eddie, Â I’ve agreed with the supposition that most land and sea units with identical or similar capabilities should cost the same based on where they move and fight on the game board in relation to each other. This conversation could be very interesting if it were moved to a proper section of the forum.
I know you are not the one who started the thread. However the G40 section of the forum is probably not the best place to discuss the topic as such. Unless your intention or argument is that some of your arguments should be official rules/changes.
Again I would suggest you present some of your ideas as house rules or a variant. Â
Making it an official rule or change was my initial intention. But due to the lack of support I don’t intend on pushing this idea. I would like to see at the very least the cost structure for the Improved Shipyards as the default or make that tech, along with all other techs easier to get.
My last post to you, I thought would be the end of it but all of a sudden I started defending what my arguments were as I felt they were being incorrectly referenced.
I will wait as see if there are many games being played without the 6VC rule and hope to find some people to play with without that rule on Triple A before I make any more arguments regarding this.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to play on triple A for a while, that is until I have spent sufficient amount of my free time with my wife.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
I wonder if you would have time to look over G40 enhancement project (by no means complete)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.0
Both air and naval units are reworked, including battleships transports and cruisers…,
Enhance naval units. a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment return fire at -1(with 1 being lowest)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Same bombardment rules as cruiser.
c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
e) Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver, and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Have you read this thread and have an opinion on what is proposed?
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619
Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.
I really like the idea of the transports getting a change to evade. Not sure how realistic that is, but I will definitely be giving it some thought.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Battleship - leave alone
Cruiser - add AA Guns, no other change
Perfect. Just my opinion there.
Carrier - increase to 18 IPC if you (as in all of you who think this way) think it makes the battleship to expensive. Or take the 2 hit ability off it?
Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.
With the United States making 70+ IPC a round, I don’t think navies are expensive at all. Keep in mind, Battleship costs have not changed since Classic, while the US has gone from 36 IPC a round to 70+ a round!
I’d say that the useless islands in the pacific should be grouped up somehow so that when you own a group of them, you get more IPC. Just to encourage the battle of Solomon Islands, etc.
BBs were 24 IPC until after revised, and classic BB was one hit!
Carriers are not the problem either, it’s subs and destroyers, that IPC for IPC are absurdly better
At G40 we are at 10 for cruisers and 18 for BB
Do the math they still are now close to on par IPC for IPC with both subs and DDs,
Subs are still better on offense and DDs will be needed as antisub and cheap blockers/fodder
Yea, as I said, BBs have not changed since classic was revised (ie when the next game came out.) Revised, Anniversary, Global all have battleships at 20 IPC yet the boards have gotten bigger and more and more money has been put into play every round.
Since the US is making double what it was in classic, one might argue that a battleship should cost twice what it did in classic so 48 IPC. I am not going to argue it, I am just saying I can see an argument to be made there.
With that as a basis, I’m saying instead of reducing the cost of battleships and cruisers, rather we should increase the cost of submarines and destroyers.
I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,
BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.
So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.
It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.
Hey ItIsI,
I totally agree with you, BB were getting obsolete by the end of WW2, so making them around 22-23 would make more sense. Also, reducing the amount of money for a carrier to 15 might make them a slightly better buy. Especially in the smaller games, carriers (in our group) are almost never bought. Perhaps raising BB cost by one or two, and lowering the CV cost by one or two might make for more balanced naval buys. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Hey ItIsI,
I totally agree with you, BB were getting obsolete by the end of WW2, so making them around 22-23 would make more sense. Also, reducing the amount of money for a carrier to 15 might make them a slightly better buy. Especially in the smaller games, carriers (in our group) are almost never bought. Perhaps raising BB cost by one or two, and lowering the CV cost by one or two might make for more balanced naval buys. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
WOW at carriers never being bought!
Carriers are extremely powerful right now!
Hey,
During some games, they just are too expensive. Especially in smaller games, in G40, they are probably ok, but with 1942, 1941, and others, they aren’t bought. Maybe once a game, but that’s it! Especially when are one hit carriers.
Hey,
During some games, they just are too expensive. Especially in smaller games, in G40, they are probably ok, but with 1942, 1941, and others, they aren’t bought. Maybe once a game, but that’s it! Especially when are one hit carriers.
At 14 IPC
I think you are in the vast minority here
consider 34 IPC gets you a carrier and 2 fighters, the fighters can participate in amphib assaults, attack SZs 3 spaces away from the carrier, and the defense value is 10
for 32 IPC you can get 4 destroyers, defense value of 8. Cannot help in any land assaults and can only hit 2 spaces away
Tbh I have only played G40 so far (and, once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, I played MB’s A&A 1942)…
But regarding Global, yes, Carriers are very effective for Naval Powers, especially the ones with lots of aircraft anyway.
Still I find the Carrier has not enough superiority but I can live with that since we 're playing a fun game. I do think however that Carriers should not be forced into even lesser superiority than already is the case by just lowering the cost of BBs and CA and leave the CV where it is…
To me, the proposal of Commander Jennifer seems to be the best I have seen so far. Except for the cheaper TRS, which makes me even more fearful of Sea Lion strategies and Japanese conquest of Sydney and the rest of the Pacific :wink:.
IL, what was your values for a cruiser? I can’t seem to find what you suggested.
Reducing CAs to 10 and BBs to 18 seems to work.
DDs are even to slightly favored still vs both, and SS still beat both on offense, but lose on defense (as they should)
could also go with MrRoboto’s SS idea:
Subs cost 8, A3D1
Raising cost to 8 and attack to 3, leaving defense alone
@SS:
IL, what was your values for a cruiser? I can’t seem to find what you suggested.
Hi S,
I am fine with the cost of all units as they are now. Tho, if costs of naval Units would have to change I think those of cmdr. Jennifer make the most sense to me (except the lower cost for TRS).
I also like the idea of adding an ability to the cruiser, like for example an AAA or a combined arms one.
Or… maybe CA can grant DD the ability to hit a BB on a 1-on-1 basis. Things like that.
I might be persuaded to make the Aircraft Carrier a 12 IPC unit (on par with the cruiser in cost), give the cruiser AA Guns and leave the vaunted battleship at 20 or raise it to 22. But if the carrier is going down that far in price, I’d strip the second hit ability from it and or reduce the defensive ability to 1.
I like the idea of the battleship as an anchor for the fleet. Hard hitting, hard to sink. Battleships were used in WWII and they were a nuisance to sink. I am not saying the contributions were as important, but I am arguing that the game function is.
I’ve oft used “super battleships” as well that still att-4, def-4 but had 3 hits before they sunk (after second hit it att-0, def-1 until it was repaired) and raised the cost a bit (in this case probably 24 IPC for a super battleship limited to Japan, Germany and the United States for historical reasons, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be used for all nations.)
Oh, here’s an idea! A technology that makes battleships 3 hit and aircraft carriers 2 hit! Hmm…have to bring that one over to the enhanced discussion.
