War Economy is SOOOO going to get abused!
Also, teaming Most Powerful Battleships and Night Fighting is going to spell death to any American attack in the Pacific. No more games exploring KJF!
And I really don’t see how this is going to change the Banzai use in this game, honestly. Most times you are attacking with a large force to get 1 or 2 defenders and then stack. The reason is, 20@2 vs 10@2 is not going to be much better then 15@1 and 5@3 vs 10@2. Even if you got multiple rounds with Banzai on.
Only real change I can see is if an attack goes wrong when it’s 2 inf attacking 1 inf with banzai. Even then, you still have odds to win. :P
I have a doubt on the USA National advantage number 6.
War Economy
Your cost of buying sea and air units is reduced by 1 IPC.
In my group we are playing that the naval and air units cost as follow:
SUB 7 IPC
TRN 7 IPC
DD 11 IPC
CV 15 IPC
BB 23 IPC
FIG 9 IPC
BMB 14 IPCare we using the rule correctly?
Yes.
It is the equivalent of “Industrial Technology” tech from Classic.
Thanks a lot!
I had used in a couple of match as USA that we played with NA and they are very effective.
Well it is NOT QUITE Industrial Tech, which in Classic also included INF, ARM, AA, and IC’s (and of course excluded DSTs since they did not exist!)
Dunno, so far in 3 games Ver 2.0 seems to have reskewed the NAs to massively favor the Allies (America and Russia in particular, America in the NA itself, Russia in the nerfing of Axis NAs.)
Maybe it’s just my fondness for the old NAs where Fortress Europe + Atlantik Wall = Very light garrisons in W. Europe and S. Europe and massive focus on Moscow?
Indeed I think that also Axis NA are good.
Germany has Atlantic wall that is good (infantry defends on 3 in the first cycle of amphibious assault) and Dive-Bombers, which I consider a strong NA: fighters hit on 5 in the first cycle of combat if there are not defensive fighter presents.
To have a fun and interesting game with NA, I think that they should be chosen by the player one at time at the start of their turn. In this way we found, in our games with NA, that the relative value of the NA is variable, depending also from what the other have chosen, and also that their interaction is a fundamental thing to consider in the initial planning.
I think, however, that USA have two very powerful NA: War Economy and Mechanized Infantry.
However, NA do not change so much in the game Strategy. Axis is always focused on conquering Moscow, as Jennifer said.
But if you chose them all the time, most NAs will never get used, while Enigma Decoded and Colonial Garrison will be used almost 100% of the time. (It is, after all, the best complimentary set of NAs in the game, especially in a KJF scenario!)
If you are going to use NA’s, AND try to balance the game…
Give each Allied power one CHOSEN NA and one RANDOM NA.
Give the Axis each TWO chosen NA’s and one RANDOM NA.
Another option would be the same for the Allies, but give the Axis:
1 Hand Selected NA
1 Random NA
1 Random Tech
Either should negate the need for a bid AND change the strats up a bit…
That would do it, Switch, but most players are used to two random NAs per nation, one choice for Germany, Japan and one for the allies.
In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.
We do not use NAs to balance games, we use NA to have variation in the games. Frankly I like the NA from LHTR 2.0 as I like the NA from LHTR 1.3.
To have balanced game we play without NA, and we have started to use the bid.
In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.
Voice of experience? Seems you thought the NA’s in the previous version were way to much in favor of the Axis, and the new ones were even more so. :roll: :evil:
I had this view too…but now I’m thinking that they may be a little more balanced than it appears, it boils down to “how you use them”.
No, in the original the NAs were stronger for the Axis. In the new LHTR the NAs are back to being stronger for the allies.
Why can’t we just have NAs that are balanced for Axis and Allies?
Anyway, I’ll give 2.0 3 more games, if after 5 games, there’s no demonstrable way for the Axis to win without lucky dice, I’ll write off LHTR as allied propaganda and go back to 1.3.
No, in the original the NAs were stronger for the Axis. In the new LHTR the NAs are back to being stronger for the allies.
Why can’t we just have NAs that are balanced for Axis and Allies?
Anyway, I’ll give 2.0 3 more games, if after 5 games, there’s no demonstrable way for the Axis to win without lucky dice, I’ll write off LHTR as allied propaganda and go back to 1.3.
When we’re done with our current game, I’ll take the Axis, no bid. Roll for NA’s.
Will you remember in 3 years when this game is over???
@Emperor:
In the “standard” version of 2.0’s NAs, the axis barely have a chance to get started before Germany gets royally spanked.
Voice of experience? Seems you thought the NA’s in the previous version were way to much in favor of the Axis, and the new ones were even more so. :roll: :evil:
I had this view too…but now I’m thinking that they may be a little more balanced than it appears, it boils down to “how you use them”.
I agree, NAs usefulness is connected to their utilization.
For this reason we allow the chosing of NA. For example, if someone would try the submarine warfare with Germany, may choose the NAs related to the UBoote, etc.
They are not to balance the game, but to differentiate strategy and planning.
Will you remember in 3 years when this game is over???
hehe…shouldn’t take that long…I see storm clouds gathering.
Which is the latest edition of lhtr, and where do I find it?
I think that the first post of this thread should be edited, so that it contains a link to the latest verision of lhtr.
cheers / Perry
Go here: Home » House Rules » Axis & Allies Revised.
Or use the URL : http://www.axisandallies.org/LHTR
By the way I am having a big doubt on Strategic Bombing Limitation. LHTR states:
“The maximum combined damage inflicted in one turn by all strategic bombing raids on one
industrial complex and any rocket attack on the same industrial complex is the territory’s income
value.”
It means that If I am UK and I SBR GER then I may inflict a maximum of 10 IPC of combined damage to Germany.
Moreover if also USA SBR GER, in the same round, the maximum damage is still 10 IPC.
So in one round Germany may receive a maximum damage of 20 IPC. Is this correct?
That’s correct if you only target Germany’s IC. If you have more than one bomber you can target Germany and Southern increasing UK’s damage potential to 16 and the US’s potential to 16 for a total of $32. You would need at least 3 UK bombers and 3 US bombers to theoretically reach the maximum potential.
Thanks!
