ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Sea Based

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:34 am

Comment noted
Thank you Lobo
//////

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Re: ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Sea Based

Post by adlertag » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:38 pm

larry wrote:Sea based:
Unit US Japan UK Germany Soviets
DD 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 4/4
Crus. 6/6 6/6 6/6 6/5 5/6
BB 7/7 8/6 7/6 7/5 6/6
CV 3/5 3/5 3/5 2/5 2/5
When judging a warships combat value, 3 factors are desecive:

1. Firepower
2. Protection
3. Range

An 8 ipc Destroyer are almost as strong as a 24 ipc Battleship. This is very ahistorical, indeed. Playability ? The A&A unit represent a variety of ships ?

OK, the combat value of a Task Force depends on 3 factors:

1.Fighting power
2. Combat persistence
3. Range

In this setting, a Battleline with Destroyer escort still should be much stronger than a Destroyer squadron with a Cruiser leader.

Battleships must roll dice in opening fire step.
If you make this fix, the numbers and cost are OK.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:57 pm

yes destroyers are too powerful. if a destroyer costs 8 IP, a cruiser should be at 12 IP and battleships at 20 IP,subs at 6 IP, transports at 8 IP

Values:
DD= 3/3 move 2
CA= 6/6 move 3
BB=8/8 move 2, two hits, preemtive fire
CV=2/4 move 3, two hits
SS= 2/2 move 1
Tranny= 0/1 move 2, load two units(any type), or three infantry to friendly territorys.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

oddman
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:48 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by oddman » Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:17 am

Larry wrote:Comments noted
I'm hearing you. (Keep it simple stupid) I'm leaning towards keeping it simple stupid. this would negate the need for D10 or D12 dice.
What say you?
I am all up for this. The differences between units are enough as is; national differentiation just makes it a (prickly) balance issue.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:43 pm

AS you may well know about every wargame ever made has nation specific unit values. The reason why this is so is because each nation did have in fact different types of quality equipment/ training of which a symbolic value was given to the playing pieces. If this advanced game is to have any chance to thrive into the wargame camp it has to have some attributes that establish it as a wargame. So as they say we are reaching out with an olive branch to people who write off axis and allies as another Toys R us game next to Attack! We enlarge its overall appeal with a model that give real historical credibility AND at the same time being a fast, fun game. We can accomplish these goals ...that much im confident in overall victory.
Just look at the project as making a new type of wargame that uses not counters, but actual playing pieces which combines Miniature class games with traditional hex and counter games, but with some basic wargame rules. What it must not be is another "introductory game" with mono rules and the same basic concepts that we allready know. keeping it "Simple" is not good enough this time..
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:10 pm

Larry Increasing D size doesn't necessarily make it more complex, but it allows you the ability to make more unit modifications... I agree with IL, this is an advanced game. It isn't a grognard concocction which your ruleset has to this point not implied.

keep it up...

GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:33 pm

Thanks for your support. I wish i could convince old soldier of it and perhaps i will.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:01 am

Larry wrote:You're making some great points. Let me digest this.
I’m interested in knowing how other react to the two systems. Is one more interesting and not intimidating or confusing.
Great work!
I go for nation specific combat values.
All history books I read claim German inf to be better than Russian, and I would like to see this in a game.

Same values but different cost sucks.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests