| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Cost 23, because it will survive almost all attacks?
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
 Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:39 am |
|
|
Posts: 806
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, so will U-47 for the most part, of course that sub has the decency to sink once you hit that 4 armor.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:20 am |
|
|
Posts: 100
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
well i like all of weeds statistics accept for the 4/3/2 but i can live with it, i just wanted to know if 5/3/2 would better reflect the way that it could run up on a ship at range 0 and the fact that it had the new torp loading system that could load 18 torps in the time it tuck there other ones to load one. i think?
PS. i did not mean to hit this one  on my last post this is what i was going for  |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:09 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If you give a sub TT 5 and use Pinpointer from a Kondor you will be throwing 6 dice. Statistically that is a 'sure hit'. I think that is too much and I suspect that is why R.B. capped the Oi at 4 torps too.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:56 pm |
|
|
Posts: 622
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | If you give a sub TT 5 and use Pinpointer from a Kondor you will be throwing 6 dice. Statistically that is a 'sure hit'. I think that is too much and I suspect that is why R.B. capped the Oi at 4 torps too. |
And why an Avenger with ET a Catalina spotting and a BB gets 6.  |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tincancaptain wrote: | | weedsrock2 wrote: | | If you give a sub TT 5 and use Pinpointer from a Kondor you will be throwing 6 dice. Statistically that is a 'sure hit'. I think that is too much and I suspect that is why R.B. capped the Oi at 4 torps too. |
And why an Avenger with ET a Catalina spotting and a BB gets 6. |
Which I really don't like. But at least it is only against a BB that will usually have Torpedo defense.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
Resident U-Head
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Like I said before, 4/3/2 is appropriate for this sub, provided the accuracy and/or rate of fire is somehow reflected. A result of 1 damage on a 5 and the usual 2 damage on a 6 achieves this. It will pose no additional threat to BBs and other ships with Torpedo Defense, but will be marginally more useful against destroyers, cruisers and auxiliaries.
In one of the rare instances where I disagree with weedsrock, I don't think a negative SA is in order, or at least one of the proposed magnitude. Not if the year of introduction is 1945 and it costs 20+ points! It might not be a bad idea to have two different cards, though: a 1943 card with negative SA and a cost in the mid-to-high teens, and a 1945 card with no negative SA and a 20+ cost.
By the way, I took some photos of U-2540 (the last surviving XXI) a couple of years back:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diabloazul/sets/72157604614971687/
_________________
  |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:33 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
There is not a negative SA on the current proposal. I have already compromised on that.
Here is the lastest proposal again.
U-2511 (Commissioned Sept. 1944, or U-3008 Commissioned Oct. 1944)
Cost ???
Year 1944
Torps 4/3/2
Armor 4/6/2
SA's:
Elusive quarry
Submerged shot
Submerged Sprint - Once per game, at the beginning of your Sea Movement step, you can give this unit +1 speed for this turn.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:27 pm |
|
|
Posts: 806
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | If you give a sub TT 5 and use Pinpointer from a Kondor you will be throwing 6 dice. Statistically that is a 'sure hit'. I think that is too much and I suspect that is why R.B. capped the Oi at 4 torps too. |
Yeah, but if the allies aren't bringing DDs or ASW aircraft, then pretty much any sub-fleet is going to chew them up.
LLs are a different matter because they do 3 hull points. Also, if we're talking about boosting SAs, the Oi is actually capped at 5 torps (thanks to the Aoba)
_________________
|
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Current proposal is reasonable enough I suppose, especially if it is confined to those two ships that made it to patrol.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 100
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
well if we do it with 4 torps at range 0 can we give it the SA that has been proposed where it can hit one hull point of damage on 5 and two on 6, there should be room on the card for that as all the other SA are smaller and plus its a sub so it has more space any way.
are we going to make this sub cost 20 points? if so i think that it should have the above SA. i mean just think thats like 4 more than any other sub in the game is it going to be that good with out this SA?  |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:53 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN freek wrote: | well if we do it with 4 torps at range 0 can we give it the SA that has been proposed where it can hit one hull point of damage on 5 and two on 6, there should be room on the card for that as all the other SA are smaller and plus its a sub so it has more space any way.
are we going to make this sub cost 20 points? if so i think that it should have the above SA. i mean just think thats like 4 more than any other sub in the game is it going to be that good with out this SA? |
We've got a sub that by tubes and torps alone deserves a 3/3/2 like the other German subs. We bump that up to 4/3/2 for increased capability. Why do we need more?
_________________
|
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:56 am |
|
|
Posts: 806
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
For a price comparison I think that U-47 is the sub to look at. Just as hard to hit, a little easier to sink, against BBs it throws the same, or more, torps depending on the range and on top of all that it has infiltrator. Honestly, 4/3/2 torps is not impressive. All other German subs can do that or one up it thanks to Wolfpack or some other boosting SA. Only U-47s is dependent on what sort of unit it is attacking.
Subs are a really obnoxious thing to cost IMO as they are the most inconsistently costed unit-type when you look between nations (even more so than Cruisers I think).
Based on U-47 (and U-66 a little), I'd put this sub at 16 or 17. Certainly not 20 or more.
_________________
|
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:08 am |
|
|
Posts: 100
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| im not saying give it more torps im saying that i think it should have some ability where it can hit on fives and sixs that may help this expensive and good sub have an edge against other subs,after all it could run silent at like 7-8 knots and thats like twice what any other sub could do running silent,also it had a new sonar system that would help it fined other subs. |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:09 am |
|
|
Posts: 100
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| i agree with Asbestos 4/3/2 is just not that great compared to any other German sub its run of the mill for them. i think that the SA that i have suggested above would be just the thing that would fill out the cost of 20 and help show that this was there best type of sub or at least one of the best. |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:17 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree with Swarbs. I have already compromised on taking out the 'negative SA' on a unit I believe deserves one. On top of that, I don't believe high point cost compensates for a unit that is very hard to stop. It just means the game drags out longer to give it time to destroy everything.
I don't know why this sub is generating so much passion, but the impression that this was the USS Nautilus (nuclear) ahead of its time is a little over the top. It was a conventional submarine with a big load of batteries. Plus some unproven technology that took a long time to fix and to train the crews to use.
My main concern is that we do not make units that unbalance the game. We all get upset when R.B. puts a 'touch' of favoritism on a unit, but we are just a prone to do it as he is.
It is an extremely strong sub as currently proposed.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:31 am |
|
|
Posts: 543
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Anyone done a playtest on it in its current proposed form? I am betting that the armor alone added with two hull points, and then its SA bonus's will make this more then impressive. Add a kondor to it and its even nastier. While it doesn't have wolfpack or anything else its still going to be hard to hit let alone sink.
_________________
Take a peek at my tradelist:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about8921.html |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:56 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It does seem like the principle advantages of the ship were stealthiness rather than offensive capabilities. So this version does seem pretty nice compared to the historical one. I think the survivability is a good feature, and you guys are right, it might become the most expensive sub in the game, but I think it will fit in submarine territory points-wise 17 or so, rather than up in the 20's.
_________________
|
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:14 am |
|
|
Posts: 806
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nisk wrote: | | Anyone done a playtest on it in its current proposed form? I am betting that the armor alone added with two hull points, and then its SA bonus's will make this more then impressive. Add a kondor to it and its even nastier. While it doesn't have wolfpack or anything else its still going to be hard to hit let alone sink. |
At 4/3/2 torps its about as bad as any other German sub when you throw in a Kondor. I think that 4 armor is a bit overrated, sure its hard to hit, but it isn't like U-47 is unsinkable. Once hit its as easy to sink as an Ambra.
17 points? Deservedly the most expensive sub. 20 or higher is a little ridiculous, consider that two U-510s cost only 22 points.
_________________
|
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:06 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It has 4 torps at range zero without requiring Wolfpack. That makes it the most potent German sub so far. I agree a point cost in the 17/18 range seems about right.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:40 am |
|
|
|
