Enhanced 2.0: 2nd thoughts on the 1/2 Carrier...

[cousin_joe]

When the 1/2 Carrier idea initially surfaced, I wasn't all for it. This was prior to the Enhanced 2.0 Naval Combat Changes, when DDs were 12IPC and BBs were 24IPC, and SUBs remained pretty vulnerable.

When Enhanced 2.0 came out, most of the other naval units (SUBs, DDs, BBs) got either increased capabilities, or decreased costs (and in some cases both). At the same time though, ACs became significantly weakened, going from 1/3 units to 1/2, with only a slight price reduction (16IPC to 15IPC). Part of this was to A. help alleviate stacking, and B. to get some focus on other units besides ACs and TRNs.

A. The new SUBs really help make Naval Combat a lot more fluid. 1. They can attack and defend vs. fleets with either 0 or 1 DD with a good chance of escape. 2. With FTRs unable to attack lone SUBs by themselves, the defender is more likely to separate his SUBs from the fleet. 3. Also, to attack the lone SUBs, FTRs need a naval escort, and so an attacking player is also more likely to split up his fleets.

Stacking will always be a part of the game to some degree, but the new Naval Combat Rules do enough to limit it in other ways. A single defensive pip on the AC will do little to change stacking, and is actually bad in other ways.

B. It would appear now that with much less vulnerable SUBs, much more critical DDs, and even cheaper BBs, that ACs are now the ones that are overpriced or underpowered. What I'm seeing, is that DDs have become a much superior purchase compared to ACs (Had a playrest today, and DDs were obviously the better choice). This is not right, as we all know how important ACs were in WWII.:(

Consider the following:
1DD = 10IPC, gives you a 3/3 unit
1AC = 15IPC, gives you a 1/2 unit, more expensive, yet weaker

3DD = 30IPC, gives you a 9/9 force
1AC + 2FTR = 35IPC, gives you a 7/10 force, more expensive, yet weaker

Also, consider this:
To counter an AC/FTR heavy navy, purchase SUBs
To counter a SUB heavy navy, purchase DD
To counter a DD heavy navy, purchase more DDs than your opponent??? :confused:

This isn't right, the correct counter should be to purchase AC/FTR. An AC/FTR combo will outdefend the DDs. On offense, you can bring in extra FTRs to actually give you even more attacking power (2FTR leave AC and land somewhere else, 2 different FTR leave from somewhere else and land on AC). To reinforce this counter, ACs need a little mroe Defense.

Also, when choosing OOL:

The AC will usually be chosen before the DD on defense as it only defends on a 2, yet costs 50% more. The AC is an important ship, and seeing this offends my historic sensibilities (which yes, I do have, although strategy is always number one with me :D )

Keep changes as few as possible:

The 1/2 AC is just one more change to remember, and it's a lot more radical as it's an actual unit attribute change, something I'd lean towards not going with.

Bottom Line:
-The initial reasons to change ACs (reduce stacking, get more SUBs,DDs,BBs purchased) have been alleviated with the new Naval Combat Rules. (I do not buy the history-based argument that 3 is too strong defensively, as there would be escorting naval units, along with a defending FTR force not large enough to be represented by a FTR piece, but that would remain attached to the AC)
-SUBs,DDs,BBs have improved, but ACs have significantly weakened. DD is now too strong, and AC/FTR combo should be relatively strengthened to counter. This restores the SUB > AC/FTR, AC/FTR > DD, DD>SUB counter triangle.

I know some may oppose this, but balance is of the utmost priority with Enhanced, and these are the reasons why I am proposing to return the Aircraft Carrier to a 1/3 Unit. Have I convinced you?:)

[axis_roll]

It would be one less rule that changes the base game rules

[cousin_joe]

It would be one less rule that changes the base game rules
Yes axis_roll, precisely. :D

It's not so bad in FTF, but it's kind of annoying in PBEM. You're sky-high when you think you get the hit with the AC, and suddenly you crash back down to earth when you are painfully reminded it only defends on a 2. :(

The less of these little things to remember, the better. That's why Battle of the Bulge got eliminated for v2.0.

[Stephen]

I'm in the middle of a game now, and I'm really liking the 1/2 AC. I say keep it.

Concerning the cost difference between 3 DDs and a loaded AC, remember that the 3 naval powers (and even Germany) start the game with fighters that can be placed on purchased ACs. For instance:

Germany has 6 fighters to put on an AC;
UK has 2 in the Atlantic;
Japan has 6 fighters (2, if you discount the 2 ACs/4 ftrs she starts with);
US has 3. (assuming the Hw fleet is lost J1)

So the direct calculation of DD to loaded AC is not as important, IMO, as the consideration of, if I buy a DD or AC, what defensive value will I get from it? Many times, buying an AC gets added defense that's already on the board. A 15 IPC AC will get only slightly less defensive pips compared to 3 DDs costing 36 IPCs.

Second, concerning newly purchased fighters+AC, they have the ability to be transfered to land combat, and remain very useful. DDs, once the seas are clear, lack this important capability.

Finally, I've also seen more DDs purchased than ACs, but, DDs will be bought more with the new naval rules (DDs are now needed to counter subs, leading to an increase in their purchase). ACs will continue to be bought by those who most need them (Germany will still likely continue to buy its AC, the US can island hop mush more easily with an AC, the UK is stronger with a first round AC) or be used from the start of the game (Japan may not need to purchase any additional ACs). Those who need them will get them, while those who have enough are set.

As one of the original proponents of the 1/2 AC, I think it should stay. When the change was first discussed, it was 1/2/16 in relation to the old prices, so if the general consensus is that it is not good value anymore, then consider a further price reduction. DDs and BBs dropped by 16.6% each, whereas the AC price was dropped by 6.3%, and weakened. Maybe players now, on the issue of cost, would vote differently?

Having said that, the one area that could change my mind is with the increased power of subs on attack. I haven't gotten into my game enough yet to know whether subs on attack will tip the balance too heavily in favour of the attack. But for now, most units are already superior on the defense and I'm still happy with the 1/2 AC. After my playtest (which could take a loooong time as we get used to the rules) I'll be better suited to speak from experience.

[pagan]

-I have always liked the 1/2 aspect for a carrier. However, that was for A&A. There were no mid ranged DDs in that game.

-Money wise players will own mass DD naval forces unless the AC is more worthwhile (1/3) OR probably better drop the DD power down a notch to 3/2.

-The DD (3/2) in this case would be purchased after the AC presence. A single one still offers the benefits vs subs, but on attack is where they gain their plusses.

-If this modification of -1 point for the AC+DD is a better game design then cool, but if its only a cosmetic ***-for-tat then why change.

-Defending capability of a naval force should reside in its airforce. A carrier without an airforce SHOULD BE an easy kill.

-With the ability to instantly load a carrier with aircraft, reduces the liability of a carrier build.

-A carrier is a better buy with regards to taking land areas + naval defense. DDs require a Tech to help out on an amphib.

These are just my comments for you to peruse.

[series]

I think a 1/1 carrier is good. But 1/3 is better. HOWEVER, I think 1/3 should cost more, like 18.

[Lt M Cotten]

I prefer the idea of a 1/2 AC as well.

Have you considered using the 2/2 8IPC destroyer like in Iron Blitz? That may help to restore the power of the AC.

[DocD]

You know, I some how felt you were going to go back and try and do something with that 1/2 AC Cj. I knew it!!!!

You have a special place in your heart for ACs don't you??!! Admit it!! It must have just killed you to even give the 1/2 AC a try..didn't it??!! Admit it!!
You DISGUST ME!!! :(

Now that I'm done exposing you for your vile attack upon the beloved 1/2 AC....let me explain what has changed in the world of v2.0.

Everything!!! And brotha it is all good!!!

1)Historically, A/Cs were not the powerhouses you fell in love with in the ole MB version. But it was understood that "those" ACs had accompanying ships with them that added to their defensive capabilities. And who could argue, there were no DDs around in those days so everything was cool.
Now, with the advent of the powerful DD, how can anybody believe that the AC still comes with its inherent task force and such. Certainly not I!

From a historical point, the AC is right when it is placed at 2 on defense. It needs fleet protection. Always have, always will, and nothing is more historical than that.

2)A 3 DD or a 2 AC, my, my which should I pick?? Guess what, that improves the game not lessens it! I can honestly say, I've chosen both on different occasions and that "enhances" the game I don't care what anybody says. Having to choose a piece (as opposed to picking one) is much more fun and gives the player a sense of worth. "Did I make a good choice? Did I make the right choice? Can I trust my AC to get a hit on the next round if I sink this DD first?" These are the questions players should be forced to have to make. Not sink DD, sink DD, sink DD, sink DD!

3)This feeling of people buying more DDs isn't a ghost over your shoulder. It's real and sooo what!! That's what we all wanted. Subs are running rampant...fleets need protecting....hell we need more DDs...and the cheapness don't hurt none either.
They provide the fleet with great protection and that's the way it should be. People will be buying DDs at this price regardless of the defensive pip of ACs...(unless you place the AC defensive pip at 5 I imagine).

DD purchases are not displacing AC purchases if that's what you are worried about. The US and Japan are continuing to buy ACs regardless.
Why? Nothing beats the versatility of fighters. Navys will always need their fighters and therefore ACs will continue to see their regular purchases. Before, people were buying a few ACs and very few DDs, now people are buying a few ACs and more DDs. Increasing the AC defense back to 3 will still give you steady numbers of ACs. Nobody is going to say, alright...now I'm going to buy 5 ACs next game!!...Yippe!! thanks Joe!!!

4)Now....if you are thinking the price of the AC is a bit much....I tend to agree with you. And from the looks of it, so do alot of others. This is where the change should come. Do I know the perfect price for the AC...not really, I would say 12 or 13 would be about right.

Hell, I would be for raising the price on DDs if it's that 30-ipcs-of-DDs purchase that is what is nagging you!!.

Just don't mess with the 1/2 AC!! PLEASE!! I ain't preaching!! I'm just begging.....sob, sob...:(

[Defiance]

I tend to find this a difficult issue... and I think both "sides" here have good reasons to have either a 1/3 carrier or a 1/2 carrier.

I think it might be best to keep the 1/2 carrier, seeing it on it's own: it's a sitting duck without any fighters on it, so why come defense of 3? A carrier on it's own is an easy target for Subs, so reflect that in the sense of defense value.

Thing is, is that I understand your arguments Cousin Joe, although maybe a solution would be lowering the cost to purchase the Carrier by 1 ICP to get a 14 IPC 1/2 carrier? I'd favor that change.... In general I think naval units were overpriced in relation to ground forces. Lowering costs is in my opinion also better to get more naval interaction in general.

just my 2 cents....

[cousin_joe]

I'm in the middle of a game now, and I'm really liking the 1/2 AC. I say keep it.

[QUOTE]
Concerning the cost difference between 3 DDs and a loaded AC, remember that the 3 naval powers (and even Germany) start the game with fighters that can be placed on purchased ACs. For instance:

Germany has 6 fighters to put on an AC;
UK has 2 in the Atlantic;
Japan has 6 fighters (2, if you discount the 2 ACs/4 ftrs she starts with);
US has 3. (assuming the Hw fleet is lost J1)

So the direct calculation of DD to loaded AC is not as important, IMO, as the consideration of, if I buy a DD or AC, what defensive value will I get from it? Many times, buying an AC gets added defense that's already on the board. A 15 IPC AC will get only slightly less defensive pips compared to 3 DDs costing 30 IPCs (corrected).

Very good point Stephen. Putting down 15IPC gets you a 7/10 sea capability (up to 13/10 using FTR switch technique), whereas yes, it would cost 30IPC to get something similar for the DD.


Second, concerning newly purchased fighters+AC, they have the ability to be transfered to land combat, and remain very useful. DDs, once the seas are clear, lack this important capability.


You can research Combined Arms for 16-24 IPC and get Bombardment at 3 for your DDs but yes, the AC/FTR combo is genreally more useful if switching to a land campaign because of the FTRs verstility.


Finally, I've also seen more DDs purchased than ACs, but, DDs will be bought more with the new naval rules (DDs are now needed to counter subs, leading to an increase in their purchase). ACs will continue to be bought by those who most need them (Germany will still likely continue to buy its AC, the US can island hop mush more easily with an AC, the UK is stronger with a first round AC) or be used from the start of the game (Japan may not need to purchase any additional ACs). Those who need them will get them, while those who have enough are set.

Good point. Can't argue with you there :) Also, if Allies are building too many DDs, that means less TRN,INF,FTRs which is good for the Axis.


As one of the original proponents of the 1/2 AC, I think it should stay. When the change was first discussed, it was 1/2/16 in relation to the old prices, so if the general consensus is that it is not good value anymore, then consider a further price reduction. DDs and BBs dropped by 16.6% each, whereas the AC price was dropped by 6.3%, and weakened. Maybe players now, on the issue of cost, would vote differently?

Having said that, the one area that could change my mind is with the increased power of subs on attack. I haven't gotten into my game enough yet to know whether subs on attack will tip the balance too heavily in favour of the attack. But for now, most units are already superior on the defense and I'm still happy with the 1/2 AC. After my playtest (which could take a loooong time as we get used to the rules) I'll be better suited to speak from experience.
Thanks for your input here Stephen. Very good analysis. I do agree that the 1/2 AC is undepowered or overpriced.The suggestion to reduce price is a good one, and I will consider it. Thanks. :)

[cousin_joe]

-I have always liked the 1/2 aspect for a carrier. However, that was for A&A. There were no mid ranged DDs in that game.

-Money wise players will own mass DD naval forces unless the AC is more worthwhile (1/3) OR probably better drop the DD power down a notch to 3/2.

-The DD (3/2) in this case would be purchased after the AC presence. A single one still offers the benefits vs subs, but on attack is where they gain their plusses.

-If this modification of -1 point for the AC+DD is a better game design then cool, but if its only a cosmetic ***-for-tat then why change.

-Defending capability of a naval force should reside in its airforce. A carrier without an airforce SHOULD BE an easy kill.

-With the ability to instantly load a carrier with aircraft, reduces the liability of a carrier build.

-A carrier is a better buy with regards to taking land areas + naval defense. DDs require a Tech to help out on an amphib.

These are just my comments for you to peruse.
Thanks pagan. Again, some good points to reinforce the 1/2 AC. I fully agree with what you said about defensive capability residing with the air force.

As far as DDs, I think we will see a lot more of them. The strategic implication is massing too many DDs is gonna hurt your ground game. I'm a bit hesitant about the 3/2 DDs because it will weaken Navy more in relation to Air, but I fully agree with you that the AC has to be a bit more worthwhile. I'm thinking price reduction again here.

[Lt M Cotten]

From a historical point, the AC is right when it is placed at 2 on defense. It needs fleet protection. Always have, always will, and nothing is more historical than that. Just don't mess with the 1/2 AC!! PLEASE!! (

Well DocD, you may call me INSANE but we are on the same side here!!! :D

[DocD]

Well DocD, you may call me INSANE but we are on the same side here!!! :D
Yeah cotten, I guess you are just plain crazy and not really insane, and I'm glad to see we agree on this one.

I would still be very nervous if left alone in the same room with you though.....YOU CRAZIE!!!:D

[Lt M Cotten]

Yeah cotten, I guess you are just plain crazy and not really insane, and I'm glad to see we agree on this one.

I would still be very nervous if left alone in the same room with you though.....YOU CRAZIE!!!:D

You know, many times genius is mistaken for insanity, as the genuis sees beyond what mere mortals can comprehend... :D

[davion76]

Have you thought about changing the die from a 6 sided to a 12 sided? This would allow for much more subtle changes in units for balancing purposes as well as tech improvements. The conversion would be very simple, just double any of the current attack/defence numbers. For the quandry of the A/C, you could simply set it at "5" (halfway between the old 2 and 3).

[Lt M Cotten]

Although the idea itself is not bad, most of use have many, many 6-sided, and some may not have any or even want to buy a bunch of 12s...

[davion76]

Yeah, people might not have many/any 12's, but for anyone who REALLY like A&A, who bought the old version and the new version, AAE and AAP (each of them for $40 - $50) I really doubt that a new outlay of $3-$4 for more dice will be that big a deal.

[Stephen]

Have you thought about changing the die from a 6 sided to a 12 sided? This would allow for much more subtle changes in units for balancing purposes as well as tech improvements. The conversion would be very simple, just double any of the current attack/defence numbers. For the quandry of the A/C, you could simply set it at "5" (halfway between the old 2 and 3).
If A&A used a 12-sided die, I'd argue for ACs hitting on a 3 or less :D

Seriously though, I think the issue here is more whether ACs ought to be lowered at all, rather than the degree to which they should be lowered. It looks to me like the eventual outcome will be the price being lowered a notch or two... I think a 1/2 AC at 14 would be a fair compromise.

[series]

Tell me, what weapons do carriers have to defend themselves, besides fighters? All I can think of is a couple AA guns. So why should a floating piece of wood ever be alloud to fight?

[DocD]

Tell me, what weapons do carriers have to defend themselves, besides fighters? All I can think of is a couple AA guns. So why should a floating piece of wood ever be alloud to fight? Well, Series I noticed you voted for the 3 defense AC so I'm surprised to see you arguring against yourself....well maybe I'm not totally surprised...but anyway, I agree.
Now of course the AC in the game represents more than just one AC, but that doesn't change the fact that the AC (and the PT boats that accompany it) have no long range firepower to fight effectively against any other naval vessel. It (and its accompanying small force) was basically designed only to fend off enemy aircraft.

[series]

Well, Series I noticed you voted for the 3 defense AC so I'm surprised to see you arguring against yourself....well maybe I'm not totally surprised...but anyway, I agree.
Now of course the AC in the game represents more than just one AC, but that doesn't change the fact that the AC (and the PT boats that accompany it) have no long range firepower to fight effectively against any other naval vessel. It (and its accompanying small force) was basically designed only to fend off enemy aircraft. I voted for 1/3 because I like that better than 1/2- I say, if your gonna do something and it wont fix the problem, don't do it. 1/2 does not satisfy me, I still feel that is much too powerful. However, I wont change it only partially. I would change it to 1/1, or 0/1, or even 0/0, but not 1/2.

[Lt M Cotten]

Come on Series, 0/0 is too harsh, even a transport get 0/1.

[Lt M Cotten]

PS I just finished a game where ACs were at 1/2 and it didn't seem to weaken them too much to me, but there were more DDs out there for escorts....

[cousin_joe]

I prefer the idea of a 1/2 AC as well.

Have you considered using the 2/2 8IPC destroyer like in Iron Blitz? That may help to restore the power of the AC.
That would be tough to implement at this stage, without affecting all the other naval and air units, but it might be a good idea for another variant ;)

[cousin_joe]

Have you thought about changing the die from a 6 sided to a 12 sided? This would allow for much more subtle changes in units for balancing purposes as well as tech improvements. The conversion would be very simple, just double any of the current attack/defence numbers. For the quandry of the A/C, you could simply set it at "5" (halfway between the old 2 and 3).
That would simlpify things :) . I agree with Lt M Cotten though that 6 sided dice are the norm. Larry Harris is actually working on an "Advanced Axis & Allies (http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=14&sid=79ab54666a6571e3486440ea9f5fffa6)" which will likely use either 10-sided or 12-sided dice.

[Stephen]

I voted for 1/3 because I like that better than 1/2- I say, if your gonna do something and it wont fix the problem, don't do it. 1/2 does not satisfy me, I still feel that is much too powerful. However, I wont change it only partially. I would change it to 1/1, or 0/1, or even 0/0, but not 1/2.
I've got to call you on this one as well, Series. Cousin Joe is arguing for a return to 1/3, which you are against. At the very least you should have abstained, or voted for 1/2 with the comment that it should be reduced even more.

the 5 to 7 tally ought to be 4 to 7 or even 4 to 8!

[cousin_joe]

If A&A used a 12-sided die, I'd argue for ACs hitting on a 3 or less :D

Seriously though, I think the issue here is more whether ACs ought to be lowered at all, rather than the degree to which they should be lowered. It looks to me like the eventual outcome will be the price being lowered a notch or two... I think a 1/2 AC at 14 would be a fair compromise.
I suspect you may be right ;) :D

[cousin_joe]

You know, I some how felt you were going to go back and try and do something with that 1/2 AC Cj. I knew it!!!!

You have a special place in your heart for ACs don't you??!! Admit it!! It must have just killed you to even give the 1/2 AC a try..didn't it??!! Admit it!!
You DISGUST ME!!! I ADMIT IT!!! :D I am open though to a 14IPC 1/2 AC as a compromise.


Now that I'm done exposing you for your vile attack upon the beloved 1/2 AC....let me explain what has changed in the world of v2.0.

Everything!!! And brotha it is all good!!!
Me glad you like!


1)Historically, A/Cs were not the powerhouses you fell in love with in the ole MB version. But it was understood that "those" ACs had accompanying ships with them that added to their defensive capabilities. And who could argue, there were no DDs around in those days so everything was cool.
Now, with the advent of the powerful DD, how can anybody believe that the AC still comes with its inherent task force and such. Certainly not I!

From a historical point, the AC is right when it is placed at 2 on defense. It needs fleet protection. Always have, always will, and nothing is more historical than that.
Yes, pagan brought up a similar point. Yes, I would imagine the pieces a DD unit represent should be stronger defensively than what an AC unit represents.


2)A 3 DD or a 2 AC, my, my which should I pick?? Guess what, that improves the game not lessens it! I can honestly say, I've chosen both on different occasions and that "enhances" the game I don't care what anybody says. Having to choose a piece (as opposed to picking one) is much more fun and gives the player a sense of worth. "Did I make a good choice? Did I make the right choice? Can I trust my AC to get a hit on the next round if I sink this DD first?" These are the questions players should be forced to have to make. Not sink DD, sink DD, sink DD, sink DD!

Good point. It just seems the decision is much more strongly in favor of keeping the DD. This is an insult to the AC's power historically. :(


3)This feeling of people buying more DDs isn't a ghost over your shoulder. It's real and sooo what!! That's what we all wanted. Subs are running rampant...fleets need protecting....hell we need more DDs...and the cheapness don't hurt none either.
They provide the fleet with great protection and that's the way it should be. People will be buying DDs at this price regardless of the defensive pip of ACs...(unless you place the AC defensive pip at 5 I imagine).

DD purchases are not displacing AC purchases if that's what you are worried about. The US and Japan are continuing to buy ACs regardless.
Why? Nothing beats the versatility of fighters. Navys will always need their fighters and therefore ACs will continue to see their regular purchases. Before, people were buying a few ACs and very few DDs, now people are buying a few ACs and more DDs. Increasing the AC defense back to 3 will still give you steady numbers of ACs. Nobody is going to say, alright...now I'm going to buy 5 ACs next game!!...Yippe!! thanks Joe!!!

DocD, I feel like a man who has been beaten to the ground with a stick, and even though I am now unconscious, you continue to beat me :D Okay, another good point. You have now beaten the 1/3 AC idea right out of me :D

4)Now....if you are thinking the price of the AC is a bit much....I tend to agree with you. And from the looks of it, so do alot of others. This is where the change should come. Do I know the perfect price for the AC...not really, I would say 12 or 13 would be about right.

Hell, I would be for raising the price on DDs if it's that 30-ipcs-of-DDs purchase that is what is nagging you!!.

Just don't mess with the 1/2 AC!! PLEASE!! I ain't preaching!! I'm just begging.....sob, sob...You Win, Sato!!!
Miyagi agree with you!!!

AC's will be priced at 14IPC. I am thinking the BMBR should also go to 14IPC. Navy's are much stronger now with the extra DD protection, while SUBs are also much less vulnerable than before (lone SUBs need only worry about DDs now, as air can't even attack them when they are operating independant of the fleet)

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

AC's will be priced at 14IPC. I am thinking the BMBR should also go to 14IPC. Navy's are much stronger now with the extra DD protection, while SUBs are also much less vulnerable than before (lone SUBs need only worry about DDs now, as air can't even attack them when they are operating independant of the fleet)

hey joe i like the new carrier and bomber costs. this is pretty similar to my suggestions a while ago when you were first thinking of the naval overhaul. i said 14ipc carriers, but wanted bombers at 12 or 13ipc. 14ipc for a bomber is definetly a step in the right direction because bomber purchases are very rare in all the games i play.

[Kaufschtick]

DocD, I feel like a man who has been beaten to the ground with a stick, and even though I am now unconscious, you continue to beat me :D Okay, another good point. You have now beaten the 1/3 AC idea right out of me :D

You Win, Sato!!!
Miyagi agree with you!!!

AC's will be priced at 14IPC. I am thinking the BMBR should also go to 14IPC. Navy's are much stronger now with the extra DD protection, while SUBs are also much less vulnerable than before (lone SUBs need only worry about DDs now, as air can't even attack them when they are operating independant of the fleet)


Joe, I voted for the 1/3 carrier after reading your opening post. By the time I got to your last post here, I think this is where it's at. Including the 14 IPC "Bombastic Bomber" :). My final comment here would be though;"We're getting farther and farther from Kansas here, Toto..."

Reading this thread was like watching the Indiana Pacer players go at it with that crowd in Detroit! :D

[cousin_joe]

Joe, I voted for the 1/3 carrier after reading your opening post. By the time I got to your last post here, I think this is where it's at. Including the 14 IPC "Bombastic Bomber" :). My final comment here would be though;"We're getting farther and farther from Kansas here, Toto..."

Reading this thread was like watching the Indiana Pacer players go at it with that crowd in Detroit! :DLOL! :D I was watching that on the highlights and man, I couldn't believe what I was seeing!!! :eek: That was craziness!!!

As far as the game though, this is what I think I'll settle on:

14IPC AC at 1/2
14IPC BMBR

Okay, Enhanced 2.0 beta will soon be going to final

[Nuclear]

I do not know if I missed this somewhere, but what is a BMBR? I have not heard of it, and what type of unit is it?

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

I do not know if I missed this somewhere, but what is a BMBR? I have not heard of it, and what type of unit is it?

it is a bomber unit.

[DocD]

DocD, I feel like a man who has been beaten to the ground with a stick, and even though I am now unconscious, you continue to beat me :D Okay, another good point. You have now beaten the 1/3 AC idea right out of me :D

Well Joe, the pleasure was all mine!!

Feel free to call on me whenever you need some sense beat into YOU!!! :D

I too would like to see the price of the AC decrease. I'm not even sure if 14 is where it should be...but let's try it at that price and see what we get.

As I stated earlier, v2.0 is the best yet and I don't see any other changes that need to be made....except maybe kamikazes. They are pretty powerful and I'm noticing that they are sinking alot of US ACs. This is a bit too ahistorical for my taste, but get other's opinion too.

[Nuclear]

What are the attack and defend values of a BMBR?

[Lt M Cotten]

What are the attack and defend values of a BMBR? :eek: WHAT?!?!?

Dude, seriously? :confused: (4/1) Have you been drinking? :D

We may have to take your honorary doctorate in map making away if you continue to ask such A&A 101 questions. :D

[pagan]

Att and Def vlaues of a BMBR shoulod have an * asterix by it. Since its much like a kamikazee where anytime US/UK troops are in the Middle east territories, there is a chance of getting 1 of the following:

1. a Haji (att of 1 on each enemy INF in territory) with a big packpack
2. a Fahadin (religious zealot) RPG round attack against any single land unit at 2

[Nuclear]

Sorry about that, I thought that it was a different type of bomber due to the abbrivation. I had no idea, and that is why I asked. I thought it was the same thing as a regular bomber, but I was not sure, and that is why I asked.

[Lt M Cotten]

okay well I am glad it was just confusion. I was getting worried. :D

[Domster]

Well Joe, the pleasure was all mine!!

As I stated earlier, v2.0 is the best yet and I don't see any other changes that need to be made....except maybe kamikazes. They are pretty powerful and I'm noticing that they are sinking alot of US ACs. This is a bit too ahistorical for my taste, but get other's opinion too.

As you may already know I also feel that kamikazes or Kaitens are completely odd but it seems I am one of the only ones thinking that way...

Dom

[Stephen]

Kaitens and Kamikazes can have their uses... not only to take out ACs or BBs, but also to attack transports that are well defended. A US fleet far from an IC can be left much less threatening without a transport to move units and take over Japanese territory.

[Domster]

I am also a bit concerned that with the reduced price of destroyers the "tokyo express" Japanese Na has become a bit too powerfull. Lets face it, for a little 10 IPC's you basically get a 3/3 transport (although for inf only) that you can also develop to bombard ( with the Naval Advantage NA). I dont know, it would seem a bad decision for any Japanese player not to take advantage of this powerfull Na...

Any opinions on this?

Dom

[cousin_joe]

I am also a bit concerned that with the reduced price of destroyers the "tokyo express" Japanese Na has become a bit too powerfull. Lets face it, for a little 10 IPC's you basically get a 3/3 transport (although for inf only) that you can also develop to bombard ( with the Naval Advantage NA). I dont know, it would seem a bad decision for any Japanese player not to take advantage of this powerfull Na...

Any opinions on this?

Dom
Yes, I have noticed this in playtests as well Domster. I'm not sure if anything needs to be done about it. Naval Advantage, Kamikaze, and Tokyo Express are all very good. Banzai, Kaitens, and Battleships aren't too bad either for specific strategies. I did look at the following alternatives:

1. Changing back to 1 INF - too weak, not likely to change back

2. Keep 2INF, but NCM only - this one seems a bit better and more in the spirit of what Tokyo Express was all about, loading up islands during the night. TRNs could be involved in initial assaults, with DDs choosing between Combat actions (Bombard or Naval combat) or staying out of the combat, and dropping off troops in NCM. This stops the SuperDestroyer syndrome where the DD can Bombard or Attack Naval Units AND be involved in the amphibious assault.

Thoughts? :)

[Domster]

1. Changing back to 1 INF - too weak, not likely to change back

2. Keep 2INF, but NCM only - this one seems a bit better and more in the spirit of what Tokyo Express was all about, loading up islands during the night. TRNs could be involved in initial assaults, with DDs choosing between Combat actions (Bombard or Naval combat) or staying out of the combat, and dropping off troops in NCM. This stops the SuperDestroyer syndrome where the DD can Bombard or Attack Naval Units AND be involved in the amphibious assault.

Thoughts? :)

I think option 2 would be great, both for historical accuracy and game balance, It gets my vote for sure.

[DocD]

Yes, I have noticed this in playtests as well Domster. I'm not sure if anything needs to be done about it. Naval Advantage, Kamikaze, and Tokyo Express are all very good. Banzai, Kaitens, and Battleships aren't too bad either for specific strategies. I did look at the following alternatives:

1. Changing back to 1 INF - too weak, not likely to change back

2. Keep 2INF, but NCM only - this one seems a bit better and more in the spirit of what Tokyo Express was all about, loading up islands during the night. TRNs could be involved in initial assaults, with DDs choosing between Combat actions (Bombard or Naval combat) or staying out of the combat, and dropping off troops in NCM. This stops the SuperDestroyer syndrome where the DD can Bombard or Attack Naval Units AND be involved in the amphibious assault.

Thoughts? :)I agree with Dom here. Let's try option 2 and see what happens. Hey joe, what about those kamikazes......?

[cousin_joe]

I agree with Dom here. Let's try option 2 and see what happens. Hey joe, what about those kamikazes......?
Done DocD and Dom. I think Kamikazes are good as is DocD. If Japan goes for Kamikazes, consider a more DD and BB based fleet. Also, make sure to take those islands. Buying more ACs is playing right into his hands.

Also bear in mind, 33% of the time the FTRs miss, putting him 10IPC in the hole for nothing. Also, he'll eventually run out of FTRs at some point. Also, the Kamikaze only has a single pt of damage more than just a regular FTR - but it is sacrificed automatically after the conduct firing phase. That FTR is lost on defense and may hurt the Japanese player later. He picked Kamikaze over some of the other NAs.

Bottom Line: All is not exactly rosy with Kamikazes for Japan either.

[Stephen]

My game right now, I have both Tokyo Express and Combined Arms, and am relying on my destroyers to ferry extra troops from Japan to the mainland. They are quite powerful. Fighting ICs in India and Sinkiang, I opted not to go with only DDs for transport, and didn't take Banzai attacks, since I need artillery and armour on the attack to fight my way into India. Inf are great but they only attack at 1 :)

As well, I used the Naval Advantage NA to get Combined Arms, paid an extra 12 to finally get it ($4-J1, $8-J2), and I only began with one destroyer. So it's an expensive, and somewhat limited, advantage. It's still powerful, but I can't go so far as to say that it's too powerful.

[Domster]

Now we just need to get rid of Kaitens ;-)

Seriously,I really think this Na is completely flawed and if combined with super subs can become somewhat of a powerhouse.

Oh well, its just on my Christmas wish list... :-)

Dom

[AxisRoll]

Hey CJ,

The rule set a_r and I used for over 10yrs had A/C's and BB's both take 2 hits to sink. But there is a rub.

If you get out of the battle alive, they are still damaged. You have to be at an IC at the start of your turn and at the end of that turn, they are healed.

If an A/C is damaged, it can only hold 1F. If a BB is damaged, you can not do off shore bombardment.

I think it would be a good addition to the rules and beef up the A/C if you are lowing it's def points to a 1/2.

[DocD]

Hey CJ,

The rule set a_r and I used for over 10yrs had A/C's and BB's both take 2 hits to sink. But there is a rub.

If you get out of the battle alive, they are still damaged. You have to be at an IC at the start of your turn and at the end of that turn, they are healed.

If an A/C is damaged, it can only hold 1F. If a BB is damaged, you can not do off shore bombardment.

I think it would be a good addition to the rules and beef up the A/C if you are lowing it's def points to a 1/2.
You know roll, I was thinking about that as a compromise too...having AC take two hits....but I don't think it would be good for the game.

It would lessen DDs quite a bit and make ACs into a feared powerhouse....even the BB would take a major backseat to it. I mean BBs are pretty powerful now, but they are the highest price item in the game, and this balances them out.

No, all the pieces have their strengths and weaknesses and letting ACs take two hits make them way too strong for the game.

[axis_roll]

In our rules set that we've played for year with 2 hit A/C's, they are the primary target when a capital ship is to be taken as a hit. In other words, when I need to take a hit on a BB or A/C, the A/C has to be taken first. This does indeed weaken them a bit. Also, in our rules, capital ships need to be repaired at a fully operational IC. They don't autoheal at the end of a battle. AND a damaged A/C can not land aircraft on it.

I agree that in Enhanced, a 2 hit A/C would be a far superior naval piece unless the above rules were also incorporated.

[pagan]

I've been holding my tounge on the Tokyo Express, becasue I am currently playing CJ and that was going to be my NA for Japan.

But now as he has elected to castrate the NA, it has lost most of its value.

As it stands, if I'm wrong the correct me please, the DD with tokyo express is limited with regards to naval warfare.

1. When Japan is invading an isalnd on attack, his DDs dropping the 2INF CANNOT engage in the naval battle. This is a crucial aspect of its limited nature. Where in order to amphib an area the Naval force is Drastaclly weakened.
------A. so Japan's best use for this NA is to rush out to attack 'undefended territories' AND to deposit NCM troops to owned territories. Now remember that even if Japan was crazy enough to fight naval wars with fully loaded DDs, he still couldn't drop the DD INF until his next round due to being in a combat. Now this is a possible problem with the rules as listed. If the DDs (tranys) are pre-loaded, then after being in combat they may either Drop OR Load but may not due both. In either case the DD drop would be in the NCM.

2. Infantry attack at a 1. So Japan could go with Tokyo Express + Banzai. But even still what happens here is a lack of the Japanese player to predict the future events. The attacking power of the INF normally, pretty much suck and japan needs the BBs & fighters to win the islands. A second NA (remember that is the SECOND NA) only alleviates the problem a little bit. OR DOES IT ?
-----A. When exactly will the DDs be dropping off their INF on attack? Probably during the NCM.....(hmmm something wrong hits the japanese player in the head)
-----B. What islands exactly will be necessary to WIN the game, and will those islands have a Naval presence?
-----C. I guess my Tokyo Express DDs will have to fight (FULLY LOADED) with the Naval fight first since I need both my BBs, and in the very least I need my fighters to take the land with my incredible INF.
-----D. there are other more strategic problems that I don't want to get into, like: ICs , UK/USA double shots , defensive posturing of US/UK subs and DDs not being in naval battle , et cetera

Now in the confines the Tokyo-Express DDs see themselves in is that they are best suited to a DEFENSIVE posture. Forcing USA to spend a lot more money on taking the VCs.
Now this also means that Japan is waiting for Germany to take USSR + India.
A person whom thinks that the Tokyo Express is Awesome attacking should really play with the NA, and I bet they come to the same conclusions that I do : that the TokyoExpress is not as powerful as they initially appeared.

Forcing the DDs to ONLY NCM drops for infantry is an unecessary hit on this NA, and some people talking about a single INF is the final Death knoll.

[cousin_joe]

Pagan,

We can continue our game with the Tokyo Express as they are in 1.3 rules (ie. no restriction to NCM).

This was one I was prepared to leave alone initially, before deciding to change, and you do raise some good points to leave it as is.

What I've seen though, is that Japan can get Combined Arms with their Naval Adv NA, followed by the Tokyo Express. They now have a 10IPC DD at 3/3, that can bombard at 3 on the amphib, and then land 2 INF for an amphibious assault. Alternatively, they can attack in naval combat, and still land INF for the amphib assault. This is a lot for a DD, and doesn't seem fair considering it's only 2 more IPC than a TRN. Look for a lot of DDs to be purchased, esp. considering there great vs. SUBs too. Why buy TRNs???

Also, it doesn't make sense historically for a DD to be unloading for an amphib assault, as they just weren't built for that.

The 3 VCs, Ind, Aus, Haw also all become very vulnerable with the strategy I mentioned above. Imagine 3DDs coming in, loaded with 6INF, and all getting their Bombardment at 3. These VCs will have very little chance of being able to hold.

Restricting to NCM keeps the TRNs valuable, and prevents the Super-Destroyer Syndrome. The DD must choose btw a combat role, or to load/unload troops on NCM. Certainly the troop movement is still very useful, especially if ferrying INF from Japan to the mainland. As far as taking the VCs, the TRNs are going to be critical, and the fight will actually be more fair without so many DDs bringing in troops as well. Again, the NCM restriction is more in line with what tokyo Express actually was historically.

[cousin_joe]

One last thing, a DD that can do everything is bad game mechanics. The 1.3 version of Tokyo Express enables a DD to serve as transport, naval defense, naval offense, anti-submarine, and bombardment. Why buy any other naval vessel?

Limiting the DD to NCM keeps the ampib assault job in the TRNs hands. Japan will have to mix some transports into their fleet rather than going all out DDs.

[pagan]

The whole CRUX of the issue for me, since I don't know the EXACT answer is this:

These are my assumptions for Tokyo Express

1. DDs are under the same rules as the TN

2. DDs CANNOT conduct naval combat AND Amphib assault

3. DDs CAN conduct shore bombardment (combined arms) & Amphib

If I am right with #2, then there is no problem with Tokyo Express.

Now if I am wrong with #2, then it is exactly the problem of the super-DD, and moving to NCM only is a good change.

Now if #3 is too strong for you, its value should be considered as being the both an NA + Tech (or in the case of Japan an NA + NA(tech))
If it still is unwarranted in power, then perhaps an Amphib Assault of 1 INF with the NCM of 2 INF.

Again, these are just things YOU have to consider

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

The whole CRUX of the issue for me, since I don't know the EXACT answer is this:

These are my assumptions for Tokyo Express

1. DDs are under the same rules as the TN

2. DDs CANNOT conduct naval combat AND Amphib assault

3. DDs CAN conduct shore bombardment (combined arms) & Amphib

If I am right with #2, then there is no problem with Tokyo Express.

Now if I am wrong with #2, then it is exactly the problem of the super-DD, and moving to NCM only is a good change.

Now if #3 is too strong for you, its value should be considered as being the both an NA + Tech (or in the case of Japan an NA + NA(tech))
If it still is unwarranted in power, then perhaps an Amphib Assault of 1 INF with the NCM of 2 INF.

Again, these are just things YOU have to consider

if you only allow tokyo express to unload in ncm then the n/a will become very useless. maybe a comprimise would be best. i like pagans #2 suggestion. only allow destroyers to have one combat, either a naval combat or an amphibious assault combat, but not both.

[pagan]

Its more than a suggestion AllWeNeedIsLove.

I think that it is an 'unclarified' aspect to the basic AAR game.
A ruling must happen on what the AAR rule is for Tokyo Express.

Now a DD can (in the FAQ) Bombard + drop off INF on amphib with the Tokyo Express NA, however it does not talk about if the DD can fight in a naval battle --> then Bombard --> then drop off amphib.

My best reading into the rules is that a BB cannot be in a naval battle AND bombard a territory during an amphib. The reason is that they have already attacked and cannot be in two separate combats.

Transports are not included as 'combat units' in a naval battle before an amphib. They can be used as casualties but have no ability to attack themselves. So do they not get to attack in the naval battle due to a zero attack or is it because they will amphib? Transports have a zero attack for what reason?

{now I jump to an assumption}
A DD has the same properties as a Transport during an amphib. If they will not fight in a naval battle they will be present (just like the tranys) and still can be used as casualties - however they may NOT return fire. Then after the battle is over they can then Bombard (they did not fight in combat) + amphib.

Now does this rule adherence only mean that a DD cannot due all three things, but can do either of the TWO things below
---Naval Combat --> then Amphib (devastating)
--- Bombard --> then Amphib


This assumption of mine is an attempt to follow the strict rules of the basic AAR out of the box game.

[Stephen]

Transports are not included as 'combat units' in a naval battle before an amphib. They can be used as casualties but have no ability to attack themselves. So do they not get to attack in the naval battle due to a zero attack or is it because they will amphib? Transports have a zero attack for what reason?
While transports do have a 0 attack value, I'd argue they are very much a part of naval combat before unloading.

Consider a SZ with UK & US ships, and a German sub. If one power attacks the sub, the other power's ships are left completely out of the battle. Although they have offensive firepower, they are not a part of the battle.

With transports, their ability to unload is contingent on the SZ being cleared, and if they are hit, their cargo goes down with them. For this reason, I think transports are part of naval combat.

{now I jump to an assumption}
A DD has the same properties as a Transport during an amphib. If they will not fight in a naval battle they will be present (just like the tranys) and still can be used as casualties - however they may NOT return fire. Then after the battle is over they can then Bombard (they did not fight in combat) + amphib.
Letting a DD bombard after a naval battle has taken place in that sea zone violates the principle applied to BBs that they must take part in naval combat, and cannot be held back in order to bombard.

This is a complex issue and I hadn't considered it to this depth. I hope my points are not erroneous or redundant.

[pagan]

well, what you've done is come to the same reasoning as me (i think) there are basically two ways to go with this AND there is no clear way to go. You just happen to think one of them is the correct assumption.

A RULING MUST come for the basic Out-Of-The-Box AAR game.

maybe I should put up a Mike Selinker (sp?) post and hope for a clarification?



My side note:
1. Tokyo Express is Seriously-Broken if DD can Naval Combat AND Bombard AND Amphib
2. Tokyo Express is Broken if DD can Naval Combat AND Amphib
3. Tokyo Express is OK if DD can Naval Combat OR Bombard AND Amphib

[cousin_joe]

The whole CRUX of the issue for me, since I don't know the EXACT answer is this:

These are my assumptions for Tokyo Express

1. DDs are under the same rules as the TN

2. DDs CANNOT conduct naval combat AND Amphib assault

3. DDs CAN conduct shore bombardment (combined arms) & Amphib

If I am right with #2, then there is no problem with Tokyo Express.

Now if I am wrong with #2, then it is exactly the problem of the super-DD, and moving to NCM only is a good change.

Now if #3 is too strong for you, its value should be considered as being the both an NA + Tech (or in the case of Japan an NA + NA(tech))
If it still is unwarranted in power, then perhaps an Amphib Assault of 1 INF with the NCM of 2 INF.

Again, these are just things YOU have to consider
1-3 are all correct

I've thought of the amphib with 1 and NCM with 2, but am not a big fan. If this is what we must resort to, then we can.

[pagan]

----Take a look at this below and see if this sums up the DD problem. If there is anything missing, or if its ok then let me know and I will put it out as its own thread.




National Advantage for Japan
Tokyo Express

I think that it is an 'unclarified' aspect to the basic AAR game.
A ruling must happen on what the AAR rule is for Tokyo Express.

For simplification I am talking about a DD Destroyer that also has the Tech Combined Arms which allows it to Bombard during amphibious assaults.

####################################

Now a DD can (in the FAQ) Bombard with the Combined Arms Tech + drop off INF on amphib with the Tokyo Express NA, however it does not talk about if the DD can
**fight in a naval battle --> then Bombard --> then drop off amphib.

My reading into the Rule-Book is that a BB cannot be in a naval battle AND bombard a territory during an amphib. The reason is that they have already attacked and cannot be in two separate combats.

Does letting a DD bombard after a naval battle has taken place in that sea zone violate the principle applied to BBs that they must take part in naval combat, and cannot be held back in order to bombard?

We have to ask ourselves some questions: Are Transports not included as 'combat units' in a naval battle before an amphib? They can be used as casualties but have no ability to attack themselves. So, do they not get to attack in the naval battle due to a zero attack or is it because they will amphib? Transports have a zero attack for what reason?

----------------{Two presumptions}--------------------

1. a DD has the same properties as a Transport during an amphib. If they will not fight in a naval battle they will be present (just like the tranys) and still can be used as casualties - however they may NOT fire. Then after the battle is over they can then Bombard (they did not fight in combat) + amphib.
2. Another way to look at it is this: While transports do have a zero attack value, it could be argued that they are very much a part of naval combat before unloading. With transports, their ability to unload is contingent on the SZ being cleared, and if they are hit, their cargo goes down with them. For this reason, transports are part of naval combat. They don't fire in an attack because they have no attack value. So a DD would get to fire in Naval combat and then Drop off for Amphib.


What things can this DD do...?
1. Naval Combat AND Bombard AND Amphib
2. Naval Combat AND Amphib
3. Naval Combat OR Bombard AND Amphib
4. Naval combat NULIFIES Bombard but Amphib is still allowed

[cousin_joe]

well, what you've done is come to the same reasoning as me (i think) there are basically two ways to go with this AND there is no clear way to go. You just happen to think one of them is the correct assumption.

A RULING MUST come for the basic Out-Of-The-Box AAR game.

maybe I should put up a Mike Selinker (sp?) post and hope for a clarification?



My side note:
1. Tokyo Express is Seriously-Broken if DD can Naval Combat AND Bombard AND Amphib
2. Tokyo Express is Broken if DD can Naval Combat AND Amphib
3. Tokyo Express is OK if DD can Naval Combat OR Bombard AND AmphibPagan,

All units (except air flying over AA) are restricted to one combat/TURN. Therefore, a DD cannot engage in Naval Combat AND (Amphib OR Bombard). #3 is correct.

Now consider the evolution of Tokyo Express for Enhanced:

AH rules: Incredibly Weak
-DDs cost 12IPC
-May carry 1 INF
-May amphibious assault

Enhanced 1.2: Balanced
-DDs cost 12IPC
-May carry 2 INF
-May amphibious assault

Enhanced 2.0 Beta: Overpowered
-DDs cost 10IPC
-DDs more important for anti-SUB
-ACs made 1/2 (weaker)
-May carry 2 INF
-May amphibious assault

Enhanced 2.0 Final: Balanced
-DDs cost 10IPC
-DDs more important for anti-SUB
-ACs made 1/2 (weaker)
-May carry 2 INF
-May NOT amphibious assault

In 1.2, DDs were balanced because they cost an expensive 12IPC, and didn't have much other functionality. Generally they were still a "bad buy". The option to add Tokyo Express (ie. full TRN capabilities including amphib assault) made them a "good buy" for Japan.

With 2.0, DDs have had increased functionality (more important in anti-SUB warfare, better fleet defender in relation to AC), while at the same time, having a decreased cost. They are now a "good buy" even WITHOUT Tokyo Express. The option to add Tokyo Express (ie. full TRN capabilities including amphib assault) to these "good buy" Destroyers, would now make them "GREAT buys" (ie. OVERPOWERED)

Again, to give DDs full TRN capabilities now, inlcuding amphib assault, would be creating a VERY OVERPOWERED UNIT. It was fine in 1.2, when they were 12IPC and didn't have much functionality, but now, it would be just too much. You would not need to buy another naval unit for Japan. Just get all DDs. Tokyo Express and Naval Advantage (Combined Arms) would be the No-Brainer NAs you would ALWAYS choose for Japan. You would ALWAYS go DD-Heavy as well. What this tells me, is that DDs as is, are way overpowered.

To solve this, I have suggested NOT giving DD full TRN capabilities, but only partial TRN capabilities, specifically, they may still transport units, but they may only load and unload them in NCM (ie. no amphibious assaults). Here are the reasons for this.

1. Balance - Japan cannot get buy on strategies relying on just DDs. They must mix in some TRNs as well.

2. Variety - To keep things as is would mean DDs are by far the best buy for Japan, and Naval Advantage and Tokyo Express are the best NAs. DDs need to be a little weaker to make other units and NAs to be selected.

3. Historical - The idea of destroyers unloading loads of INF for an amphibious assault is ridiculous. They were just not built for that duty (ie. they don't have a transports quick unloading capabilities). Tokyo Express was about DDs unloading INF at night to support their Pacific islands (although in the game, I'd imagine they'd see a lot of use ferrying troops over to SE Asia as well)

4. Consistency - LHTR rules dictate units loaded onto transports during Combat must be used in Combat. By restricting loading and unloading for Tokyo Express to NCM only, it prevents this issue from coming up.

Bottom Line: DDs are "good buys" as is without Tokyo Express. Giving them a Tokyo Express which allows them to amphib would make them overpowered buys, and likely the only strategy we would see. They need a slight reduction in power and taking away their amphibs is it.

[DocD]

Very correct CJ....

I've read all the points and counterpoints pagan brought up (and they were very good)....

But DD's have evolved into a powerful and needed unit now. So as it has changed, its NA (Tokoyo Express) must also change.

[pagan]

Tokyo Express then is a defensive NA. I don't know if its a good or bad thing.

Now let's move on to something else:

TECH rolls....

Roll for a TECH is comprised of picking your number corresponding tech and try to roll that number up to however many dice you bought.
1. Jet Fighters
2. Rockets
3. Super Subs
4. Long-Range Aircraft
5. Combined Bombardment
6. Heavy Bombers

I don't have a problem with this but I want to bring this to your guy's attention.

Japan has an NA which is pretty much its ONLY good NA. Naval Advantage for an almost free tech roll. It can try for 3-4-5 as a tech with that NA.

Four (4) Dice must be rolled for the Tech. The player picks the number he wants and trys to roll that number to get the tech. (where is he going with this?)

selecting any single number on a six-sided die is a 1 on 6 chance to get it. But lets focus on the NUMBER being picked while INCREASING the number of rolls. A basic Rule of Thumb for statistics is that any random number is always more prevalent at the mean rather than the extremes. Just saying that its a higher rate of outcome for a midrange number than for the low & high numbers.

This DOES BENEFIT japan's NA. This also benefits any other country trying for either Suber Submarines or Long-Range Aircraft. This Rule of Thumb doesn't show itself in a single roll but in multiple rolls.

Is this a problem for anyone?
[im ok with it as Japan needs that LITTLE edge on getting the Tech]
---taking away that little edge would be to select the Tech you want and in order to get it you have to roll a 1 on a 6...no matter what tech you are trying for

Jet fighters(1) is the antithesis for Heavy Bombers(6) the two extremes.

SuperSubs(3) with LRA(4) is a good choice for naval warfare and good for ALL countries (excluding USSR - which is perfectly acceptable) ; these will be the more common tech

Rockets(2) with Combined Bombard(5) again doesn't really matter.


ANOTHER QUESTION:
AARe: can a country purchase 6 rolls and automatically get the Tech?

[Stephen]

A basic Rule of Thumb for statistics is that any random number is always more prevalent at the mean rather than the extremes. Just saying that its a higher rate of outcome for a midrange number than for the low & high numbers.
This is not true at all. If this were true, dice wouldn't be random.

You may be confusing the mean of many dice throws with the individual results. If you roll any number of dice, gradually the mean thrown will approximate 3.5, but that doesn't mean that, when throwing 4 dice, you're more likely to roll numbers that are close to the mean.

Given normal (unfixed, perfectly balanced) dice, each number has an equal chance of being thrown on any given trial.

[pagan]

The Rule of Thumb holds true to Randomly generated numbers of a set range.

If there is no set range then Infinity is a possible number. There is no mean.

If the number set (the data points from multiple rolls) are not random then the rule doesn't hold true.

But we are dealing with a set range from 1 to 6, we are also dealing with a random selection.

So what I wrote IS true.

Now don't confuse what I am talking about with the Rule of 1000. If you plot 1000 rolls on a random d6 then you end up with an even distribution. This is what you are eludiing to I think.

However, if you know this then you ALSO KNOW that the lower the number of rolls you plot the distribution of rolls slant towards a more distributive Bell-Curve.

Again, when we are dealing with a SLIGHT advantaged roll towards the middle numbers of a d6 when multiple rolls are a made.

Statistics are stranger than most people know. And some things seem counter-productive to our assumptions. But the tendencies that show themselves as prevelant and consistent need be considered at times. (and even that is a kind of stat joke!)

[Stephen]

However, if you know this then you ALSO KNOW that the lower the number of rolls you plot the distribution of rolls slant towards a more distributive Bell-Curve.
The distribution of mean rolls will tend toward a bell curve, but that still doesn't alter the likelihood of each individual roll.

If I'm rolling 4 dice, there is a 1/6 probability that any one number will be rolled on any given throw. Regardless of how many dice I throw, that probability never changes for each individual throw (independence of trials).

Now you can analyse the mean of many dice thrown, but this doesn't alter the situation for the person rolling at a given time: at that time, all outcomes are equally possible.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems both counter-intuitive and contrary to probablity. If I'm wrong, I'll learn something! :)

[pagan]

You aren't missing anything.

Its just statistics. Its the odd counter-intuitive nature of our minds trying to find patterns in things.

We rationalize a specific set of 1 in 6 individually, however our random results in multiple rolls show consistent patterns. Its just a screwy-stat thing. Nothing more to say about it really.

If I am alone in considering the pattern of multiple rolls, then so be it. That would suggest to me that it doesn't matter to anyone.

[Stephen]

I've studied some statistics so I'm not coming at this from a blind perspective, and I understand how counter-intuitive facts are very, very common.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this one. Maybe I'll give everything another read and see if I can make sense of it.

[Stephen]

I still can't figure this one. Maybe Doctor Statistics will have more luck with me :)

It still seems to me that what you are saying is true for the mean of a fixed number of rolls, not the individual rolls themselves.

Anyhow, I'll leave it at that and wait for anyone who can explain this one to me :)

[Lt M Cotten]

Now don't confuse what I am talking about with the Rule of 1000. If you plot 1000 rolls on a random d6 then you end up with an even distribution.

That is true, the size of the sample is large enough to cover any anomaly of the roller. However your other point..... :(

However, if you know this then you ALSO KNOW that the lower the number of rolls you plot the distribution of rolls slant towards a more distributive Bell-Curve.

Again, when we are dealing with a SLIGHT advantaged roll towards the middle numbers of a d6 when multiple rolls are a made.

Statistics are stranger than most people know. And some things seem counter-productive to our assumptions. But the tendencies that show themselves as prevelant and consistent need be considered at times. (and even that is a kind of stat joke!) :(

This statement is untrue, and runs contrary to Statistics 101. :eek:

Any situation envolving a linear distribution does in fact hold that all six chances are equal. Only when you introduce multiple die or die rollings and add their sums do you develop a bell curve. That is TEXTBOOK STATISTICS. It seems as though the mean numbers are rolled more often than the extremes, however that is only due to the limited size of the polled results (a statistical anomaly), neither precise nor accurate. It is commonly known as the "error of observation".

Sorry to rant, but I have had enough stat classes to known that is incorrect. :)

[Stephen]

It seems as though the mean numbers are rolled more often than the extremes, however that is only due to the limited size of the polled results (a statistical anomaly), neither precise nor accurate. It is commonly known as the "error of observation".

Agreed. This is what I was saying (or trying to say). :)

[Lt M Cotten]

okay, but one can't adjust a model based on a limited sample. One is as good as another, or two, three, four, five, or even six. All six chances are still equal, despite the small sample size...

[Stephen]

I was trying to say that too! :)

[pagan]

The anomoly is EXACTLY what i am talking about. This little 'spike-in-the-middle' doesn't go away until you get into a large number of rolls.

You don't need to ADD mulitple rolls together. We are dealing with a simple set of data points. Each point is plotted on a graph. Locate the Z-score, figure out the deviation. You end up with a spike on the graph. The more times you do it the more often that spike ends up in the middle. Its just the way it is. You are jumping to the end result of a mass set of numbers where that little 'anomoly' can no longer be seen. Don't exclude the anomoly in small numbers of sets. Don't assume the mathematical certainty of 1/6 for all 6 faces. We are dealing with stats. That specific mathematical certainty ends up being true ONLY in the large scale. You cannot hold it as 'true' in the small scale. (variance is increased) You must address the 'anomoly'. The anomoly is always there. The anomoly cannot be excluded, the data points are too few.

I don't really want to keep talking about the same thing. I think I have been very clear.

[Stephen]

So how would I go about running my own trials to experience this anamoly? I want to see this phenomenon with my own eyes.

[DocD]

It took me a while to see what you were getting at Pagan...but again...I have to disagree.

If 1 or 3 or 6 can come up equally on a roll, how can 1 or 6 be an extreme??

If you had blank sides on a dice, would one side come up more than the others? Doesn't make sense.

I don't see how an anomoly can come into play.

Hey, has anyone seen Mr. Statistics....Hey Vollick....where are you?

[Lt M Cotten]

The anomoly is EXACTLY what i am talking about. This little 'spike-in-the-middle' doesn't go away until you get into a large number of rolls.

You don't need to ADD mulitple rolls together. We are dealing with a simple set of data points. Each point is plotted on a graph. Locate the Z-score, figure out the deviation. You end up with a spike on the graph. The more times you do it the more often that spike ends up in the middle. Its just the way it is. You are jumping to the end result of a mass set of numbers where that little 'anomoly' can no longer be seen. Don't exclude the anomoly in small numbers of sets. Don't assume the mathematical certainty of 1/6 for all 6 faces. We are dealing with stats. That specific mathematical certainty ends up being true ONLY in the large scale. You cannot hold it as 'true' in the small scale. (variance is increased) You must address the 'anomoly'. The anomoly is always there. The anomoly cannot be excluded, the data points are too few.

I don't really want to keep talking about the same thing. I think I have been very clear.

The occurance you are referring to occurs in any die rolling situations, so this should be no worse than trying to get a 1 for AA rolls, yet I hear no outcrys. For the entire A&A gaming world, many die are rolled and so statistically they all come out even. Individual results do vary.

[pagan]

This is my last post on the subject:

If it doesn't matter to anyone to make a single number selection for a Tech (such as roll a 6 to get the tech you want) in order to remove any possible variance between multiple tech rolls for the numbered-techs, then it doesn't matter to me either.

[axis_roll]

This is my last post on the subject:

If it doesn't matter to anyone to make a single number selection for a Tech (such as roll a 6 to get the tech you want) in order to remove any possible variance between multiple tech rolls for the numbered-techs, then it doesn't matter to me either.
Are you saying that you want to call the number you are rolling for regardless of the tech you are trying to get? For example, I am rolling 4 dice for heavy bombers... can I say I am trying to get "2's".. if I get one out of my four dice, then I get my weapon (HB's in this case)

Personally, I have no problem with this.

=========================================

On a side note:
Pagan, I am really not sure where you get the idea that a 3 or 4 will come up more often than say a 1 or 6....

[Vollick1979]

Let us examine the case of rolling two dice:

1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
2,1
2,2
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
3,1
3,2
3,3
3,4
3,5
3,6
4,1
4,2
4,3
4,4
4,5
4,6
5,1
5,2
5,3
5,4
5,5
5,6
6,1
6,2
6,3
6,4
6,5
6,6

Phew that was harder than it looks, but there are different outcomes, some of the outcomes appear twice such as (5,2) and (2,5) and some only appear once for example (1,1). Let us assume this is the second die roll for acquiring technology. Say we went for Heavy bombers the first time and we missed it, so now we have to roll 2 dice. We need at least one six to appear. In all the combinations a six appears eleven times. Since there are 36 total outcomes the probability of a attainting heavy bombers is 11/36 which is roughly 31%. Now it doesn't matter whether you are going for Heavy Bombers or Super subs. All technologies are at the same 11/36 probability. This shows that with 2 dice the individual numbers don't matter, Pagan do you really need me to show that 3 dice and it's the same?

Of course since we can't distinguish from die 1 and die 2 (unless they are different colours) we observe the 2,5 combination twice as often as the 1,1 combination. BUT to be clear the 2,5 combination is no more likely than the 4,3 combination or a 1,6 combination.

You don't need to ADD mulitple rolls together. We are dealing with a simple set of data points. Each point is plotted on a graph. Locate the Z-score, figure out the deviation. You end up with a spike on the graph. The more times you do it the more often that spike ends up in the middle. Its just the way it is. You are jumping to the end result of a mass set of numbers where that little 'anomoly' can no longer be seen. Don't exclude the anomoly in small numbers of sets. Don't assume the mathematical certainty of 1/6 for all 6 faces. We are dealing with stats. That specific mathematical certainty ends up being true ONLY in the large scale. You cannot hold it as 'true' in the small scale. (variance is increased) You must address the 'anomoly'. The anomoly is always there. The anomoly cannot be excluded, the data points are too few.


Now from what Pagan has wrote regarding the Z score I believe he may be referring to the bell shape created if you plot the various combinations. For example when rolling four dice the 1,1,1,1 combination comes up less than 0.08% of the time while the 4,3,2,5 combination comes up a whole lot more often (in fact it can occur in 24 ways, ie. 4!=24). But that doesn't mean 1's come up less than 4,3,2, or 5's! Just because the average of die rolls goes towards 3.5 as you increase the number of die rolls doesn't mean that 3's or 4's are more likely than 1's or 6's. What you're observing Pagan isn't the numbers 3 and 4 showing up more than 1's and 6's but rather the fact that certain outcomes of the dice roll appear to show up more often than others since we can't distinguish between dice. I have to say Pagan that you made this sound a whole lot harder than it actually is. This is why people hate stats, but they shouldn't... it's a whole lot simpler than they think!

[axis_roll]

I ran a quick test on a small sample (which is what Pagan says will have the most chance of having this anomoly show up)

I used dicey, ran 4 dice rolls ten times.

here was my number distribution:
(1) 8 times
(2) 8 times
(3) 5 times
(4) 8 times
(5) 9 times
(6) 2 times.

Seems pretty damn random to me... no true pattern, no bell bump in the middle.

[pagan]

I'm german. I deserve some lenience(sp?) as to being confusing.

Vollick is right.

Looking at the graphical nature of a higher rate of midrange numbers led me to believe in that corresponding to the actual roll, which is not a rational jump, and I should have forseen that mis-step long before i ever wrote anything. But, alas, I did not.

Although I do not like being wrong with anything pertaining to mathematics or logic, I must admit it in this case.

[axis_roll]

We're all human, and we all make mistakes....
It's takes a strong person to admit when they have made a mistake.

Now onto the gaming.........

[DocD]

I'm german. I deserve some lenience(sp?) as to being confusing.

Vollick is right.

Looking at the graphical nature of a higher rate of midrange numbers led me to believe in that corresponding to the actual roll, which is not a rational jump, and I should have forseen that mis-step long before i ever wrote anything. But, alas, I did not.

Although I do not like being wrong with anything pertaining to mathematics or logic, I must admit it in this case.
I was right! You were wrong!! :D

I'm only kidding OK!!!! So put down that docd stick alright!

Seriously Pagan, thanks for posting that...I really learned alot. It's been years since I've taken statistics....and I think I sold the book back to the school bookstore, but it is nice to get a refresher course every now and then.

And don't feel bad about it...I too have been wrong and Mr. Statistics pointed it out to me. :D

[cousin_joe]

And don't feel bad about it...I too have been wrong and Mr. Statistics pointed it out to me. :D
Mr. Statistics comes through again :)

I'm finished moving and got my internet working again. I should have Enhanced 2.0 final up soon.

[axis_roll]

Mr. Statistics comes through again :)

I'm finished moving and got my internet working again. I should have Enhanced 2.0 final up soon.
CJ, if you email me the doc before posting, I am offering my services as a proof-reader.

[cousin_joe]

Thanks axis_roll, I'll take you up on that offer :) I still have some other things to do but should be out soon.