Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
481 messages Options
123456 ... 25
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
A.A. strikes on attack are not possible.


Anything you feel is incorrect on the map simply post here.  I have a hard time seeing the mistakes cause I made it.  So I see what I think its supposed to be.

Just post here with anything.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Storm
Yes AA on attack that was my mistake, but what about it in defense? Like an AA but only against infantry when a mechinf is defending?

Now about the mistakes... (more could follow I´m a bit slow with that need to get through all the script and understand it first ;)

At first the territory attachments. Mostly the command does not correspond towards the optical terrain definitions seen in the countries.
- North Eastern US - Forest is in the country but  "territoryEffect" value="Forest" is missing
- Western US - forest like above
- North Western US - forest
- Eastern Karelia - Coast is missing
- Yukon - Hills is missing

- Yakut - instead of command line Hills you got the command line Mountain (wrong)

- Celebes - in the following its the other way round you got command line Mountain but there are none in the country
- Hainan - command line Forest but there is none - like above
- Western Ukraine - command line Coast ...
- Kamchatka - command line Hills ...
- Southern Iran - command line Mountain ...
- Tasmania - command line Hills + command line Forest ...
- Eastern US (The real one! To see what I mean look next line) - command line Urban ...

- Eastern Central US (at the map also Eastern U.S.) vs. Eastern US - you sometimes shortened the country names. Mostly it is just a little bit puzzling but here it produces an unwanted mistake. Now the USA got 2 Eastern US right aside each other. You can only discern them in the lower left side on the help bar at the bottom where the countries are written down as help along with the PUs and all their terrain specifications.
I´m not sure if you should also correct all the other cases where such a shortening happened to prevent further mistakes. If you want to, just give me a hint and I check them a second time. But I´m absolutely sure this was the only mistake where it is such fatal, the others are more a kind of political correctness. With that I mean it´s just a bit strange if you got the Eastern part and search the western futilely. For now I only got South Eastern Algeria - Southern Algeria, Western Bengal - West Bengal, Mexico - Eastern Mexico. Don´t know if you also want to change the names in respect to uniformity for better understanding. If then there will be many like Northwestern and Southwestern Australia which in the lower help bar look like North Western Australia. But maybe thats a bit too much perfectness for you so also in that case just give me a hint if you want a complete list and I have a second look.

Then you got lots of command lines with occupiedTerrOf Russia but as far as I understand the command it´s there absolutely useless because for example Pinsk, Latvia, Pskov are not any more Russian. I think this might be an old trace from the earlier version.

Apart from the Scripting like I told you in the last post there are lots of spelling mistakes mostly in the names of the cities (Rovaniemi, Albuquerque, New Orleans, ...) on the map pics but also in some countries (Latvia Estonia, Either Evenk or Evenkia but not Evenki, Sverdlovsk Oblast not only Sverdlovsk, Kazahk is not possible if then I think you mean Kazakh but then its the Kazakh Khanate, ...). If you want them I take a long brake and try to find those mistakes I can.

Despite the mistakes in the Map there are also quite a few in the ingame notes that present important events as well as in the manual. Also the german words in the historical references are often wrong, but there it would be easier if you could give the files and the correction work could be done right at the text with a writing program.

The last mistake I got for now is one which maybe not every player experiences. When starting the game the first window explaining the optional bids one can buy and place into greenland is too big. I think that may be only difficult for players that possess computers with not high enough resolution or not big enough screens. But the difficulty is one cannot scroll. The same "mistake/difficulty" happens if one got so much different units to choose from that the window is too big. That means you got no possibility to see everything and maybe sometimes cannot buy or use everything. There are possibilities for turnarounds for example always take a few units until there are not so much anymore, but its not so easy and a bit awful in gaming. And totally unexperienced players might not know how to push the "ok" button without using the mouse because you can´t get there. Maybe there could be inserted a scrollbar.

So any more wishes just tell me and now I´m off to do a bit more scripting work.
Try and you can fail. Never try and you already failed.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
In reply to this post by Dima
Dima wrote
I hope your not serios about 3/2/2/5

Any1 else has a suggestion or something to say about the Mech Inf?
Yes that was a serious thought.
A unit with values like infantry at 2 movement, could be worth 4 PUs.
No target for ATGuns, better terrain modifications, abilities of a truck(one that gets destroyed, another +) chould be worth another 1 PU, ending with 5 PUs.
However, who wants to spend 5 PUs for a Truck and since the no target for AT is not going to happen, the values will be slightly higher, additional, fighting and Truck abilites can´t be there at the same time.
So probably just stay with the current values or 3/3 to end with 4/4 after 2 techs, add the Truck ability in NonCombat and improve terrain value plus the defense support, something like this. Actually I like 3/3 from start, +Truckability+defense support for tanks from start with improved terrain values and the current tech additions as they are.

@ Storm:
Yes very much appreciated, thanks for the feedback and time spent on checking. The "Southwestern"="South Western" names thing we are aware of, will change, but it was easiest, while we intensivied the work to make a release version ready, cause I had to rename all those within the text files shortly before.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hendriks1
I like the idea about the boost for the mexh inf, it will give it use!

3/3 at start is the best, able to make it 4/4 after techs. You might even think in the tier 3 that it can transport 2 inf units? That would open up a new combat unit, advanced mech inf, with the abilities of the current tier 3 advanced mechanisation tect + can carry 2 inf. I think this would be ok as then the idea is to either use them in an attack or leave them for the non-combat to transport stuff. Mech inf should ONLY be able to carry inf though, not AA or materials etc. The advanced mech unit should only be able to be build in factories with a research center. They would cost 6.

And yes, tech sharing to benefit only germany and the US, gaining the tech activation of italy and the UK.
So after R2, germany would gain access to improved hulls and USA to improved AA, which seems historical.
This of course only if you play with the national techs switched on.

Sounds like a 2.5.3 could come out soon :)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
This post was updated on .

Well after reading the last few post reguarding Mech Inf. i understood 1 BIG IDEEA : it dosent matter if you boost, nerf  or give i dont know what ability, Tanks will still be superior economical wise and utility wise, just for the simple fact that you need to invest 2-3 tech rounds in Mech Inf  to get ther full potential, thing that is not required for the Tanks, and if you do invest in it will cost you badly in the long term. End of story

And just put your self in the fallowing situation: you got to chose 3 techs from the start of the game, and you got the 2 fallowing options:

a.) spend the 3 free tech on upgrading a unit so that it reaches economical/utility similar with the other units you allredy got

b.) spend the 3 free tech to get a new unit that outmaches all of your current units

After you answer this ..... i hope you realise what i meen
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hendriks1
But tanks will not be able to carry infantry, and are vulnerable for AT guns.

But I agree, maybe the cost of normal tanks should be reviewed, adding 1 PU to them maybe.

They should not be build as replacement infantry further into the war, and I've often had such large numbers of PU for Germany, tanks were build en mass every round in the east and used with heavy losses but usually got the USSR totally to its knees. Not sure how this will be with the improved AT's.

My idea is, lets not change too much, but relook at the costs of tanks, as we did for the cost of that other first treasured unit, the fighter.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

wirkey
imo, the stats for both tanks and mech inf are fine, the pricing is not. Might need to increase tanks 0.5 PU or decrease mech. Some time ago veq coded something that you could multiply all income with what you want. That way, you could time all prices and income with ten and have decimal prices. Fot the beginning i would start with .5 only.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
The more I look at it the more I agree.  The effectiveness of Mech. currently is only limited to the fact that there are very few of them on the map at the beginning of the game (especially for Germany who in most cases looses all but 3 after turn 1).

If you look at how effective Mech. Inf. becomes when paired with tanks after achieving "Improved Tanks"  and consider how effective an attacking army can be when those are paired with a Tactical Bomber, then I feel like the units are fine with he exception of 1 thing.   Mech. Inf. are currently horrible due to terrain effects.  They currently cannot even attack Mountains (Att. 1) cannot defend in anything other than plains.  In short Mech. Inf are completely handicapped in all but one situation.  That is why I suggested a simple increase on defense and some slight alterations to them in relation to terrain effects.  These would put Mech. Inf. to at least partially comparable to Inf. in some situations in a defensive role.

As far as the pricing idea.  I don't really like any situation where you are forced to buy 2 of something.  In effect all that is doing is raising the price of a unit even more because you have to buy 2 at a time.  The beauty of the Mech. Inf. being at 5 is that for some nations there is the opportunity to buy one unit where your P.U. limitations allow you to.

I'm still examining this.  Quite a head scratcher.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hendriks1
I fully agree with this Heps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

wirkey
I guess i have to explain that again, might have been misunderstood.

I don't like that two units for 7 (or 9 or 11 or 5 or whatever) either. My suggestion was to multiply the income by the factor x (x being 10 is the easiest). Now you multiple all unit costs by x either. Now you can modify the unit prices is smaller steps. Say x is 10, so infantry now costs 30 PU, you could make mech cost 45 PU (what would be 4.5 now) or increase tanks to 62 or something. 1 PU steps might be too much, that's why i'm making these suggestions.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
Yes possible and maybe a good and easy solution.

However, my thoughts are currently:

MechInf: 3att 3def move2, truckfunction in noncombat, +1 def support for tanks from start, cost 5.
Tanks: 5att 4def move2, blitz, +1 att support for MechInf. from start, cost 6.

Additional:
- Adjust terrain for both, MechInf. and Tanks
- take away MechInf. from the list of possible targets from ATGun( makes those slightly too good units better balanced as well as crediting the nature of MechInf. a little more with the aspect of dismounted infantry).
- Techs:
- - for MechInf. as they are currently ending with 4/4 and blitz function.
- - for imp tanks: +1 defense for tanks instead of the current support, to have them at 5/5
- - for SPA: tanks +1 attack additional to the new mobile art unit, maybe rename to ?(armoured something, motorized something...) to have tanks at 6/5
- - for adv tanks: unlock heavy tanks, but make it require improved mechanization, cause those are beasts,
that come after 4th tech currently, putting them in after 6th tech delays them a lot, makes them appear in round 8 to 10 earliest maybe, forces the mechInf tech to be followed 1 tier and can therefore be a really deadly technology, can come with heavytanks at 8att 6def 2hit, blitz back in, and heavy tanks to support both at the same time, mechinf and tanks +1 on attack.

Sounds like a lot of work and restructure, in fact, it is just one more requirement in the tech tree, some effects of tech changing and adding some more supports, which makes combined armies better, instead of those one good unit for everything.
Haven´t calculated any values for those changes, just a thought how it could work good, trying to take the different roles into consideration.


 
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
This post was updated on .
sounds more likely as WW1 combat sistem incomeing, a combat wher you heayly relay on inf
1 question: what you buy 1 tank or 2 inf? if this changes applys
And about the Mech Inf i dont know how used will be the mech inf cuz of ther noncombat ability to carry 1 inf, just imagine ho will move ther mech inf from the front line to carry inf? so in conclusion it will be just 1 trip for them, 1 trip that gives the posibility to carry 1 inf, thats if you dont need them in combat = no1 will buy them as in the current version.
And 1 other thing, in the current version all the Adv. units can be get by reserching 2/3 techs, exept for the Hvy Tanks wich require 4 techs, and you suggest to increse that to 6 techs.... good tech balance

Insted of SPA you could rename it Self Propeld Gun (SPG) to denote it as a SPA/TD ( tank destroyer)

Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Odesa
Greetings all,

First let me say thanks again to Hepps and Rolf for a job well done especially in getting 2.5 out in time for the holidays.  Also while we make suggestions I would say other than a quick 2.5.3 patch that Rolf seems intent on doing I would hope all would understand if we simply played the game as is and allow for a more refined 2.6 version in 2013 so that Hepps and Rolf can enjoy the holidays.  We should of course still post our ideas as we game play but also understand that we can't expect every idea to result in a 2.5.X re release of the game to accomodate us.

Now having prefaced with that...

Mech Infantry.  What a headache.  I'll leave that to the rest of you to figure out.  If not a good deal I won't buy the unit.

My opinion in this post is the Subs vs DD situation.

I like the new rules with regards to first strikes so it makes attacking each other more dangerous which is also good to a certain degree since the defender gets the first strike plus rolls normally as well for a combat roll or 2 chances to hit on round 1 then just 1.

However I think a few minor details should still be changed to balance the game play.  Specifically regarding the stats and the tech.

1) Stats are fine with one exception.  Raise the defensive value of a Sub from a 1 to a 2.  Keep the first strike at a 3.  DD stats are 3/3 in attack and defence and a 2 for 'aa first strike' vs attacking Subs.  Subs are currently 4/1 in attack and defence and imho should be 4/2 to match the DD's.

2) Techs.  Techs are fine too with one exception.  I've found in my game play that attacking any DD fleet is more dangerous now than normal because the DD also gets a first strike vs the sub.  I've seen a lone DD sink a sub with the first strike and then sink a Luftwaffe Plane with its normal roll.  The "AA First Strikes" makes the units deadlier than normal and even with LL dice can cause huge swings in key battles.

Now also the Allies on UK1 and US1 roll for advanced DD tech.  If they don't get it on round 1 (42%) then they will for sure get it on round 2.  When they receive this one tech however not only do they now 'become DD' and prevent the submerge but the 'aa first strike' is increased from a 2 to a 3.  Imho the DD first strike should either start at a 1 and with tech go to a 2 or start at a 2 and tech is for only 'be DD' to prevent the submerge etc.

The reason for this is the DD is such a good unit that it is often times spammed by both sides especially as it is relatively cheap compared to other units and can be used vs air as well (Subs have not combat vs air units).

One of the biggest Triplea issues for me in the past was the relative uselessness of subs in games like revised and nwo after Germany round 1.  They could never operate independently and so a wonderful facet of the game/warfare was lost after Germany 1 as all subs needed to 'run' to thier home fleet else risk death at the hands of allied air.

I think these relative minor changes to the tech and stats would do two key things.  First it would balance the game play a bit more in favor of the Axis which need it especially at sea and it would enhance/enjoy the naval parts of the game.  Secondly part of the balancing is that IF the Axis player decided to invest a bit in Subs then the Allies may find that indeed they need further research in order to build Heavy DD's to counter the growing Uboat threat.  As it stands now the Sub/DD changes that were made were GREAT to the game but only for another round MAYBE (Germany 2) IF the UK didn't hit the DD tech on UK 1.  After that we are pretty much either at G2 or G3 at the latest back to UK spamming DD's and the Uboats again being ineffective.

So in summary for the Sub/DD play I propose subs defend at a 2 not a 1 and that first tier DD tech either improve the 'aa first strike' from a 1 to a 2 or IF already a 2 is deleted entirely so that it only gains the 'is destroyer' ability.

Comments, complaints, suggestions?
Regards,
Odesa
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
i made a sorta new feature (actually just combined some stuff in the engine, then let it be determined by a new game option)

in classic rules, subs can retreat on defense to any adjacent friendly sea zone (no enemies in the sea zone)

in revised and all future rules, subs submerge in the same sea zone


i made an option that allows both at the same time (you pick which one you want)

that could give a little boost to subs, but also make it a supreme headache to calculate what is safe since subs can effectively jump spaces around the map


just a thought
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
In reply to this post by Odesa
Thanks Odesa,

Just wanted to follow up on your comments regarding the DD's.  Personally after playing I also feel that the DD is already a quality unit.  Personally from my vantage point I'd like to see the "A.A. strike" for DD go away completely.  I have found that once the DD gains the "Is Destroyer" ability they are a strong unit in the oceans.  To me if the A.A. strike were removed from the D.D. then the balance between sub warfare and surface fleets would be perfect. D.D. at 3/3 with "Improved Destroyers" giving the "Is Destroyer" feature and Sub at 4/1 with "Improved Subs" giving the subs a +1 Att. and Def. 5/2 ( A.A. def. strike remaining at 3).

Just my 2 cents.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Odesa
@Veq

Very good Veq!  The sub issue needs to be addressed for other games and it makes it more interesting when there are more facets.  I hope NWO and WAW will incorporte that as well.

@Hepps

I like the idea of NO aa first strike for DD to start too, takes away some serious stress when trying to do G1 as you have no idea if the damn DD is going to hit that 2 or not.  When/IF it does it can really change a battle.  In one game 3 subs attacking 1dd/1trn sunk nothing and lost all 3 subs when the dd hit both times and I missed my 8.  Almost like game over when that happens so I can concur with that.

With regards to improved subs tech the current manual only says that it gets the first strike +1 so unlike what you wrote the sub remains 4/1 and the dd first strike goes from a 3 to a 4.  I kind of actually like the subs first strike going from a 3 to a 4 as that means an auto hit for 3 subs instead of 4 subs making a small wolfpack invulnerable to only a lone dd.  I don't think I like the 4/1 going to a 5/2 cause the next tech only allows you to build advanced subs which are 6/3 for basic A/D.  The 5 is very close to the 6 and the 2 very close to the 3 so if you get 1 sub tech not sure anyone would roll for the tier 2 tech w/out a bigger tech payout.

This doesn't mean I don't want to see the sub defend better.  Defending at a 1 isn't right imho because that is like a transport.  Doesn't mean I don't like seeing a sub at a 5/2 but with only a 3 on dd first strike it takes too many subs to have any chance of survival on defence even with a 2 as it will be pretty easy for the Allies to spam say 12-20 DDs in no time at all if you include what they start with plus the minors building them (Canada, Egypt, SAF and Australia) usually.

So I'd like to keep the Sub/DD conversation going to see what would be the best balance for 2.6 in this one regard.

Next topic has to be beefing up the Naval Techs and reviewing the starting techs for the Allies and Axis.

Now for a Poll:  What are you favorite 3 techs?

Mine for starters:
1) Improved Aircraft Range
2) Special Warfare
3) Production

Special mention of course is that for Japan you have to have Logistics to scramble from the AC's and a lot of times Germany has to get better AA gun techs just to keep the Allied bombing runs from crushing it too quickly.  Bet we don't see too many Naval Techs on a list like this.

Bye for now
Odesa
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Odesa
Hepps,

In the new manual the techs on tanks and arty are written differently did they change?  Is advanced tanks no longer +1 on Attack and Defence and same for arty they only support a different unit now?

Also the Strategic bomber stats still say 4 for attack on page 8 of the manual I believed you nerfed them to 3 which is reflected correctly on page 6

Last thoughts on the Sub/DD concept:

Maybe keep subs at 4/1 and with improved subs (tier 1) have both the defence go up to a 2 and the aa first strike go up one from a 3 to a 4 no improvement to attack factor, stays at a 4.

All for now,
Odesa
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
In reply to this post by Odesa
Odessa I'll checks some of the stuff you mentioned.  I'm just kinda burnt out at the moment and enjoying just playing.


As Far as techs...

They really change dramatically depending on the nation.
They also greatly depend on the situation and strategies of the opponent.


Truth be told I have utilized many naval techs many times as a way to counter or increase my advantage in a given situation.

One thing I have noticed is that "Improved Artillery" and "Advanced Artillery" is becoming fairly popular in Europe.  I'm quite surprised that I have yet to see many Heavy Tanks yet.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
Thx for all the suggestions,
Well, me beeing eager to release a 2.5.3(X) version, is because of the fact, that I want to eliminate all bugs/problems, as well as having a solid base for discussing the balancing and setup.
While there are still things that will change for sure(unitvalues, abilities), the balancing can´t be tested like it should.

For the subs/destroyer thing, I like the AA firststike for DDs to go away completely, best would be imo, if it would go away with the improved destroyer tech, means DDs have a chance to hit subs on defense while beeing not able to hunt them and when they can be hunted there is no need to additional support defense, cause a destroyer present allows even airunits to hit those subs on defense.

For Tanks: I really think 6/5 is perfect, so probably let them start with 6/4, compared to 4/6 2Infs, it seems fine. Improved Tanks tech to give +1defense and +1 att support for mechs.
HeavyTanks tech to come very late is probably not that good, right. So lets stay with it and look at some calc.
60PUs:
10 Tanks(6/5): 60att, 50def, blitz and +10 possible support for mechs
6 HeavyTanks(8/6): 48 att, 36def, blitz and +10 possible support for Tanks/mechs, +6hits for free
6 HeavyTanks(9/7): 54att, 42def, no blitz, no support and +6hits for free

after 6hits: 4Tanks: 24attack 20defense...seems HeavyTanks at (8/6) without any additional support and still without blitzability seems fine.

60PUs:
5Tanks(6/5), 6Mechs(3/3) support each other +1 on attack and defense:
50(30+20) attack, 48(30+18) defense
after 6hits: 5Tanks: 30attack, 25defense or 4Tanks/1Mech: 28attack, 24defense, depends on terrain I guess.

So I am fine with all unitvalues and abilities now, I think.

MechInf: 3att, 3def, move2 cost 5, starts with Truckability in NonCombat and +1 defsupport for Tanks.
Techs stay as they are makes them 4/4+Blitz in the end.
Terrain:


Tanks: 6att, 4def, move2 cost6, blitz
Imptanktech: +1 defense, +1 support for mechinf on attack

HeavyTanks: 8att, 6def, move2 cost10 , 2hit

Mobile Artillery: 5att, 3def, move2 cost6, supports 2 inf or mech +1 on attack, supports 1 inf or mech on defense, AAstrike vs. MechInf, Tanks and HeavyTanks at 2.

Destroyer:
impDestroyerTech: gives Destroyer ability/removes AA defense vs. Subs
HeavyDestroyer: start with Destroyer ability, no AA defense vs. Subs

Improved Hulls: AAdefense vs airunits for Cruisers at 1, advanced Hulls, AAdfense vs airunits for Cruisers at 2
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
I think I like just about everything here Rolf with the exception of the DD "A.A." Defensive strike.  I feel like it is not needed at all.  The only time naval units are truly vulnerable is during turn 1 (possibly 2 depending on the outcome of round 1 combat and Tech. roles or tech. choices).  After that it really doesn't matter because if a sub attacks you still get your defensive rolls for all naval units in any given S.Z..  So in effect all the A.A. Def. roll is doing is providing a DD with 2 defensive rolls.  This is overpowered since Subs really have no defensive capability (beyond that of the A.A. Def. roll vs DD).  To me the A.A. defense of Subs makes sense purely because we completely nerfed them in any other defensive role (something I like because they are no longer valuable in Naval groups as anything other than fodder).   However a DD is already reasonably and equally powered in both an offensive and defensive roll.  Then you add the "Is Destroyer" Tech and they become that much more effective while Subs do not gain much (meaning they still remain defensively weak) and the likelihood of finding single DD or other lone naval vessels is reduced to about 0% after turn 1.  So even without the "Is Destroyer" feature naval groups generally speaking still have the advantage of numbers.

Everything else looks good.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
123456 ... 25