Unit abilities

[Guest]

@LT04:

I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

LT

I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?

[losttribe04]

@mwindianapolis:

@LT04:

I have sometimes wondered if one of the lesser reasons that other allies were never allowed to step foot in Russia was that Russian soldiers would see how much more well equipped the US soldiers were then themselves and possibly start another Bolshevik scenario.

This to some degree did become an issue with US troops in England.

I know that the big reason Russia was taboo for other allies was Stalin’s ego.

LT

I wonder what would have happened if Germany just left Russia alone?

I guess that would have been up to Stalin.  If say when Germany invaded Poland that Russia felt they had more claim to that country they may have declaired war on Germany.

Then again Stalin may not of wanted to have been out done by the US so they may have entered the war any way even if Poland was left untouched.

Who knows?

LT

[axis_roll]

@Imperious:

I have said for 5 years now that the Destroyer and not the submarine should be the ‘infantry of the sea’ and finally they listen.

They seem more like the tanks of the sea as they do more than subs.

So the analogy is inf:tanks
as subs:destroyers

[Perry]

@axis_roll:

They seem more like the tanks of the sea as they do more than subs.

So the analogy is inf:tanks
as subs:destroyers

You are clearly in error axis_roll  :-)

It goes like this:

inf = sub
rtl = dd
ca = arm

Or, like this table puts it. The only thing that deviates from a ‘perfect match’, is that CA’s should cost 10  :-)

Inf:          Sub
Cost 3      6
Att  1      2
Def  2      1

Rtl            DD
Cost 4      8
Att  2      2
Def  2      2
Cost, in % of previous unit (Inf/Sub, respectively):
133%        133%

Tank        CA
Cost 5      12
Att  3      3
Def  3      3
Cost, in % of previous unit (Rtl/DD, respectively):
125%        150%

[Imperious Leader]

You are clearly in error axis_roll  smiley

It goes like this:

inf = sub
rtl = dd
ca = arm

Or, like this table puts it. The only thing that deviates from a ‘perfect match’, is that CA’s should cost 10  smiley

Inf:          Sub
Cost 3      6
Att  1      2
Def  2      1

Rtl            DD
Cost 4      8
Att  2      2
Def  2      2
Cost, in % of previous unit (Inf/Sub, respectively):
133%        133%

Tank        CA
Cost 5      12
Att  3      3
Def  3      3
Cost, in % of previous unit (Rtl/DD, respectively):
125%        150%

i guess we are both in error. Thanks Perry. but to my credit the destroyer can actually attack planes and prevent the transport from taking the hit and infantry is a soak up admittedly for armor, so it can be argued that the destroyer fills the role as a proper protector=soaker for naval units attacked by air, which is pretty common. Also, who is gonna bring in subs for defense anyway? i would not even buy them if i had a fleet to protect as the Axis. I would buy them as only attack ships and if the claim is they are infantry, then they would be better on defense because that’s why we buy infantry for defense not attack. I dont buy transports for defense in revised because a one is nothing. I need at least a 2 to have a chance to kill the enemy based on any cost investment basis.

Thats my 2 cents anyway

[italiansarecoming]

So the battleships are the fighters/bombers of the sea. I am thinking of Fighters are the aircraft carriers and the battleships as the bombers.

Though subs as the inf. as the sea i totally agree and then the rest is perfectly great!

[Imperious Leader]

Remember also its hard to access the intrinsic value of items like:

ability to hold planes

to shore bombard

to negate subs first strike

to shoot at air units

to not be able to be fired at by air units…unless yada yada…

etc…

[italiansarecoming]

The tank can move 2 spaces!

[cousin_joe]

It would have been nice to see the Battleships come down to around 18IPC

20IPC would have been OK if TRNs,SUBs and DDs were their original costs (8,8,12), but with all of them coming down (6,7,8), Battleships should have recieved a bit more of a boost as well.

[italiansarecoming]

noone ever hs the money to spend on a battleship unless you are huge or usa trying to get soem sea control (i have found once that a usa bought a bship and a destroyer on turn 1 to not do kgf and bships hurt a lot)

[Cobert]

While the sub changes make their role a little more specific and realistic, I can’t help but think that they’re terrible now.

Even the argument of “it’s only 6 IPCs!” doesn’t work since Destroyers are only 8.

I think I like all of these changes though, aside from possible balance issues, this is the game of Axis and Allies that I’ve wanted to play.

[italiansarecoming]

ahh like my bnet game i get the subs just to make my oppenent to buy destroyers

(when im naval japan i get subs for like 1340gold anyways and i make 2 so my oppenent makes like 3 destroyers that i pick off with plaens at the earily yeard 1941-1942 after that i lose unless asia is taken (india is a choke piont)

[Lisi7266]

@italiansarecoming:

ahh like my bnet game i get the subs just to make my oppenent to buy destroyers
(when im naval japan i get subs for like 1340gold anyways and i make 2 so my oppenent makes like 3 destroyers that i pick off with plaens at the earily yeard 1941-1942 after that i lose unless asia is taken (india is a choke piont)

Dude, take your time when you type. Relax…It helps when we can read and understand what you are trying to say.

[Imperious Leader]

Im with you. That post makes no sence at all.

[Bardoly]

Agreed, that post makes no sense at all.

[Constantinople]

I didn’t think anyone read them, I know I don’t.

[a44bigdog]

About the only use I have for subs is as fodder in a primarily aerial naval attack. Most fleets seem to have a destroyer along anyway so the opening fire  special ability of subs seems to rarely ever come into play.

[Lucifer]

Some units got improved from AAR.
In AAR, BB’s are useless, also DD’s, and no top players buy bombers.
In AA50 BB’s are probably not useless, Cruisers and DD’s are decent naval units, DD’s can even be bought if the enemy has subs and the starting DD’s have been killed.
Subs will be pretty much useless in AA50, although someone might buy a few subs as fodder, but not in the same manner like artillery and infantry is being used as land units. Infs are mostly bought to protect and hold important TT’s, and not only used as fodder in offensive operations.

[italiansarecoming]

:-D  i was just saying my battle net. game as japan subs are 1340gold and they are just used for the oppent to make destroyers since destroyers are a waste of money except that they can hit subs.

Thats all i am getting at people might make a few subs so others will make destroyers!

[AxisOfEvil]

Im really curious to hear what the thoughts are on the viability of the new Battleship unit in AA50. In revised, the battleship was the only unit that provided an amphious assault support. Now there are two. the cruiser. Which unit is more vaible, the cruiser or the battelship?

The differences between the two pieces are:

1) cost
   2) attack/defend
   3) BB absorbs a hit

So:

at 12 ipcs, a cruiser is 3/3 in battle. that is 4ipc/die point on both attack and defense.
    at 20 ipc, a battleship is 4/4. that is 5ipc/die point on attack and defence.

Right off the bat you can see the the cruiser gets more bang for the buck in battle. But does it? The ability to absorb a hit is pretty valuable. the cheapest ‘fodder’ unit is a sub at 6 ipcs. But depending on naval make-up, transports at 7 ipc will be used alot as fodder too. So the battleship purchase save you one fodder unit per combat, on the attack or defense. the ipc diff between the unit is only 8ipc. the cost diff is nearly made up the very first naval battle. Over the lifetime of the purchase, the battleship saves so much more money.

if you had 60 ipcs to spend on capital ships, would you buy 3 battleships or 5 cruisers?

60 ipc

3 bb
–—
12 attack
12 defend
6 hits

5 cruisers

15 attack
15 defend
5 hits

the battleship are at a disadvantage with die points. However, the three battleships can absorb 3 hits with no ipc loss. Does the increased attacking and defending ability of the cruisers make up for the IPCs saved by the battleship? I dont think it does, cuz the BBs have hidden attack and defense value. those three units that they spare have attack and defend value right? That has to be added to the value of the battleships.  but wait, there’s more:

Shore bombardment - The cruisers can bombard the same as the bb for less cost. thats roughly a value of 2/3(3ipc) or 2 ipc per amphibous assault. Does the more cost efficient method of inflicting damage on the enemy tip the scale in the cruiser’s favor? Our 5 crusiers now bombard at 2/3(15ipcs) 10 ipcs damage per assault vs 3 BBs 2/3(9ipcs) 6ipcs per assault. a diff of 3 ipc per assault.

In your guys opinion, what the best purchase here?  Is the more cost efficient assaults more viable then the more cost efficient naval battles?