PACIFIC PLAYTEST!

[John D.]

Pics are here!!!

[John D.]

More start of Aut 43

[John D.]

Builds!

[Mark]

Great pics - and I can see them now!   

India looks in rough shape - but maybe the fleet off of Austrlaia will come to the rescue? 
Ceylon is out of supply, right?

Looks like the Japanese have almost given up on mainland China - hard to tell though how that is going to play out.  This is a fun stage of the game for the Japanese - too much to defend, not enough resources - its almost hang on as long as posible stage and hope you can hold onto enough VPs to negotiate a peace with the US.

Looks like the stage is set for some big battles for the Solomon islands and New Guinea - look forward to the pics for the next couple turns!

[Mark]

With respect to Hy. Bombers - I am really leaning to just leaving them a 4 A2A combat value.  They only kill fighters on a 1/6 chance now.  If you add a +1 modifier they will only kill fighters 1/12 which I think is just too low.

One thing I am a little concerned about - is it more effective to use your submarines against enemy fleets rather than doing economic damage?  If so, I think it may be something that needs to be looks at. . .Given the same amount of ASW - I should think that the mechanics should tilt subs to be more effective against convoy zones than trying to kill carriers and combat ships. . . from the pics it looks like this may not be the case.  Any thoughts?

Mark

[John D.]

No WAY! Listen - everybody can agree I got lucky (out of 3 shots - I hit 2) . They left carriers alone with no destoyer escorts, doing the job of what crusiers are better doing. Believe me - this was a learning experience for both sides. A 1 in 6 chance to sink something is not good odds...

It is fine - leave it be.

[Mark]

"A 1 in 6 chance to kill something is not good odds" . . . same odds for a heavy bomber to kill a fighter -  I think we should leave heavy bombers where they are on the Air to Air table.  If they are too powerful for the money, maybe they need to cost 8+8 instead of 7+7.

[DeathMachine]

I had 2 destroyers and an 2 air with the second carrier sink actually. I didn't return you and you rolled low, you did get lucky.

But a 1 in 6 chance is great odds against the japanese because of their pitiful one hit carriers. The problem wasn't the subs in this instance, it was the carriers. A 1 in 6 chance against the japanese means that about every 6 shots, you should sink a fully loaded carrier which means you destroy 36 points worth of navy or about 6 pts a turn, not to mention time lost building another carrier and planes. This is better than doing economic damage with them.

Subs have to be the best piece in the game, I am just glad that both sides can build them.

[John D.]

Sub commanders didn't report seeing the destroyers during the 2nd sinking....

[John D.]

Well- hopefully most of the time the planes should be near land if a carrier goes down - but I do agree that they should forfeit movement during the regular combat phase if the carrier goes down (they essentially move 1 space to land).

Jap destroyers are a really flexible unit - VERY worth the money.

[Mark]

I have been thinking about this one too.   It seems that all things being equal, a player would rather send his subs against a fleet to sink a loaded transport or a carrier rather than going after economic damage in a convoy zone.  I don't think I like this.   All things being equal (same level of ASW), I think the rules should tilt the sub mission against convoys and economic damage.

Now if someone leaves a carrier or a transport with little or no ASW protection, then it should be a great target for a sub.  So - the answer is not lowering the subs killing ability - but maybe raising a fleet ASW protection to be tougher than a convoy ASW protection - to make well protected fleets less juicy targets for subs. 

Otherwise I think we get games where players will commit subs to go after enemy combat ships all the time and ignore the convoy centers - I don't think this is a good dynamic.

[Mark]

OK - a couple options with respect to the observations that have been made.

Heavy Bombers:
Option 1:  Reduce their Air combat value to 3, leave their cost at 7+7. 
Option 2: Keep their Air combat value at 4, increase their cost to 8+8.

I think reducing their combat value does not do much to solve what you guys are looking at - what do you think about just making them cost more?

Submarines and ASW:
 I know John will not like this - but I think we need to slightly increase the ASW protection for surface ships vs. protecting convoy zones to make it a little more of a deterent to hunt well protected transports and carriers.  So I am proposing the following adjusted ASW table that improves ASW when protecting a fleet vs. protecting a convoy zone.  Let me know what you think.

Also, I think planes and units that are aboard carriers and transports that are sunk during submarine movement interdiction combat are eliminated.

[John D.]

Heavy Bombers costing more is fine - they are not heavy units are they? ASW is interesting - I am not opposed. Seems pretty streamlined. Having destroyers (and in some cases carriers) committed to the protection of fleets makes me happy. If you don't do this then you deserve to get shot at...

Makes for a great logistical game. It makes it worth building subs just to force the other side to spend resources building ASW or things could spiral out of control and set timetables back. Woohoo!

[DeathMachine]

I think the bombers are fine where they are now, I have no issues anymore.

Love the ASW change and the fact that everything goes down with the ship. Such events will be spectacular and a little more rare.

[Mark]

OK, adjusted ASW is fine - seems everyone is ok with that edit.

not sure which way you want to go with bombers though?  Leave them as is / reduce them to A2A of 3 / or increase their cost to 8+8 ?