Mr Roboto.
Axis Global is like chess. If someone suggests a grand strategy as being superior, that doesn’t mean the suggestion is to do it regardless of what the other side is doing.
The point is and will always be that the least efficient strategy is for either Japan and the US to go dramatically on the offensive, (not all out-just spending a majority of their resources) in the Pacific because of the unrealistic resources demanded to build a Navy, and for those resources, the rewards attained are only a fraction of the rewards attainable if those same resources were spent on Asia for Japan and Europe for the US.
That doesn’t mean that if the US foolishly goes 100% on the offensive in the Pacific, Japan should just run and hide its Navy. It merely needs to play a defensive, much less costly naval war, holding of the US while it achieves the most important Asian objectives, UK Pacific and China.
Same for the US, if the Japan goes all out, (foolishly) against the US, the US is best served by playing defensively, only holding them off, while most of its resources are focused on Europe.
This is because Navy’s are still unrealistically expensive compared to the ground units.
This is of course with the caveat that you are not playing with the horrid, unrealistic, foolish NO of Japan winning to whole freaking game with only 6 VC’s. The stupidest rule axis ever came up with.
Mr Roboto.
Axis Global is like chess. If someone suggests a grand strategy as being superior, that doesn’t mean the suggestion is to do it regardless of what the other side is doing.
I am fully aware of that, and I don’t really know why you are pointing it out to me.
This is of course with the caveat that you are not playing with the horrid, unrealistic, foolish NO of Japan winning to whole freaking game with only 6 VC’s. The stupidest rule axis ever came up with.
Well I agree with the Victory-City problem in Global, but since the League here plays WITH this rule (and other leagues like the one at tripleawarclub as well)……
Once again, I am trying to specify what I meant. I am just saying, that Japan cannot afford to lose it’s Navy to the Allied forces. If the US Navy gets so big that it can defeat the Japanese Navy, Japan gets convoyed heavily. Without the IPC from the coastal regions, ANZAC usually gets ahead of Japan. From there on, it’s just a little step with a little more help from USA to liberate Calcutta and/or some Chinese territories/Korea.
Since it IS indeed possible to survive Europe even without any US help for the first few turns, it is a viable strategy (note: viable, not superior or sole or whatever) to spend huge in the Pac to get the bigger Navy as US. If the allied players does exactly that, Japan can only answer by building Navy as well.
The question with that strategy is: How much exactly does USA needs to spend for Navy, and how fast is Germany, until USA needs to shift the main attention to Europe.
I actually agree with eddiem on some of his points about naval costs. I don’t agree with the changes to carriers, aircraft, or transports and here’s why:
1.Sea zones and land territories are just spaces. The only thing that makes them different is that vessels can only fight in water and land units can only fight on land unless a ‘bridging’ vessel like a carrier or transport enables land and air units ‘special’ abilities. You will never see a BB or CA or any other warship fight a land unit by itself if at all. Hence no BB vs. a Tank just because it sailed on by or vice versa.
2.Carriers enable small aircraft to land on the sea making it a special unit and valuable hence no change in cost and is worth it’s value. Transports enable land units to cross oceans and enable some ships to attack land during amphibious assault via bombardment, same thing.
3.Aircraft can attack both on land and sea and have the greatest range of movement/firepower hence they are worth their cost and ability.
4.We have no solid factor statistic about what any unit represents in cost or actual strength in numbers. So it is not unreasonable for a land unit and a naval unit with the same or similar attack and defense stats could have the same cost. Remember without another “bridging” unit they cannot possibly attack or defend against each other hence their cost’s are irrelevant to one another.
5.If everyone pays a lower costs for naval units they balance each other out because the Axis player pays the same price as the Allied player.
6.Transports still cost the same as do all OOB transport rules under my model. So no hordes of blockers or any of the “old” problems of previous editions. Transports become more precious than before. You will want and need to protect them even more, but you’ll also be able to protect them more easily.
7.Carriers remain the same as OOB stats. they will perform their intended role and become more valuable.
8.Aircraft don’t need to be modified as already stated above and by other posters.
This is just my two cents. Hopefully people will see what I’m talking about. While it seems strange really think about it. Are you ever going to see a Cruiser and Tank duke it out over a SZ after it drove off into the Med or swam into the Channel? Or a Battleship ever jump out of the water and take over an island?
Edit-
Side note: While I do agree with many points posted I’m not lobbying for an official rule change. I do think that this could be a great variant or house rule. I also have no aspirations of convincing Larry Harris, WOTC, tournament organization…etc. to deviate from any official rules. :-D
With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.
Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.
Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.
So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.
I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.
What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.
Bombers should cost 13, cruisers 11.
Other than that i think the current system works well overall. It promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships to protect transports rather than the other way around. It also widens the gap between good and average players, as mistakes involving defenseless transports, and overspending or under spending on the sea often can be fatal.
Transporting men across the ocean and in turn protecting those transports is supposed to be inefficient, it was inefficient, but it must be done.
In the end land is where the money is, warships exist purely to protect/kill/block transports that move men from land to land across water.
Warships serve a severely diminished role with the old transport rules, and in fact much less money is spent on warships, taking away from a dimension of the game.
It is difficult to find the balance of naval purchases with defenseless transports, and the better player will become evident.
However, as inefficient as your navy might seem, its still better (most of the time) than investing in, 12-30 IPC, industrial complexes that cannot move, and can be SBRd.
In summation the defenseless transport adds depth and entertainment to the game, increases the gap between casual and pro players, and appeals to casual players common sense (transports are not warships)
Everybody wins (except grandpa of course)
With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.
Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.
Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
I
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.
I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.
What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.
Eddie please re-read my post and you will see why. Please also stop quoting as a supporter of making permenant naval changes to the game. I am suggesting that you might have some valid points I am not advocating some big change to the game. I support using house rules or variants not campaigning or lobbying WOTC and Larry Harris.
Uncrustable,
Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.
However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.
I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.
Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.
Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.
Toblerone,
For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.
In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.
Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.
Eddiem,
I’m not trying to be rude and actually see what you’re talking about. What I’m saying is that most people like things just the way they are. Asking for people to join a petition, campaign or saying its the best way will pretty much go over like a lead balloon and frankly just pisses people off.
I too have been playing since Classic. I have every edition except the really, really, old Nova games edition, Guadal Canal and Europe 1940 1st edition from 2010. Luckily I swooped up the second editons and a first edition Pac 40. That’s all beside the point.
You can have ideas and share them and people may like them or not. I’d recommend playing them through and posting in House Rules or Axis & Allies Variants. Even then there’s still people who are going to get uptight about that. There’s even people who b-itch about HBG units even though they don’t have to have anything to do with them let alone buy them.
Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. That’s what the forum is but if you come on strong with an opinion that everbody needs to play thier game a certain way it won’t go over well. Most players here are tourny, league or TripleA players and for the most part play strict games by the book. If you go around telling them “hey everybody we need to tell Larry to change the game” lol people don’t like it.
I personally like the historical, house rules, and customization forums. You ahould try pitching some of your ideas there. I’m sure they’d be welcomed.
Personally I’m not a TripleA/play by forum guy. There are a few of us who aren’t. I’m honaestly not trying to be rude but some sections of the forum just aren’t the best place to post radical ideas or house rules.
BTW welcome to axisandallies.org!
Well, I see your point about coming on to strong. I also have to admit that I have been responding too to many posts at once and get confused about the purpose of that post.
I have also been arguing the same points with the “Cheesiest thing about Global” post someone else started. So being the 6VC victory thing to me is the cheesiest, it opened up my argument about Naval costs and that argument has bleed to this post.
Anyways I appreciate your comments.
Uncrustable,
Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.
However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.
I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.
Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.
Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.
Well the only price change i suggested was a decrease, (-1 cruiser) nowhere in my post do i suggest any price increases to navy. I am in favor of an increase to strat bombers however (+1)
Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1.
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1
Taking away their defensive ability, but only reducing the cost by one, is actually raising their cost, as the cost of man and material is more expensive. I posted something before about transports in the past actually representing the actual transport ships, landing craft, and escorts. Not going to post it again and others have. But if you didn’t like the image of a naval Army of almost pure transports, AND I ALSO DID NOT, then the answer would have been reducing their cost, since they are now defensive, which would then require more purchases of Naval units to defend them. It would have been a wash.
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
Others have argued this and I have seen arguments that say this isn’t the case at all. In the case where British resources to stop it would overly hurt it in Africa, I would agree that any drastic changes like I have suggested might have to be reserved for a new edition, but I don’t think much change would be required.
lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.
I usually have to put the caveat, that just because I believe going on the offensive in the Pacific, or all out in the Pacific is foolish does not mean that I support completely ignoring it no matter what your opponent is doing. My point is, and if you are aware of the History of axis games you would know this, the 6VC victory was designed, as well as some of the other Pacific NO’s, to force action in the Pacific. In the original, it took the entire USA’s income for a turn to buy a “one hit battleship” and one transport. They could even buy one Carrier, one plane, and one transport. My point was instead of coming up with all these NO’s, some of which seem unrealistic, they should have just reduced the cost of Navy’s more or a combination of both.
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
Look up the post of the “Chessiest things about Global”. It has been argued better by others better. All Japan has to do is take Hawaii for one turn. All other VC’s are considered automatic for Japan. Then the whole game is won regardless of how Europe is doing. This makes the US spend to many resources in the Pacific to stop the risk of that happening.
Not interested in arguing that point on this post as I believe I have taken the point of this post on a tangent.
@Uncrustable:
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
You probably have, since that is basically the most hated rule at the moment. At least there is no other rule that so many agree on being silly.
This rule alone nullifies the option of ignoring Japan for the first 3-4 turns. It is just not possible to win when USA spends nothing in the first 3 rounds in the PAC.
I don’t think there is anything that can be done about adding or removing VCs in any league or tournament. It’s too hard coded in the rules.
Personally, I would say the axis need at least one REAL capitol to win - regardless of how many VCs they have - as well as their actual total. That would be one of: Moscow, Washington DC or London.
I might throw in Sydney or Los Angeles (more the latter than the former) as a “capitol.” I just don’t see the United States saying “oh fine, sure, you win…we surrender. We produce 35% of the global gross domestic product, but you managed to get Egypt in a lucky strike on April the 3rd, 1947 so you win.” Ya know?
Just me, I know…
Is the game not balanced without the 6 VC rule? If it were changed to 7 would that suddenly swing the game?
Do the allies not always get a 6+ bid on most games right now? (implying the axis have the edge)
It seems to me changing to 7VCs would, at the worst, swing from axis slightly favored to allies slightly favored…and that would simply mean 6 or so bid for axis instead of allies…
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
Others have argued this and I have seen arguments that say this isn’t the case at all. In the case where British resources to stop it would overly hurt it in Africa, I would agree that any drastic changes like I have suggested might have to be reserved for a new edition, but I don’t think much change would be required.
Pretty vague counter here, ‘others’ and ‘i have seen arguments’.
You offer non yourself…
But lets be honest here, if Germany can purchase transports for cheap with no other changes to the game, sealion is unstoppable, and seeing as how USA cannot ignore Japan…victory is almost assured. Seriously how are the allies going to do anything productive in Africa with no Uk? Germany will have a ridiculous amount of cash to dump after taking UK, and USA will be VERY hard pressed to take it back soon. And with all those transports Germany could produce cost efficient infantry and artillery using the fleet to chuck them to the front (vs Russia), or just use its navy to take Gibraltar locking up both the Med and Egypt, meaning now Italy is rich too.
So reducing the cost of transports would require another balance overhaul, one which i highly doubt anyone (maybe except you) wants to go through.
I believe the game works as is wonderfully.
The only valid argument you offer, in my opinion, is the 6 VC rule; but this has nothing to do with transports being defenseless or too expensive.
Pretty vague counter here, ‘others’ and ‘i have seen arguments’. You offer non yourself…
You are right, I didn’t. That was why I referred to others and arguments I have seen. Not sure what you are pointing out. I then offered my opinion, which was listed as an opinion indicating it could hurt and a rebalance might be needed but I didn’t think much would be needed.
But lets be honest here, if Germany can purchase transports for cheap with no other changes to the game, sealion is unstoppable,
So know let me make my argument.
First, lowering the cost of transports is only part of my argument that all naval units are to expensive. So if all naval units were reduced, the UK could counter with naval units or,
If Germany starts out with $30 IPC, and lets say transports are only $4. Instead of 4 transports, Germany can now buy $7. That is 14 units it can transports now instead of 8. I gets an extra 6.
The UK can spend all of its money on infantry, and stack everything it can on London to stop it. How an extra 6 units makes it an automatic? Well I have the game set up at home and will have to look at how “automatic” this is. And if it fails, that is a disaster for Germany.
To the extent it would hurt the UK’s campaign in Africa versus Germany’s failed attempt at sea lion, I don’t know, that is why I said there would probably needs to be some rebalance, but in my opinion, which means I could be wrong, it would only have to be a minor one.
So reducing the cost of transports would require another balance overhaul, one which i highly doubt anyone (maybe except you) wants to go through.
So here, I am going to make reference to the Post, “aberration of defenseless transports” as to the disappointment that exist with the new transport rules. To much to argue and rewrite. It has been said many times over.
The only valid argument you offer, in my opinion, is the 6 VC rule; but this has nothing to do with transports being defenseless or too expensive.
Getting tired of rewriting the same things over and over, but OK, here goes. The purpose of the 6VC rule and other NO’s in the pacific was to FORCE action in the pacific because the way the game has always been set up, the rewards you could obtain by going all out, or spending most of your resources in the Pacific did not justify your costs, so as player became more experience, the Pacific became a wasteland.
This has improved, but not enough in my opinion as we can see these NO’s are still necessary.
In the original, it took the entire income of the US to buy just one “one hit battleship” and one transports. It could not even afford one Carrier, Plane, and transport. So if such a cost was going to be spent, it was spent in getting to Europe where the pickings gave greater rewards.
Slowly this has changed. But no enough in my humble opinion. This is evident in the fact that a new tech. is improved shipyards. But with the tech rules, it is very hard to get and the resources needed to be spent to get it makes it not worth trying.
SO MY POINT: Some say the 6VC rule is necessary for action in the Pacific. To that I say, not necessary if you just lowered the cost of all Navy’s, including transports.
Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game. And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.
Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual.
Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.
I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place. The action in Pacific is not forced by NO. Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
Changing the victory condition in the Pac to “3 out of Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu and LA” will solve all issues with Japan.
I won’t start this post by saying no offense, not that I mean offense, but by no means by the tone and arrogance of your post care if you take offense.
Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better. So as experienced as you sound, and of course more experience than me, you must have played the first edition for years. Of which case I would expect more sense from somebody in their 50’s. I am in my 40’s and purchased the 2nd edition when it came out.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game.
I will check that out when I get home and list the stats. It is a simple computation of math.
And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.
I addressed that as a potential problem that I have not thorough examined which is why I acknowledged that potential problem as something that MIGHT have to happen only with a new edition.
Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual. Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.
What benefits one benefits the other. The more dramatic the change, the more potential problems of the current situation. It depends how dramatic the change. I have heard many say they simply start with both the US and Japan with Improved Shipyards tech. That by the way makes transports $6.
I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place.
It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.
The action in Pacific is not forced by NO.
Uh, that is why they exist. Of all your comments, this makes me think that an inexperienced player is calling me an inexperienced player.
Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
I will apologize for this. I assumed that those arguing pro or against this point of view have some historical experience with the basic concept of the PACIFIC PROBLEM with axis and allies. The Pacific problem has to do with action in the Pacific once the US gets into the War. In Global it is assumed the DEI, would have been already taken. So up and until the DEI are taken, the Pacific problem does not exist. Also, Global alleviates this quite a bit by the creation of ANZAC. Global is still new and without the NO’s, specifically the 6VC rule, the Pacific would see minimal action, once Japan took the DEI, if both sides played to their greatest strengths.
The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
This is not the case both from a historical perspective and an economic one. The cost of mounting a Naval campaign compared to rewards attained in the Pacific leaves any offensive in the Pacific, specifically (again not talking about the DEI) the US against the Japanese or vice versa as an inefficient use of resources. The US historically spent less than 15% of their resources against Japan. Yet were still able to mount some sort of offensive. To build an offensive Navy to conduct the smallest of offensives in the Pacific by the US would take more than half of their resources.
You don’t have to agree with me but understand I did not come up with this idea. This has been probably the biggest complaint since the 80’s. The improved shipyards as a new tech did not come from the idea that Naval cost were perfect. Many may agree that the new current costs, when you factor how much more IPC’s everyone now has to spend, makes what we have now fine. I disagree, but don’t think people are foolish for thinking otherwise.
You would have to play near 100 games without the 6VC rule and without some of the silly Pacific NO’s to see. But again, you may still rationally disagree.
Lets not hate the game we love ;)
