Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

Here is 11 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

The following are my thoughts on an optional rules section for my Classic House Rules. These rules, and its associated new initial setup, are far removed from the Classic Axis and Allies you may be familiar with. But with the right group I think that this would be a great time. In the mean time, I strategize and theorize.

In this post, I’ll be discussing what I think Axis & Allies units should cost and why. I think that flying units and naval units are too expensive for a game about a war that involved death from above and death from the sea. Now, I’m not arguing that every unit should have the same price. Different units have different abilities and these abilities should come at different costs. But I believe that flying units should have their prices reduced by 1/3rd and naval units should have their prices cut in half.

First, let’s talk about the way things are now. Currently, the base units in Classic Axis & Allies have these costs and abilities (IC is Industrial Complex):

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry    1    2    1      3    Bomber      4  4    6    15
Tank        3    2    2      5    Sub          2  2    2      8
AA Gun    0    *    1      5    Trans        0  1    2      8
IC            0    0    0    15    Carrier      1  3    2    18
Fighter    3    4    4    12    Battleship  4  4    2    24

To this list, I recommend reducing the price of fighters and ICs to 10, carriers to 16, and battleships to 20. This will help with the extreme range in prices at the top end of things. This will give us the following:

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
IC            0  0      0    10
Fighter      3  4      4    10
Carrier      1  3      2    16
Battleship  4  4      2    20

And to the above units I suggest adding the following new units:

Unit            ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Paratrooper  1*    2    1*    4    Special F’s  3*  3*    2*    8
Arm. Cav.    2      1      2    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6    10
Trooper      2      3      1    5    Cruiser        3    3      2    12
Heavy Art’y 2      3      1    6

All of this together gives us the following unit list:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      10
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      10
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      15
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        8
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2      8
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2      12
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      16
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      20
IC              0    0    0      10

What I am suggesting is a unilateral price cut of 1/3rd on flying units and 1/2 on naval units. Ground unit and IC’s would stay the same price. They would then look like this:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      7
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      7
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      10
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        4
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2        4
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2        6
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      8
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      10
IC              0    0    0      10

I find these prices to be more in line with the way I want to play Axis & Allies: lean, mean, and deadly. I want to be able to crash fleet on fleet, to soar into the air and take the fight to the enemy, without destroying the treasury or throwing them all away without replacement. Some of the most exciting fights in Axis & Allies are when that fleet is coming, whether it’s the Japanese fleet coming to take the Pacific, or the US Fleet coming to take the Pacific back, or the British fleet looking to avenge France.

But along with reduced prices come increased problems for the Axis. As it is, the Axis powers are under the gun to expand before the Allies can mount a credible defense of their holdings. When fighters, submarines, and transports are at all time low prices the job of the Allies - to bend but not break and to build up the forces to take the fight to the Axis - becomes all that much easier. This in turn makes the job of the Axis - to take as much territory as possible before the Allies come to take it all back - all the harder.

What to do about this question of balance? My suggestion: give the Axis a proportionally more air and sea power at the start of the game. This will allow the Axis to strike all the harder before the Allies start walking things back. So, half again more flying units and double the fleet for the Axis? How much are we actually talking about?

Standard setup for Germany gives 5 fighters and 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 2 transports, 0 carriers, and 1 battleship.

Standard setup for Japan gives 5 fighters and 1 bombers, 1 submarines, 2 transports, 1 carrier, and 2 battleships.

This gives both powers a total of 5+5=10 fighters and 1+1=2 bombers, 2+1=3 submarines, 2+2=4 transports, 0+1=1 carrier, and 1+2=3 battleships combined for the Axis powers.

Add to that the 4 cruisers (2 to Germany, 2 to Japan) and the 3 additional transports (1 to Germany, 2 to Japan) given out in the setup to account for additional naval forces not currently accounted for. (The Allies get 6 cruisers and 3 additional transports added to their navies at the start.) No extra fighters or bombers handed out yet.

This gives us a total Axis air and sea force of 10 fighters and 2 bombers; 3 submarines, 7 transports, 4 cruisers, 1 carrier, and 3 battleships combined for the Axis powers. Half again more fighters and bombers would yield 15 fighters and 3 bombers. Double the fleet would yield 6 submarines, 14 transports, 8 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 6 battleships. I would divy up this expanded force into Germany: 8 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 submarines, 6 transports, 3 cruisers, 0 carriers, and 2 battleships; and Japan: 7 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 8 transports, 5 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 4 battleships

This would be a massive force, dwarfing the Allies in the sky and at sea. But with new battleships and new bombers for 10 IPCs each, new fighters for 7 IPCs, and new submarines and transports for 4 IPCs, would even this massive force be enough? I don’t know, yet.

Both the known unbalancing effects of much cheaper air and sea units and the massive additional forces given to the Axis to balance out those cheaper planes and ships are well outside of normal Axis & Allies play. All of the above is why these rules and setups are optional. But after I get some results with these rules, I’ll update this post with some data.

-Midnight_Reaper

Sorry, how does that avoid the unhistorical attack?

Austria shelled Serbia, but not march over the border until some time after.

Given the choice, most Austria players would probably avoid attacking Serbia R1.

I also think USA should not automatically go to war until Russia has suffered a revolution/collapse, so the Central Powers have to balance crushing Russia versus bringing the Americans in.

@Razor:

Maybe the inherent Carrier defense value should be boosted, to compensate for the weaker fighter. Let say you can land 2 planes on the Carrier, but the Carrier itself has a little fighter force just to close combat self defense, making the carrier defend on D3 ?

Very good idea: it is a can opener. It gives much room to compensate.
Maybe you can even give it the classic A1D3, if necessary for balance.
Or even going that far: A2D3, so almost all of the OOB A3D4 Fg + A0D2 Cv= A3D6, will be converted: Fg A1D2 + CV A2D3 = A3D5.

Just suppose that there is a bunch of escorting ship/fighters wich can not be separated from the Carrier unit.

It can probably solve a lot of balance problem.

@Uncrustable:

bunch of ignoranuses lol

At least I apologized for that…

Ya I agree. You still need the T-34’s.

@skinny1:

@The:

We all know you can combine Europe and Pacific '40 but what about combining other games.

How to combine

G '40 or AAR or AA50 or AA42
Guadalcanal
D-Day
Battle of the Bulge

When America attacks Solomon Islands rather than having a normal battle play Guadalcanal
When America/UK attacks Normandy or France with and Amphibous play D-Day
When Germany launchs a counter attack against a ally controlled France that has been liberated play Battle of the Bulge

The winner of these ‘Mini games’ takes control of the teritory

I have read that AAG40 takes a long time to play but this will beat that easily. Remember that not all of the games have the same pieces so if you try Guadalcanal with Revised you will not have a cruiser in Revised.

You can add the piece from other game sets or remove it from Guadlacanal
@i:

wow that would take awile. though it woudnt work that well in my oppenion because only four teritorys would use this

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yes. Also, for any general battle, play an AA miniatures game

This would make it work for all territories

i think that the cargo unit should cost 3, move 2, capacity 5 i.p.c. with no defense.
i think that buying the unit’s would stop excessive funding of other national power’s, and the capacity would mean that even though the unit’s might be more numerous, they have a cost which would be factored into the descision to send them, the cargo can be distributed to a territory that has an i.c. and can be used at that i.c. until the cargo has all been spent. i.e. a territory with an i.p.c. value 2 get’s 15 i.p.c. worth of cargo, build’s 2 tank’s at the next purchase unit’s phase, save’s 5 i.p.c., which can then be used at the next purchase unit’s phase to buy 1 tank.

Would there be any use for some sort of a “avoid detection” roll? For example…an enemy aircraft or vessel enters the same sea zone as your submarine with the intent of sinking it. As a first action, you roll 1 d6 for the “avoid detection” and perhaps on a 1 or a 6 you effectively do just that, you avoid being detected and submerge before getting attacked and sunk. sort of how AA guns get to try to kill planes before an attack, so to can subs avoid the attack all together?Weren’t most sub hunts a result of reports of submarine activity in the area, due to attacks on shipping etc? This was at a time when sub hunting was in it’s infancy, while even today submarines are probably the best nuclear detterent in the world soley because of the difficulty associated with locating them. Sub hunting is still more or less a cat and mouse game of “we know they are in this general region, but the exact location is questionable at best.”. So then the result is alot of activity involving (usually) several ships and aircraft and hundreds of people interperating alot of sonar ping information and visual observations. Alot of work to be, and alot of work can often take alot of time…Perhaps enough time for a good sub Captain to slip away. I am not a specialist at all when in it comes to subs, nor do I claim to be. I am speaking from what I see all the time where I live. I am located in Jacksonville Florida, home of Mayport Naval Base and one of the largest naval concentrations on the eastern seaboard, and just north is Kings Bay Georgia, a very large submarine port. My job keeps me close to the beach all the time and I see them conducting ASW (anti submarine warfare) all of the time. sometimes spending several days on one hunt. Anyway…I’ll stop now since this reply is way too explainatory already…lol… but that’s just my two cents.