cruiser by definition of their name ‘cruise’ long distances and have a much lighter frame that allows them to move fast and carriers are mostly build on a cruiser hull template.

IN the game having 3 ships out or 5 moving 3 is not balanced and reduces the value of the other two ships.

Range and speed is not the same thing. I agree with you here and has acted accordingly…

By the way, when it comes to tech the hole idea is to make a unit more valuable and hence reduce the value of other units.

@Imperious:

How does the “math” apply here considering this is technology? Technology introduces a new advantage so how does the math favor a 4-4 unit and not a 4-3 unit?

Math is game balance. I has always been the one of us talking about balance when you talk about history, this will be fun. The thing is that Tech is math as well, even if the dude that designed this game has not not realized it yet! On average one spend 30 IPCs to develop a tech and there is a rsik premium as well, since one can not choose the tech you want. So the reward one are looking for to put IPCs on R&D is actually higher than 30 IPCs, depending on how many of the techs that will be valuable for the player. This is the basics. If there are lousy techs the riskpremium gets higher. Lets say Russia only want four out of six techs since the other two are more or less wothless to him. The payback the Russian player would be looking for to develop tech would be 40 IPCs (30 IPCs plus 2/6 times 30 IPCs).

There are three factors that will count for techs and those are; attack, defens and special abilities like movement and hits etc. The easiest way to find out if a tech is balanced is to compare the cost of the new tech and see if will be costeffective in attack and defens capability. And then look at any special abilities that will be of any strategic value and try to put a price on that. This will be different from time to time dependant on the mix of your and your enemies force. But the bottom line is that a tech should be worth persuing and that is at least 30 IPCs of investing instead of purchasing normal units for the IPCs.

Talking about game breakers and tech, you self advocate a A-Bomb tech. One could argument that such a super tech would compensate for lousy techs on the breakthrough charts. Fair enough, but I think that the R&D is risky as it is and does not need to be more of a gambling, but rather more strategic. I think it would be better to have different charts for land, air and sea. This would reduce the riskpremium I talked about before. More over I think that any tech should not be a definitive game breaker. One should stay with the back bone of the game, and that is that it must always be cheaper to defend than to attack. No unit shall be better than an infantry in defens. Ok, must stop there.

@Imperious:

…ok make it a 4-3 unit because the armor we still like a cruiser…not a 4-4 unit, but a 4-3 unit moving 3.

Also, allow it to use any remaining movement points it has left after combat to move the balance after combat…to simulate the idea that it gets away after it sinks…

example: the BC moves one space and sinks a cruiser, then moves 2 more spaces in NCM away to avoid getting attacked by the enemy …this make is a good surface raider.

I don´t like the 4-3 idea because it still only takes a singel hit to destroy a cruiser and the tech will hardly be worth persuing at 4-3. Bottomline is that your idea is not balanced, do the math. However I like your idea of special movement in NCM. How about this variant:

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat, any of your surviving cruisers in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.

However I still like the tech Fast Capital Ships more than Battlecruisers!  :wink:

@Imperious:

Anti-Submarine Warfare NEW
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

i would add that cruisers are ASW units as well. Also the ASW units only cancel out the subs first strike at a 1:1 basis.

I am not in favor of ‘fast battleships’ , but only cruisers and carriers. Leave DD and BB as 2 movers.

Ok, I will think about the addion of cruisers for the ASW. It might be good. But your comment on BBs for Fast Capital Ships is worthless if you don´t give a good argument for your stand point. I did gave a strong reson to why BBs should be included i the text above, for historical resons! Moreover it is a more balanced tech if one can bring in BBs to soak up hits.

@WILD:

… I personally like Keeping air/sea together.

Why  keeping air/sea together?

@WILD:

I would like to see some kind of AA ability for the three capital ships. Only one would get a shot @ 1 per sz (fleet), similar to AA guns.

I had a tech named Naval Antiair before a so callad AA Cruiser with a AA ability, but it is simply not worth persuing. Remeber that it costs 30 IPCs to develop a tech on average! I would take one BB and a FTR for those IPCs any time. More over in World War II, pure naval firepower didn’t mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

I think about a variant of ASW (anti-submarine warfare) for planes as the fifth naval tech.

Anti-Submarine Warfare
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

One variant of Fast Capital Ships that would be historical correct is:

Fast Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers, cruisers and battleships are now faster and have a move of 3.

This might be a better tech than Battlecruisers, what do you think?

Battlecruisers
Your cruisers are now battlecruisers. Your cruisers defend and attack on a 4. They also have a move of 3.

@Imperious:

…I might make this move 3 cruiser under the Battlecruisers tech because these also represent pocket battleships which would appear out of nowhere, sink a lonely ship and then hide before a cruiser group could catch it. I would not make the BC a 4 attack unit.

The battlecruiser is a ship as large as a battleship, with the big guns of a battleship, and the sea speed of the fleetest cruiser, but with considerably less armor than a battleship. They were to revolutionize cruiser design. After this new type of capital ship came into service all previous armored cruisers were instantly obsolete.

They would scout for the battle fleet (in which role they could brush aside the armored cruisers that the enemy customarily deployed to foil such scouts), they could equally prevent enemy scout cruisers from approaching the battle fleet. They could chase and dispatch “cripples” after a battle. They would also be tremendously useful in running down and destroying enemy commerce raiders on the high seas.

From the beginning, battlecruisers had their detractors. They were criticized for being too big, too expensive, and too lightly armored. They were called “white elephants” and “deviates”. But when the Germans, and later the Japanese, started laying down improved (and much better protected) versions in response to the British battlecruisers, the type was clearly here to stay. Except for the pure battlecruiser there are other battlecruiser-style ships, sometimes called “super cruisers,” “large cruisers” or “pocket battleships”.

The first battlecruisers (the Invincibles) were contemporary to the Dreadnought, the first modern battleship; the last battlecruisers (the Alaskas) were contemporaries of the last battleships, the Iowas. As the improved battlecruisers got bigger and better protected, the improved Dreadnoughts got bigger and faster, until finally the two types merged into the third generation fast battleships of World War II. Ships so large that they could combine the heavy armor of battleships, and the speed of battlecruisers, in the same hull.

So Impy, why not attack and defend on 4 as well as as a move of 3. What is your suggestion to make battlecruisers worth pursuing?

@Gargantua:

You guys think that stuff is cool?  I created an Empire builders version…

… But anyways.  I thought I would share a few of the Excellent techs/abilites we developed.

Thank you, but no thank you! Too much ganja  :mrgreen: in those techs, hence no reality and game balance. Not cool enough for me. Come up with a balanced and historical tech for navy and I will be very  :-D

@Emperor_Taiki:

6. Heavy Armor
Tanks defend at four

6. Dive Bombers
On a roll of 1, Fighters chooses what opposing unit is taken as a causaulty

Well, I don’t like Dive Bombers at all. However Heavy Armor is more historical correct than Mechanized Infantry as a development, but Heavy Armor is a game breaker with a defence roll of 4 or less. A 4 in defense make amor a better piece than infantry in every aspect, armor will simply dominate infantry. That is why I prefer Mech Inf.

When it comes to your number “6”. I deliberately left this number because I want the player to choose any technology/development of her/his choice on a roll of 6, from the prespecified breakthrough chart.

What about this one?

Superior Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers and cruisers are now upgraded. Your aircraft carriers requires two hits to destroy, and your cruisers defend and attack on a 4.

or this one?

Fast Capital Ships
Your aircraft carriers and cruisers range increases to 3. When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is also increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leave from and end up in the same sea zone.

@Imperious:

Super Carriers
Your aircraft carriers are now super carriers and requires two hits to destroy, just like battleships.They also can now carry 3 fighters.

id make this change on these.

Done, and you are so right. If you are going to use a lot of carriers, this can now be worth researching. However this tech is generally not worth pursuing if you don’t already have at least three carriers and want a better alternative to buy another two. A fully loaded carrier cost 34 IPCs about the same as one would need to spend on average (30 IPCs) to develop supercarriers. Remember that a two hit supercarrier and three fighters is more versatile than a carrier and two fighters due to its the ability to hit ground targets with the fighters and soak up hits with the hull of the supercarrier.

However I do also think that supercarriers should be able to roll two dice each in defens and attack, see stats below. A fourth supercarrier will definitely make supercarriers worth pursuing. Supercarriers along with a destroyer will be the ultimate naval defense. The cost of supercarrier tech (about 30 IPCs) plus one destroyer (8 IPCs) plus three fighters (30 IPCs), if one already has three fully loaded carriers, is the same as the cost for two new fully loaded regular carriers (28+40 IPCs).

Loaded Carrier (regular)

5 CA + 10 FTR (14 IPCs/CA & 10 IPCs/FTR)

Cost: 514+ 1010 = 160 IPCs
Att: 15+310 = 35
Def: 25+410 = 50
Hits = 15

Loaded Super Carrier (regular)
3 CA + 9 FTR (14 IPCs/CA & 10 IPCs/FTR)

Cost: 30+314+910 = 162 IPCs (extra cost of 30 for R&D + 30 IPCs for 3 FTR if one already have 3 CA)
Att: 132+39 = 33
Def: 232+49 = 48
Hits = 15 (3 “soak up” hits)

@Imperious:

…Id like to use that for land as well.

Well, the rule is not just for naval battles. It is for both naval and land! I wrote this rule for like five years ago. At that moment noone was talking about air supremacy, now it is common. Nice to see! Remember that the rule does not say that fighters hit figheters first or anything about dogfights.

The issue is control of the air

In World War II, pure naval firepower didn’t mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

Moreover, the Allies won battlefield air supremacy in the Pacific in 1943, and in Europe in 1944. That meant that Allied supplies and reinforcements would get through to the battlefront, but not the enemy’s. It meant that the Allies air power could support land forces in their immediate combat, as a form of “flying artillery”. In Europe the Allied fighter-bombers seemed everywhere, and it was difficult for the Germans to move in daylight. Close airsupport might attack the tank or artillery piece that is actively attacking friendly troops.

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.

This topic is about to collect all good ideas about techs. I will update and expand this list according to any good ideas!

BREAKTHROUGH CHART LAND & ECONOMIC - Defensive

1. Heavy Artillery NEW
Your artillery defends on a 3 or less.

2. Heavy Tanks NEW
Every third tank you have in each combat cycle, attack or defend on a 4.

3. War Economy
During your Collect Income phase, roll one die and collect that many additional IPC’s.

4. Military Conscription NEW
During your Mobilize New Units phase, you place one of your infantry for free in addition to the group of units you just purchased. This infantry unit may be placed in any territory you have controlled since the start of your turn.

5. Radar
Your antiaircraft guns hit air units on a roll of 2 or less.

BREAKTHROUGH CHART  AIR UNITS

1. Paratroopers
Each of your bombers can act as a transport for one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters, ending its combat movement. Both units must begin their movement in the same territory. The infantry is dropped after any antiaircraft fire is resolved, so if the bomber is hit, the infantry it carries is also destroyed. The bomber may still attack during the Conduct Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic bombing run in a turn that it transports an infantry unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.

2. Jet Fighters NEW
Your fighters are now immune to aniaircraft fire and fire in the opening fire step, whether on attack or defense. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counterattack.

3. Long-Range Aircraft
Your fighters are now long-range fighters, and your bombers are now long-range bombers. Your fighters’ and bombers’ range increases to 6 and 8 respectively.

4. Heavy Bombers
Your bombers are now heavy bombers. You roll two dice for each bomber when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid. On defense, your bombers still roll only a single die.

5. Rockets
Your antiaircraft guns are now rocket launchers. In addition to its normal combat function, during the strategic bombing raid step of your Conduct Combat phase, each of your antiaircraft guns can make a single rocket attack against an enemy industrial complex within 3 spaces of it. In each turn, only one antiaircraft gun per territory may launch rockets, and each industrial complex can be attacked by only one rocket launcher.This attack does 1d6 damage to that complex.

BREAKTHROUGH CHART SEA UNITS

1. Super Submarines
Your submarines are now super submarines. The attack value of your submarines is now 3 instead of 2. The defense value of your submarines remains at 1.

2. Anti-Submarine Warfare NEW
Your aircraft may now attack enemy submarines and cancels the Surprise Strike of enemy submarines.

3. Improved Shipyards
Your sea units are now cheaper to build. Cost reductions are just like the box rules.

4. Super Carriers NEW
Your aircraft carriers are now super carriers. They can carry up to three fighters and requires two hits to destroy, just like battleships.

5. Fast Capital Ships NEW
Your aircraft carriers and cruisers are now faster and have a move of 3.

I still think that my rule is more balanced and playable; fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat. I have not seen any better rule for this yet. :?

Defender should always be able to pick is casualties in order to get more strategy in the game, i.e. be able to use cannon fodder. For you who have not red my article about Tacitcs, se below.

TACTICS

Tactics are an art, not a science. There’s no way to absolutely quantify them, no way to define secret formulas for victory. There are rules a good tactician follows, but they aren’t absolutely binding. The ‘secret’ to winning lies not in trying to manipulate the enemy, but in creating general situations in which you know the available menu of maneuvers and the balance of firepower will favor your force.

Superior Combat Power
If one add up the combat capability rating and divide by 6 you get an average number of hits that force will inflict on a round.
Mixed Force
A force of mixed combat capability will gain advantage after each side takes a casualty since it reduces their combat power by a smaller amount. If one attack a territory defended by a better mixed force, one will need a larger initial advantage.
Cannon Fodder
If one can take casualties in cheap units while the enemy has to take casualties in expensive units, one will come out ahead.