Real value of units

Our club has added technology rules that really speed up the game and offer much more variety. One of the most significant is that each country has rail movement. If you want to discuss, best way to reach me is by email at jonkrost@comcast.net

I’d rather have cheaper, defenseless transport planes myself.

I think that’s totally reasonable, Midnight_Reaper. You could introduce cheaper air transports into this roster without breaking anything important. My preference is for more expensive air transports because the extra price thematically represents (a) the up-front cost of developing the technology and tactics (nobody has to spend money on researching paratroopers for this roster), and (b) the relatively limited supply of air transport available during World War II. There’s a fun little article below about how most of the American Air Force’s transports were either hastily converted civilian planes, or wooden gliders manufactured in piano factories. If the Americans had to make do with makeshift equipment, you can only imagine what the Italians were using.

https://amcmuseum.org/history/world-war-ii-transport-and-troop-carrier/

Strategically, air transports provide a much deeper threat into enemy territory that requires a much larger garrison. E.g. if you put an assault boat in the English Channel, it threatens Normandy, Holland, Norway, Hanover, and Denmark. If you put an air transport in London, it threatens all of those plus Paris, Marseilles, Gibraltar, Morocco, Milan, Berlin, Poland, Finland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. It’s not that I expect anyone to fly many air transports into a battle to use as fodder; it’s just that spending 12 bucks on one air transport can force your opponent to spend more than 12 bucks on extra defending infantry.

In terms of rules simplicity, I have tried to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless unit” from my unit roster. I find automatic combat losses to be something of a downer, and I’d rather use that spot in the rulebook for a more interesting rule.

All of that said, again, this is mostly personal preference – if you want a $9 defenseless air transport with 4 movement, that’s almost certainly fine.

@SS:

Nice ideas for all suggestions posted but way to many things involved here for most people. It’s your game so no knock against it. You want to get away from KISS that’s fine too. I would not use somethings and make it all more simplified. Why not just try the reduced costs and a tech tree for starters?

I had a lot of ideas, and went to write them all down. These posts are the end product of all that. I have tried the combination of the reduced costs and the tech tree myself. But it was playing against myself, solo. So I don’t know how well it would work against a good face-to-face opponent. I liked them, but that’s not saying much.

I do group them into rules I always want to play, and rules I only sometimes want to play. I would list these as follows:

Always
Cruisers; Paratroopers & Cargo Planes; Armored Cav., Troopers, Heavy Art’y; New Unit Surcharge; Revised Strategic Bombing Raid rules; & Unit Price Reduction (I’ve tested the reduction in costs against myself but not the balance of a larger Axis setup). These rules, minus the Strat. Bomb rules, are the core of my original ideas. And these rules amount to 6 new units, a fee that almost never comes up, cheaper units (I have player’s aids with the correct pricing information so that comes easy), and remembering to add a 2 to every die thrown for a result in Strat. Bombing. I don’t think they’re all that much.

I then got some other ideas and wanted to see where they went. Thus, the sometimes or optional rules

Optional
New Research Rules; New Research Tech Tree; New National Advantages; and SF and all of their rules. These rules sound like something I’d really like to try out, but I’d need a good gaming group first. Chickens, eggs, and all that. These rules really re-write some rules for A&A - which can be a good thing if you’ve an established group that is looking to shake things up. I won’t say that tossing a new player into all of these rules would be a good idea. But as they’re options, and listed as such, your group can take what you like and leave the rest behind. As you do.

Once I’m happy with these rules, I would like to eventually write up versions for A&A 1942 and A&A 1940. But first, I want to get them in their best shape for this game before expanding the beachhead.

I hope that clears things up for you, SS.

-Midnight_Reaper

Right. The ordinance they dropped was substantial by the standards of those days, but the effect was to reduce the morale of the populations: effect was to reduce IPC by effecting the will of the people to continue the fight.

So allow them SBR capability.

Additionally, they were good fighters in the air and air units could not even reach them till latter in the war if they conducted high altitude attacks. Basically their biplanes were very slow at climbing and had a limited ceiling.

Well, as long as you admit to it being different and for those reasons, I see no issues. I am interested to see what exactly you come up with.

With the newer titles you have blank factory tiles that would work well for your ideas as well as the tiles marked “3” and “10” from the Global games.

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

Thanks for the clarification C_F. It will definitely even the game out or even favors the Axis. Africa is much more attractive since the value essentially doubles for the Axis. The Axis can exploit the many odd IPCs territories. The Axis will catch up to the Allies economically in no time while having a superior number of units.