$90.00 unless you preorder it I believe.
Bombers at 14 means no one buys them, ever.
Cruisers at 12 mean almost the same thing.
And armor at 6 is less cost efficient than mech inf at 4, for attack and defense.
And why would I pay 1 more IPC for a tac bomber that only fights as good as a fighter when with a tank when I could instead buy a fighter.
Time for more math! Woot.
Let us take a combined arms force, we will say 3 inf, 3 armor, and 3 tec bombers. Using TripleA battlecalc and assuming the tec bombers are regular bombers which is better for them because they don’t loose the +1 due to the armor dying, but that is beside the point.
3 inf, 3 arm, 3 tec bombers vs 11 inf win 52% of the time
4 inf, 3 arm, 3 fighters (same cost) vs 11 inf win 54% of the time
Dollar for dollar they are about the same on the attack in a mixed group, yet fighters have no restrictions like needing armor, AND they defend better.
End result is for useless unit list:
Cruiser
Armor @ 6
Tactical Fighters @ 11
yes but Tac bombers cerianly will change naval combat. and you have to admit tanks at 6 IPC means people wont buy As many of them right?
2 infantry is now a better deal than 1 tank. Do the math.
3 mech inf are better than 2 tanks as well, the true problem.
Vs navy i’ll just buy regular bombers, range is the most important factor when defending against enemy drops.
Navy vs Navy the destroyer is still a better buy offensively and defensively, so I wont care.
aww its okay new guy. I cant chew you a new one for trying! Historically fighters and bombers dont cost the same. I like that you have planes that cost 10, 11, 12 IPC. Each with their own benefits too!
Well, I wasn’t talking about bombers, I was talking about Fighter-bombers or Tactical bombers if you will. You do know the difference between a bomber and a fighter-bomber, don’t you? I certainly hope so.
A squadron of Stukas costing more than a squadron of FW190s… I wouldn’t think so.
Geez…You could have worded it nicer
Are your feelings hurt?
Yes. I am going to order a sob burger with french cries. boo hoo!
Now, now it’s okay. Everything is going to be all right.
well, I do not think that navy units should be compared with tanks directly
yes, a tank is a 3-3-2 for 6 and a cruiser is a 3-3-2 for 12, but you can not compare them directly because they will never fight each other
however, you can compare them through the air units, because each will have to fight with air units
tanks are a 3-3-2 for 6 and fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 10, which is fair or perhaps a little expensive for the tank which should cost 5 or 5.5 or something
fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 10 and cruisers are a 3-3-2 unit for 12, but the fighter requires you to pay for a carrier, which you don’t attack with, that costs 18, which is an additional 9 per fighter, so that means fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 19 while cruisers are a 3-3-2 unit for 12, which is not fair for the fighter and sucks my balls (see my post about the cost of carriers)
You guys are too much into maths….
Even at 12, UK will buy Cruisers. Why? Even if Destroyers are superior for defense/offensve (naval), Cruiser has the ability of hitting the ground when dropping troops.
Tanks @ 6ipc. Means you can’t do super stacks of tanks that easily. Means tanks become valuable (which they should be)
Also, Tanks being a ground unit will reinforce a territory you conquer. You can’t land planes on them, remember?
Technically speaking, Carriers are really really expensive. You will have to build them to control the sea.
About tactical bombers. I’m still not sure how they function. The word “bomber” could be misleading. But if this type of plane can SBR, then it is good (range could be an issue). Otherwise, it must have some sort of ability. (Maybe the boost on armor will be enough to justify their purchase)
One thing is sure, this game will be completly new. Air bases, naval bases, new units, new costs, bigger maps… The game will change. So all these discussions on the costs (Without the actual map) seem to me pointless.
I don’t know if someone mentioned this but- REMEMBER- in the E40,P40 (G40) games the Battleships and Carriers will take 2 hits- HOWEVER- they have to go back to a naval base to REPAIR- which limits their movement somewhat. This may make these units “slower” than just buying a couple of crusiers or 3 destroyers. I thought this was a clever rule to make room for all naval units to have good roles to play.
V-man, you have a point, you have to realize the other factors involved in this game like the ones mentioned above by myself earlier and the effect of naval and airbases and Major and Minor ICs (can’t be built on Islands except UK, Japan and Australia).
Can Kreighund give us a price list of all the units yet??? No sense debating if some of the prices are unknown. :?
Can Kreighund give us a price list of all the units yet???
No, I can’t get into specifics yet. :-(
You guys are too much into maths….
Even at 12, UK will buy Cruisers. Why? Even if Destroyers are superior for defense/offensve (naval), Cruiser has the ability of hitting the ground when dropping troops.
Tanks @ 6ipc. Means you can’t do super stacks of tanks that easily. Means tanks become valuable (which they should be)
Also, Tanks being a ground unit will reinforce a territory you conquer. You can’t land planes on them, remember?Technically speaking, Carriers are really really expensive. You will have to build them to control the sea.
About tactical bombers. I’m still not sure how they function. The word “bomber” could be misleading. But if this type of plane can SBR, then it is good (range could be an issue). Otherwise, it must have some sort of ability. (Maybe the boost on armor will be enough to justify their purchase)
One thing is sure, this game will be completly new. Air bases, naval bases, new units, new costs, bigger maps… The game will change. So all these discussions on the costs (Without the actual map) seem to me pointless.
Tanks at 6 mean mech inf at 4 attack AND defend better, making them POINTLESS.
Tac-bombers special ability is not worth the extra inf you could have, making them pointless.
With new carrier cost cruisers may be better at bombarding then using attacking fighters based on carriers even against AA guns like in aa50, but I doubt it, making them pointless.
I already showed why on earlier posts why don’t you prove me wrong with these maths.
aww cant we all get along? maybe BOTH of you are right
They both can’t be right. Someone has to be left.
Actually its three rights that make a left. (dont believe me? turn right three times)
And 3 lefts make a right? I think this would be true also.
Yeah, 6 is too much to pay for a tank. The real solution isn’t more expensive tanks, its more options to make Artillery and Infantry more mobile. If Mech Infantry moved were (A1/D2/M2/C4) and had the special power that they could “carry” one other land unit with them (inf or art) then they would be perfect. Tanks would still cost 5, but you’d build fewer because its easier to get infantry to the front lines.
