@SuperbattleshipYamato I have played a few games and though the Axis can initially worry the Allies , (I thought I would lose ), I have always been able to keep the income gap and , as the game progresses, it opens up much more .
I don’t believe , The Allies don’t need help in this game, if the players are equal ability.
1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less
-
@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:
Decreasing naval unit costs are good, but its stand alone horrible idea since it totally negate all air coverage tactics especially for Germany. Air units should always have overall upper hands against naval units.
Air unit costs should be decreased in this case which will cause an unbalance between air and ground units.
You cannot conquer land without land units, and aircraft provide coverage for both land and sea. This is a good benefit compared with any investment in sea unit. They can becomes powerless if your invasion goes beyond the second round of combat or the second territory within a continent.
So, making Cruiser in par with Fighter or TcB is a small issue, IMO.
-
If fighter and bomber remain the same then destroyer cost should absolutely not be decreased. Cruiser could be either 10 or 11, but 10 ipc could make battleship very bad unit.
-
@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:
If fighter and bomber remain the same then destroyer cost should absolutely not be decreased. Cruiser could be either 10 or 11, but 10 ipc could make battleship very bad unit.
I totally agree.
I suggested this scale in a quote below:
Subs, DDs and Carriers are already interesting buy at their OOB cost.Transports 5 ipcs
Subs 6 ipcs
destroyers 8 ipcs
Cruisers 10 ipcs
Carriers 14 ipcs
Battleships 18 ipcs -
The wholescale reduction benefits Allied players who have more money to spend, and require a large naval presence to establish themselves.
-
@Imperious-Leader said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:
The wholescale reduction benefits Allied players who have more money to spend, and require a large naval presence to establish themselves.
And if 1942.2 is biased towards the Axis, wouldn’t that in turn help return things to a balance?
-Midnight_Reaper
-
1942 online Allied players know how to suppress that advantage, and making cheap navy establishes them faster, while the Axis are focused on Land units and not spending money on navies. The cheap ship thing is to benefit players who love “who has the biggest toy boat fleet just sitting around Alaska forcing Japan to park and buy unnecessary boats 3 spaces away for the duration of the game”
-
@Imperious-Leader which set up do 1942 online players mostly prefer?
-
Larry Harris Gen-con Setup, so Germany can lose the fighter and bomber in Ukraine and make it even.
-
@Imperious-Leader I have read even in Larry Harris Gen-con Setup set up, some people still give Allies 6 bid what do you think?
-
No . No allies bid. Play 1942 Online and see what we do.
-
What if Russian attack on Ukraine fails? Could Allies still win at that point?
-
That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.
Suggested Topics
