The CV needs to stay at 14, Im ok with the other changes
@Imperious-Leader I’m referring to Global 1940 aircraft carriers that are capital ships which take two hits to sink and cost 16 IPCs.
For use in 1942.2… so hit CV…16 IPC…it will make it too strong, but if planes need to retreat if the CV takes one hit, or fly to another location …perhaps
I don’t think the 1942.2 prices are off except maybe AAA guns at 4IPC. Changes i would look at are neutral armies and IPC values, adding the Global unit types, and technology
@Imperious-Leader I was only thinking about 1940, but I’m curious now about 1942. Do you like cruisers at 12 and battleships at 20 for 1942?
I think this game is perfect. The thought on the map sea zones and areas is magic! Its a shorter game however i did win a 27 rounder once
This is a great idea, and there’s nothing drastic here. I recently thought about naval and air bases and their status as niche builds (AB in Hainan/Gibraltar, NB in Midway) and if they should cost 12 to have consistency among the small facilities. What do you think?
@General-Veers I like the idea of reducing the facilities cost as well. But I have been wondering if perhaps airbases should cost more than naval bases. I feel like the scramble potential of airbases is more powerful than the repairing abilities of naval bases (while the move extension seems obviously on equal terms). I think a 12 or 13 IPC naval base sounds good, but I’d personally want air bases to be more, maybe about 14 IPCs. One of the reasons why I think airbases need a higher cost is their relevance to aircraft carriers. Why build a carrier for 16 when you can scramble 3 fighters for 15 (or as you and I propose 12/13).
I’d love to see more facility building, as this is something that’s very rare in my group’s games. It would be hard to find the perfect cost, but I think your 12 IPCs is a good place to begin testing, perhaps going as low as 11 for sea bases and as high as 14 for air bases. I’d like to try it.
AA Guns - I think the price is fine at 5. I still buy them but rarely more due to their limited usefulness than their price. i.e., if they cost only 3 I wouldn’t buy more than I do today. At the end of the day, as written, they are more of a deterrent than an actual combat unit. Want to make them “feel” like they are worth 5? Give them the option of AA fire or a defense value of 2 in each combat. Flak 88s certainly killed enough Matildas in North Africa.
Cruisers - Yeah, as written, there is certainly an argument for reducing them to 11 (though I wouldn’t touch the Battleship cost). They really need something a little more to make them worth 12, whether its the ability to bombard facilities on islands or even an R&D option to create Anti-Aircraft Cruisers that can act as an AA gun rather than using their 3 defense value.
Tactical Bombers - I think they are perfectly priced at 11. Their ability to attack at a 4 both on land and at sea is powerful, arguably more so than the fighter’s ability to defend at a 4. I think perhaps it is only the relative cost of the strategic bombers that make them seem a poor buy.
Strategic Bombers - I would pay 13 for these; I may even pay 14.
@andy-palmer Really love your idea of AA gun option against planes Or regular Defense fire, I’m adding that to my current house rules- for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!
@nolimit said in Global 1940 2nd Edition Standard Units but with Altered Costs:
{snip} for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!
How do you tell the capital ship Cruisers from the regular Cruisers?
-Midnight_Reaper
@midnight_reaper You could either put a National marker under it or use your own customized to scale Cruiser in place of the regular cruiser.
I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.
