Request: Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures

[KurtGodel7]

@rogercooper said in Request: Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures:

Axis & Allies MIniatures has nothing in common with Axis & Allies except the name. TripleA can't support.it.

The TripleA engine, as it currently exists, cannot support it. There are some here with the necessary skill set to modify the engine.

Would doing so be a good use of their time? That's for them to decide. That said, I believe that adding Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures to the TripleA community would have the following effects.

• Naval Miniatures is an outstanding game, and would be enjoyed by members of the TripleA community.
• Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures has its own following. If the game was added to TripleA, you'd bring a lot of those people here.
• There are other naval miniatures games also. By doing this, you're creating a very compelling option for the type of person who likes naval miniatures games.
• The functionality necessary to support this project could be useful for new, player-designed maps.

I want to expand a little on that last point. For a game like Revised or Global, all units have attack values and defense values. For land battles that makes sense. Defending infantry have the benefit of trenches, and so fight better than attacking infantry. For naval battles this does not make sense. In a naval battle there is no "attacker" or "defender"--just a bunch of ships and planes fighting each other.

Given that Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures is focused on naval combat, it's logical that they would do away with "attack" and "defense" values. Instead you have anti-air attacks, for shooting down enemy aircraft. Surface ships can be damaged or destroyed with gunnery attacks, dive bombs, or torpedoes. Subs can be destroyed with either depth charges or (in some instances) torpedoes.

All that is fine for a naval miniatures game, but it might not be exactly what you want for a global map WWII game. For the latter, units could have anti-land, anti-naval, anti-sub, anti-air, and strategic bombing combat values.

This would allow for more depth and richness of units. For example, fighters would be specialized at shooting down enemy aircraft. Torpedo bombers would be better at sinking ships than at destroying land targets. Medium bombers could give you a reasonably good anti-sub unit. When units have 4 - 5 combat values, there's so much more room for unit specialization (and therefore strategic choice) than is the case when units have just attack and defense values.

Improving the TripleA engine would achieve two things.

1. Expand the TripleA community, by bringing in a lot of naval miniatures people.
2. Allow people to create strategically deeper, better global map WWII games.

[RogerCooper]

@kurtgodel7 As it has nothing in common with TripleA, it would make more sense to create a dedicated program from scratch.

For naval computer games, I would suggest Carrier Battles for Guadacanal.

[KurtGodel7]

@rogercooper said in Request: Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures:

@kurtgodel7 As it has nothing in common with TripleA, it would make more sense to create a dedicated program from scratch.

For naval computer games, I would suggest Carrier Battles for Guadacanal.

The defining feature of Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures is that you're using points to build a fleet. Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal does not have that characteristic. That means the two games are in different genres. It could be worth checking out, but the two games are unlike each other.

I'm friends with a software developer. When beginning a project, he'd start by hard coding things. He'd want to get something up and running. Then he'd go back and rewrite a lot of code, to make it broader and more generic in applicability.

How hard coded is the TripleA engine? I don't know. How easy or difficult would it be to expand its capabilities, to include a game like Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures? I don't know that either.

That being said, my personal preference would be to have everything under one roof. That way you're bringing in players who enjoy miniatures, as well as a different group of players who enjoy global WWII maps. You want the WWII maps people to be exposed to naval miniatures, and you want the naval miniatures people to be exposed to WWII maps. Also, if someone is creating a new WWII map, there's a lot of functionality within naval miniatures which could add considerable strategic depth and richness.

But anything is better than nothing, and I'll be grateful for whatever improvements developers are able to achieve.

[KurtGodel7]

An Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures tournament

The Akagi. The number in the upper right means it would cost 27 points to build. It can hold a maximum of 3 planes. Each plane might cost 10 points or so to build. In the lower half of the card, you can see it provides a bonus to one fighter, one dive bomber, and one torpedo bomber.

The HMS Hood. 48 points to build. Note that its armor, vital armor, and hull points are all higher than the Akagi's, making it harder to kill. At range 3, its main gunnery attack is 12, versus just 5 for the Akagi. Larger, more heavily armored ships are immune to the main gunnery attacks from the Akagi, but can take damage from the Hood's main gunnery attacks.

The U.S.S. Iowa. 68 points to build. The most expensive and the most powerful Allied battleship in the game.

[beelee]

@kurtgodel7

Hi kurt

Triplea can do some of what is needed currently. The 'isAA" and "hitPoints" could do some of it.

As Roger stated though, triplea can't do it all. Is your computer buddy interested in working on triplea to make it happen ?

A lot of people have contributed over the years and my impression is, that while Dan has been cleaning things up code wise, along with others, especially frigoref lately, it's still not as clean as developers would like.

So, he might need to look at it as more of a challenge

But hey, these guys have done it Myrd, RoiEXLab, redrum, wc_sumpton ... well the list goes on and on.

Anyway, that probably your best bet to make it happen.

[TheDog]

@KurtGodel7
If you have not already download, Battle of Jutland, yes its WW1, but it is probably the best naval game for TripleA currently.

[RogerCooper]

Somebody has already implemented some of this, without AI, https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2123236912

[KurtGodel7]

American fleet versus Japanese fleet.

British fleet versus Italian fleet.

Notice that a Kate costs over twice as much as a Betty. Why? The Betty is a patrol bomber. That means land-based. Which means it can only be used every other turn. The Kate is a torpedo bomber, and can be based on a carrier. Carrier-based planes can fight every turn. Also, the Kate has higher armor and vital armor, making it more resistant to being aborted or destroyed. The Kate fires three torpedoes, versus two for the Betty.

A tale of two battleships. At 35 points, the Kongo is among the weaker and less expensive battleships. The Yamato costs 70 points, and is the most expensive and most powerful Axis battleship.

At 56 points to build, the Washington is a strong American battleship. The Enterprise takes 25 points to build. Up to 3 planes can be based on it, and it provides a combat bonus to a fighter and a dive bomber. Note that the Enterprise's armor, vital armor, and main gun are all much weaker than the Washington's. Carriers generally try to avoid combat themselves, allowing their aircraft to do the fighting for them.

[RogerCooper]

@kurtgodel7 TripleA is an engine designed to play games where units are moved by territories and conduct combat when they are in the same area. Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures is game where the units can occupy any position on the map and conduct combat from a distance. There is nothing in common. You can't modify TripleA to play it.

I would like to see a good turn-based naval combat game. There where a number during DOS times, but I don't know of any now.

[KurtGodel7]

@rogercooper said in Request: Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures:

@kurtgodel7 TripleA is an engine designed to play games where units are moved by territories and conduct combat when they are in the same area. Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures is game where the units can occupy any position on the map and conduct combat from a distance. There is nothing in common. You can't modify TripleA to play it.

I would like to see a good turn-based naval combat game. There where a number during DOS times, but I don't know of any now.

I don't know if you're a computer programmer. I've taken a few classes in computer programming, but I don't know Java. This being said, you keep saying things can't be done. You are wrong. They absolutely, 100% can be done.

Combat works differently between Axis and Allies/world maps versus Axis and Allies/naval miniatures. Fine. Solving that problem is trivial. Below is some code in BASIC (one of the languages I do know).

Let X = Number_of_Die_Rolls
Let hits = 0
For B = 1 to X
Let Y = rnd()
If Y < 0.5, then let hits = hits + 0
If Y > 0.5, and if Y < 0.833333, then let hits = hits + 1
If Y => 0.833333, then let hits = hits + 2
Next B
If hits >= Vital_armor_value, then target = destroyed
Elseif hits >= armor_value, then -1 to target_hull_points
If target_hull_points = 1, then target = crippled
If target_hull_points = 0, then target = destroyed

Clean up that code a little, translate it into Java rather than BASIC, and that's enough to make gunnery attacks and dive bombs work. You'd need two other blocks of code also: one for torpedoes, the other for depth charges.

What about the problem you mentioned, of firing from a distance? TripleA very obviously has an object of some sort for detecting range.

Step 1. Determine max_range of selected unit
Step 2. List enemy units within that max range
Step 3. Player selects an enemy unit from the list
Step 4. Determine range to the target the player selected
Step 5. Use the range and the attacker's unit stats to determine the number of die rolls.
Step 6. Feed the number of die rolls into the above-described combat engine, as well as the target's armor value and vital armor value.

None of this should be all that hard. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[beelee]

@kurtgodel7

One way you might be able to deal with the one TTy that everybody is in thing, Is to still divide the map but give everybody a buncha movement.

Idk, I never played it, but you might be able to get close to it.

[RogerCooper]

@kurtgodel7 It is possible to write a program to play Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures. The program would have almost no commonality with TripleA. Even Axis & Allies 1914 has not been fully implemented in TripleA.

In addition to the link I showed you before, there is a Vassal module available.

[KurtGodel7]

@rogercooper said in Request: Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures:

@kurtgodel7 It is possible to write a program to play Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures. The program would have almost no commonality with TripleA. Even Axis & Allies 1914 has not been fully implemented in TripleA.

In addition to the link I showed you before, there is a Vassal module available.

In coding, some tasks are trivial, others non-trivial.

The code I wrote in my earlier post is trivial. It's the sort of thing they teach you to write in computer science 101. Trivial code along those lines is all or most of what's necessary to get Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures to work in the TripleA engine.

A lot of what the TripleA engine does is non-trivial.

Incorporating Naval Miniatures into the TripleA engine has two advantages.

1. It would allow software developers to glom off of the non-trivial tasks already achieved in the TripleA engine, instead of having to start from scratch.
2. It would bring the naval miniatures people into the TripleA community, instead of separating them off into their own community.

[beelee]

@kurtgodel7

you may want to make a Feature Request at github and link to the discussion here. https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues

Hit "New Issue" then "Feature Request"

Edit
Well they don't want Feature Requests there anymore

[KurtGodel7]

Customized game board.

A different customized game board.

Model railroad techniques were used to make the islands.

A large fleet battle.

More customization.

[KurtGodel7]

The above cards pertain to battle of the starter set.

Ax excerpt from the above link:

---

The current Starter Set for the War at Sea Axis & Allies naval miniatures game provides an interesting tactical puzzle for the players as well as being a good introduction to the game system.

At less than 50 points worth of units per side and just a total of 8 pieces it's definitely on the smaller side, but there's a considerable amount of reply value as the Starter shows that you don't need battleships to have a good game.

Each side has its strengths and weaknesses but they're evenly matched and good play will generally prevail even in a game as dicey as WAS. Either side can win, but winning consistently will mean paying close attention to both sides' values and special abilities.

The Axis side is represented by a pair of surface ships supported by one sub and a patrol bomber, giving the Japanese player a wide variety of threats.

The centerpieces of the Japanese force is the Heavy Cruiser Haguro, which fought throughout the Pacific campaign and met its demise in the last surface action fought during the Pacific War.

At 18 points it's the highest valued unit in the set and it justifies that high value with a nice array of powerful attacks. At a range of 0 or 1 the Haguro will roll 10 dice with its main battery gunnery, which is the highest total available in the set. This is 2 more dice than the base roll of the Allied forces' counterpart, the USS Montpelier, and is enough to almost guarantee getting at least a hit on the Montpelier. The Haguro's advantage drops off rapidly with range, however. At range 2 the Haguro only rolls 9 dice, while the Montpelier still rolls 8 and may roll 9 dice if it's still undamaged and has its Radar Fire Control SA. At Range 3 both ships roll 7 base dice and an undamaged Montpelier actually has a 1-die advantage. The American cruiser, if undamaged, also has a Range 4 shot of 8 dice. So the Haguro generally wants to close the range if possible. The Haguro's secondary gunnery factors of 4-4-3 are adequate to pose a threat to either of the enemy destroyers, but its AA value of 7 is only enough to occasionally abort the American Avenger and it will take a very good roll to shoot it down.

The Haguro's nastiest punch rests with its torpedo battery.

---

[RogerCooper]

@kurtgodel7 Interestingly, the Haguro was sunk in the last surface naval action of WW2 by 5 British destroyers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Malacca_Strait. That would in interesting battle to play out.

[KurtGodel7]

Some thoughts on fleet building (Allied)

Battleships (70 points)
If you're the Allies, you have one option here. The Iowa. The Iowa has the best main guns and armor of any Allied battleship. Also the most hull points. In general, American ships have slightly better anti-air defense than their Japanese counterparts. That's certainly the case here, with the Iowa having better antiaircraft fire than the Yamato. Also the Iowa is the only ship in the game with extended range 5. When undamaged, its main guns have a range of 5. After taking damage, its maximum range is reduced to 3.

Battleships (50 - 55 points)
Some good options for the Allies here, most of which are American. There are also some non-American options, such as the French battleship Richelieu or the British battleship Rodney. Battleships at this price point will generally have extended range 4. When undamaged, they have a range of 4. On taking damage, their max range is reduced to 3. In general, battleships at this price point are like slightly weaker versions of battleships at 70 points. 5 hull points instead of 6, for example. A little less armor, making it a bit easier for opposing units to land a hit. A bit weaker main guns, making it a little less likely to land a hit of your own.

Battleships (40 - 45 points)
Also good options for the Allies here. A number of which are British. In many cases the British battleship will have something wrong with it. Slow 1 or 2, which can reduce your movement speed for a turn depending on die roll. Fatal flaw, making the ship potentially easier to destroy. Stuff like that. But these are still powerful ships, and at a lower price point than above.

Battleships (below 40 points)
As the price of a battleship continues to decline, it becomes in some ways less like a battleship and more like a strong cruiser. More vulnerable to damage. Less able to use its main guns to inflict hits on heavily armored opponents. But ships at this price point still have their uses. They're good at attacking weaker ships. Also, any surface ship can take an objective, or deny an objective to an opponent. There's always the chance of getting lucky, and using your main guns to inflict damage on even a heavily armored enemy. That chance increases as you reduce the range.

Cruisers
It's probably not a great idea to use cruisers as your counter to enemy battleships. But you can still use them to attack other enemy ships, such as cruisers, destroyers, and carriers.

Destroyers
These are useful against subs. Also they can have torpedoes. Torpedoes ignore armor, which means they can inflict damage upon even the most heavily armored of battleships.

Aircraft Carriers
If I'm building an aircraft carrier, the three things I most want to know are: how much does the carrier cost? How many planes does it hold? What bonuses does it provide to planes? Most Allied aircraft carriers are American, and American carriers trend toward providing bonuses to dive bombers rather than torpedo bombers.

Aircraft
For aircraft I'm assuming a cutoff date of 1942 or earlier. Four different categories of aircraft from which to choose: fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and patrol bombers. Of those, patrol bombers are strictly land-based, whereas the other three types can be based on carriers or on the land. You're going to want some fighters. These will help fight off enemy air attacks, while occasionally killing enemy aircraft outright. As for dive bombers vs. torpedo bombers: you have good options for both, but you might be better off emphasizing dive bombers. Especially with bonuses from carriers, American dive bombers have the ability to inflict damage even upon the mighty Yamato. That said, torpedo bombers can play a good role as well. The U.S. and Britain have some good options for patrol bombers. Often, the patrol bombers available to you will be inexpensive, capable of packing a good punch, but also vulnerable to being aborted or destroyed.

Subs
Your options here are decent and reasonably priced.

[KurtGodel7]

Fleet building (Axis)

Battleships (70 points or so)
The Yamato (70 points) and Musashi (66 points) give you the most brute power of any ships in the game. They're a little weaker at anti-air than the Iowa. Also they only have extended range 4, instead of extended range 5 for the Iowa. Nevertheless these ships are an outstanding way to provide surface combat power.

Battleships (50 - 55 points)
You have some good options here, including Japan's Nagato, Germany's Bismarck, and Italy's Vittorio Veneto. Ships at this price point generally have extended range 4. Good overall stats, making them strong at surface combat.

Battleships (40 - 45 points)
As with Allied battleships, Axis battleships at this price point tend to decline a bit in power, as compared to their more expensive counterparts. Weaker armor, making it easier to score hits on them. Weaker main guns, making it more difficult for them to penetrate the armor of the game's heaviest units. But you're still looking at powerful units here.

Battleships (below 40 points)
Some interesting Japanese options here, as well as some battleships which aren't Japanese. The things I wrote about the Allied battleships at this price point apply also to Axis battleships.

Cruisers
Japan has some interesting options for cruisers, especially considering the long range of their torpedoes. Torpedoes ignore armor, allowing them to inflict damage on any surface ship. However, cruisers are more vulnerable to surface guns than are battleships. In fact, cruisers are more vulnerable in general than are battleships.

Destroyers
Axis destroyers are broadly similar to their Allied counterparts.

Aircraft carriers
Japan has some very good options with respect to its aircraft carriers. While its carriers apply various types of bonuses, they are especially good at providing bonuses to torpedo bombers. Or, you might choose a slightly less expensive carrier which provides fewer bonuses.

Aircraft
Assuming a cutoff date of 1942 or earlier, the Zero is a reasonably powerful fighter, at a good price. The Val is a good option as a dive bomber. But where Japan shines is the Kate: an excellent torpedo bomber. Not only is the Kate good at attacking heavily armored ships, it can also provide anti-sub war if that's something you need. Considering the bonuses Japanese carriers often provide to torpedo bombers, it's as though you're being warmly encouraged to build at least some Kates. Not that there's anything wrong with including some Val dive bombers into your unit mix. As for patrol bombers: you have some good Japanese options, such as the Betty. Also some good non-Japanese options, like the German Kondor.

Subs
Japanese subs are often a bit more powerful than their American counterparts. But, their price point reflects that.