How to make battleships a more attractive purchase

Battleship is damaged. On next players turn in purchase phase you roll 1 D6 for repair no matter where it is. If you want that hit back it should cost you. Otherwise go with your rule YG where on next turn it’s repaired. I don’t like the rule where at end of turn it’s repaired and now you get another defense roll for free and 1 less casualty.

@Ichabod:

This thread reminds me of how I’d play Axis and Allies Global 1940 if I were filthy rich.

Intelligence as a part of the game turn order would be incorporated into the game in military terms as far as gathering information for enemy strength/location ect.

If I was rich…I’d pay people to referee an Axis and Allies Global 1940 game.

There’d be 3 different boards set up in 3 different rooms all for the same game.

1 board would be the Axis Room

1 board would be the Allies Room

1 board in the middle (Axis and Allies side players could not see) would be for the Administrators of the game room only.

Axis and Allies sides could only see numbers/units of enemy units on their border initially whether adjacent by land or sea. From then on, there would be a " Reconnaissance" or Spy turn in the game turn order. Only the Administrators’ room would have the complete setup of the board.

House Rule would be:

1. Repair damaged facilities
2. Purchase units
3. Reconnaissance Step: Players could utilize submarines or S. Bombers for a recon mission. Each Sub or bomber, within it’s range of movement, could pass through or move to (if a sub wants to stay) to spy on one specific land territory or sea zone for a cost of 1 IPC per unit used in that part of the turn order. Players would have to smartly “save” IPCs for the RECON part of the turn order. Each side would be informed which territory was spied on. In the case of being spied on by subs, players would have to hunt the sub with a destroyer. Subs or S. Bombers used for RECON could not be moved in the Combat movement phase.

Whatever intel is discovered during the RECON phase, the corresponding units would be placed on the board of the side who just completed a RECON mission. On the opposing sides’ turn, if the “discovered” units were moved to a new location (not adjacent to an enemy controlled territory), than that intel would be lost and the administrators would come and remove the pieces from the corresponding sides’ board. A German sub out in the Atlantic could slip away to RECON the W. US…

Axis and Allies players COULD still place a specific color (I’ll call it purple units) on their board for their estimation of what and where they think the enemy units may have went to.

In this game, each side would have to do their own S2 (Intelligence) estimate for where the enemy was concentrating. Japan for instance may send subs or bombers close to the Western US to see what warships were being built in dry dock. Germany would have to RECON Leningrad (so they don’t blunder into a Russian counter attack) or SZ91 in case a landing is coming.

Good news, you don’t need to be filthy rich. Once I finish all the general’s booklets, I am going to print them and they are folded. Next, you place your general token on the map and, keeping the general passport upright, you put the units he commands behind it. So your opponent will only see the general piece and not the army. Haven’t thought about recon but, one D6 before combat phase and the opponent has to reveal that number of units in an accurate ratio of his forces.

Neat idea you gave me :p

@Der:

@simon33:

You can look at it like that. I’m looking at it from the point of view of what makes the game more fun. If I take your baking a cake analogy, do you read the recipe before shopping for ingredients? The current turn order is basically, buy some ingredients, read the recipe (combat movement), bake cake (conduct combat). You have to prognosticate what will be in the recipe to know what you need to buy.

No combat movement would be moving all of your ingredients to stove. ;)

I think my analogy is every bit as valid as yours.

The point is that the need to prognosticate the likely outcome of the board at the end of your combats is unnecessary, time consuming and reduces the fun. Whether the current rule makes sense or not isn’t really relevant.

The point about forgetting to purchase isn’t really valid with a Triple-A game because it prompts you. You can say that a forgotten purchase is a zero purchase if you apply the rule strictly. In general I would expect so if a retrospective purchase gives an unfair advantage.

Face to face, I use a merged purchase+combat movement phase. Probably why we can play a game in a day.

@Young:

@BM,

During Alpha 2 I was upset that each interceptor got 1@2 and each escort and bomber were 1@1. This prevented any SBRs being attempted and a game mechanic I loved in classic was now extinct in 1940 Global due to the risk vs. reward. Than Alpha 3 came out with all air units hitting @1 during air battles and I was so happy because if I wanted to conduct a SBR, my teammates couldn’t scream “PLEASE DON’T” at me for tring a foolish strategy. So, I’m happy for the way things are and my lone bombers without escorts can still have a chance to get by (there were lots of guns on bombers, so I don’t have an issue from an historical view point). The problem with the India bombing raids is not the air battles or the fact that it can get maxed with a couple of raids, it’s the UK Pacific income and the inability to repair faster than it gets damaged. The SB+AB=+2 DMG house rule helps the UK Pacific problem without hurting the Europe theaters because there are lots of Air bases in Europe. If attacking bomber gets zero defence capability against interceptors, SBR would go extinct like Alpha +2 IMO. What would happen is I would raid India with 2 bombers against 2 interceptors and the UK could just roll 4@1 if they like (interceptors + AA Guns) I would not expose my bombers to those odds if I can’t fire back, plus American players who have watched Memphis Belle a hundred times would wonder why their Super Fortress bombers don’t have a least a 1/6 chance to hit in an air battle during SBRs. The way I see it, the SBR mechanic doesn’t need changing IMO because you never see it too much or too little (at least in our groups), there are problem areas with the rules like cruisers, neutral territories, the victory conditions etc…. but I’m happy with the balance of SBRs.

I’m very grateful Young Grasshopper for this deeper and more extensive answer about what criterions where important for a good SBR.

There is at least two points which are beyond statistics comparison.
Even if odds are really goods for the attacker (with higher bombing damage such as 1D6+3), having a defenseless Strategic bomber @0 in dogfight is quite an intuitive deterrent to use bombers in Strategic Bombing Raid. And it is less funny to have those big and costly unit being passively slaughtered.

Also, the historical depiction is a pretty good annoying argument against a zero-attack strategic bomber.
Flying-fortresses defensive formation were not defenseless planes, even if they were still vulnerable against interceptors.

Also, if YG’s fellow players feel that Alpha 2 SBR was a wasted strategy, while the actual G40 OOB SBR is sound, this give me another target.
Any viable SBR should be pretty much as efficient as it is actually with OOB G40 SBR.
And odds clearly reveals how G40 OOB SBR gives pretty good ones for the attacker.
One issue is that the actual values are so against interceptors, that defender decision to keep all his fighters grounded is most of the optimized one. While intercepting is much like a gambit than a sound tactics.

Now, with your answer YG, I really made my decision on which of the many values I calculated is the optimized one, funnier, historical, at least as balance as the actual OOB SBR rules, and to have the better incentive while staying as close as possible with the odds of OOB G40 SBR.

So, thanks a lot YG.
I will probably submit a more complete post with all the reasons which make the most interesting SBR.
For now, here is the real winner for Global 40 SBR after a closer analysis and comparison.

I already provided the answer elsewhere, the only difference is that I would advocate for a bombing damage of 1D6+3, instead of 1D6+2.
And I would use oztea idea, but rise to +3 minimum damage per StB shooted down by IC’s AA, instead of +2 minimum damage:

I still recommend D6+2 (+2 minimum damage) for 1942.2 SBR, because the economy is so much lower than Global.

If you take a look at the table below and compare D6+3 with OOB G40 SBR, you will find that the numbers are pretty close from each other, except when there is no interception, but the overall odds stay similar and you gain a much more interesting dynamics which provides a lot of incentive to make such interceptions as a vital and optimized defense against bombers run.

@Baron:

@oztea:

Totally different suggestion I have been considering.
Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
To make SBR more attractive.

You could consider this rule to offset your beefing up of fighters.

From a realistic standpoint it has always been gut-wrenching to send over 2 bombers and get snake-eyed. Knowing that you just sent over probably 1000 bombers and not a single bomb fell on anything important.

Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
Do you also imply when destroyed by interceptors, Bombers can still do +2 damage?

After a fast review, I think I would add your idea as integrated part of the above SBR HR, since it has a small statistical impact (approx. 3,00 IPCs/SBR instead of 2,583 IPCs/SBR.)

I would keep the +2 damage only if hit by AAA exclusively, when an interceptor hit bombers, it is destroyed with no compensation.
That way, it would provide an additional incentive to intercept bombers to wholy protect IC.
And this is a double lever effect.
Attacker will more willingly commit bombers and defender will be more incline to throw fighters against them.
And this is in addition to the fact, that interceptor’s hit must be on bombers first.
It is a much more interesting target.

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, and the winner is…

A more historical depiction of SBR which keeps interesting odds compared to G40 OOB.
In this one, intercepting Fighters are targeting attacking Bombers (TcBs or StBs) first, then escorting Fighters.

There is also a special attack (as an AA gun @1 first strike against up to 2 Fighters) for each Strategic bomber (whichever the lesser number between Fgs or StBs) in air-to-air combat which provides some restriction about Bombers spamming strategies (Darken skies), see above chart for comparisons:

Strategic Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR or TBR damage 1D6+2. [EDIT: 1D6+3 for G40]

Tactical Bomber
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
TBR damage 1D6.

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2
Always hit Bombers as first target, whether Tactical or Strategic (owner’s choice).

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike* as an AA gun @1 against up to 2 intercepting Fighters, whichever the lesser
Bombard Industrial Complex or Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6+2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike
Bombard Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6

IC’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

I will explain sooner how I came to this conclusion.

Follow this line in each combat situation (fs= first strike):
D6+2 (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1)

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008

Here is the minimum damage for each StB killed by AAA according to SBR basic damage:
D6: +1 IPC
D6+1: +1 IPC
D6+2: +2 IPCs [Edit: 1942.2]
D6+3: +3 IPCs [[color=red]Edit: Global 40]
2D6:+3 IPCs

SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +4.375 - 4.778 = -0.403 IPC damage/SBR / -0.283 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.440 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.162 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.463 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +5.186 - 6.321 = -1.135 IPC damage/SBR / -1.040 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.473 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.095 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.764 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.870 - 8.667 = -0.797 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.723 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.241 - 8.667 = -0.426 IPC damage/SBR / -0.352 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR / +0.092 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.536 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.722 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +8.095 - 7.556 = +0.539 IPC damage/SBR / +0.626 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.530 - 7.556 = +0.974 IPC damage/SBR / +1.061 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR / +1.583 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.104 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.322 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.835 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.751 - 9.556 = -0.805 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.631 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.746 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.124 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.726 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1): / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.550 - 4.777 = +1.773 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.893 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +7.152 - 4.777 = +2.375 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.495 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.218 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR / _+3.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.241 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.690 - 6.778 = -0.088 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.153 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.125 - 6.778 = +1.347 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.588 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.264 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR / _+4.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.658 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 STBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.168 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +7.500 - 4 = +3.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.832 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR / _+7.834 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR / +8.666 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR****

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

You could use the same general rules for AA50, but you would have to pick one of the AA 50 setups (1941 or 1942) then add up the total cost of starting units to get the starting cash for each country. For one thing, I think there are less starting pieces for all the nations because AA 50 has a smaller map than the 1940 games so there are less pieces. Another thing is I think the prices are a little different in AA50 than in the 1940 games, plus you won’t have Tac Bombers or Mechanized Infantry as those units didn’t come out until the 1940 games.
Also, I’m not sure how you would handle China, since in AA50 they don’t actually get IPCs but rather 1 infantry for every 2 Chinese territories still under Chinese control at the beginning of their turn.
Other than a few small changes though, I think you could still adapt this idea to AA50.

First time I did a custom map that’s exactly what I did, buy a world map and territory borders.  You could try to find an loder copy of photoshop like ps 6 or 7 for much less than the current gen.

Does it strike anybody else as odd that a transport can pick up troops move two zones and drop them off but can’t pick up troops, move one space drop them off and then still have one more MP so as to either move back or go to a different sea zone. Another even better instance would be a fleet battle where say a battleship moves one space fights and wins but can’t move any further but the battleship can move two zones first and fight.

To me ships should be treated as planes so that they get their full movement potential whether they battle or not. In a realism sense I believe this makes more sense. After all there is no extra total amount of work in the two cases for the transport as i illustrated. In both cases they have to load up move and unload their troops. If one moves shorter distance before unloading it would still be able to leave the beaches and continue on. I realize there would some additional time needed in the transport situation since it would have to leave from the beach back to open water and move on. But if it is all open sea combat such as in the case of the Battleship why can’t it continue moving. The same amount of fuel and time would be spent in moving one zone, battling for say one day and then moving another zone as would the time and fuel spent in moving two zones then battling for a day.

We implemented this rule back in the revised edition when ships were more expensive and so vulnerable for their cost to air power. we still use it at times in the Anniv Ed simply because it makes sense and it allows the Japanese navy for instance to not have to try to always keep its fleet in uberbunches since the U.S. is generally shadowing it with a decent navy and has bombers grouped in whatever island is available. this allows Japan to keep its navy together send several transports out on missions say one zone away then come back to the safety of the fleet. the fleet can still be beaten by a combined force of navy/air if the U.S. wants to go that route and build up their forces but it doesn’t force players to have to split up their fleet into little pieces if they want to launch invasions of a few territories nearby.

i feel our rule helps balance sea and air a litle which needs to happen somehow since sea can’t effectively ever win you a game since it can destroy units but never actually take anything for you and so will never directly contribute to your income like planes do. i know planes can’t secure territory either but one fighter in a land battle makes much more of a difference than one cruiser bombarding at 3 agreed? and that cruiser costs 12 compared to a fighter at 10. plus if you look at cruiser compared to a fighter, the cruiser contributes less to land battles and fights 3 attack and defense while costing more than a fighter who can attack at the same but defend even better AND they’re less vulnerable to counter attack AND they can be put into the sea on carriers AND they have greater flexibility. the only advantage of the carrier is that it doesn’t need another unit (carrier) to be in the sea and help protect transports. but the only two goals of a fleet ever are to protect transports to get more territory furthering your progress to victory or defending against/attacing another navy to preven tthem from doing the same.

that is true that bookkeeping can be a pain but it still isn’t too bad and for us it has worked fairly well. The main reason that we did it ever was looking at how aircraft can consistently pick and choose their battles and bombers can go out strike then return to a haven with fighters. by an IPC cost and battle odds comparison it made any fleet ridiculously vulnerable to air power if a fleet ever fractured a little bit bc they want to hit multiple territories in a turn. i realize the game isn’t simultaneous but i see nothing wrong with allowing a max of two MPs still for sea units and allowing them to move that total regardless. The one move for combat one non-com would be a good go-between though, we’ll try it. I guess we just looked at how often and easily air power messed up fleets and every time a decent air force was nearby any splitting of the fleet automatically condemned it to death by the other side’s air force. in reality or at least the stream of reality that A&A gives us it is entirely in the game’s time mechanism that a transport or other ship could leave a fleet perform some task like fight a battle/drop off troops and rejoin at the end in the same way that planes do different tasks and can regroup at the end. this way fleets are a little more flexible and they don’t all have to go to one exact place. looking at how even the odds are for if one side brings X IPCs worth of planes against the same value in only-combat ships we thought fleets should get a little more flexibilty and the chance to protect themselves. this was it makes sense for even an air power team to make some navy themselves to help bring down an opposing fleet rather than just constantly spam fleets with air units which is what generally would happen. the reason i feel fleets were too expensive/not flexible enough is illustrated here: lets say that a fleet costs the same as the air power going against it and we’ll even for sake of argument not have any non-fighting ships (subs and transports) factored in even though transports are a necessary part of a navy if it ever wants to make a difference by getting more IPCs for their power. if you consider the cost of the non-fighting transports who cost IPCs but can’t even aborb hits in a tight spot this is even more difficulty for a fleet but here is just one iteration of many different only air vs sea scenarios.

three cruisers and 5 destroyers vs three bombers and 4 fighters. in both cases a cost of 76 IPCs. the most common outcome for the first round is that the navy is reduced to three CAs and one DD and the airforce is three Bombers and one Fighter at that point the odds are still close but on defense you have 3 dice at 3 and 1 at 2 whereas the offense has 3 dice at 4 and 1 at 3. the great news for the airforce is that if they win they can go back home and be free from easy counterattack buteven if this navy has survivors it has been crippled and the only way for it to survive till the next round is if no other powers have air units in range or if it builds more sea units. i realize only head to head isn’t a perfect comparison bc there is value to being able to bombard with ships and forcing an enemy to cover his various coastal positions bc of your possibilities….But it struck me that air units are just so much more valuable not only heads up but bc of their flexibility bc they can contribute way more to a ground assault than even a battleship can so why even build much of a navy unless you need to land troops, just build a massive airforce spread out over various territories and any time the enemy tries to go beyond the slowpoke pace of seizing several territories in one turn annhilate that portion. that is what i would do every game with the U.S. till i got sick of it and went for a realism game of bombing Germany and trying to take europe while fighting a delaying action in the pacific.

the other reason we did this is that if Italy ever wants to build sea units in the same turn as dropping off units in Egypt or Transjordan they must necessarily split their fleet between guarding the transport and the newly built one sea unit since neither will put up much resistance (none in the transport’s case) to an air assault. but here is the thing that transport pry never has to carry out any moves from further than the Italian sea zone and yet it can’t return. playing the traditional way the U.S. can put about 3 fighters in caucuses and simply wait for this split to occur and nail one piece. if the italians never split then the pace that their navy accomplishes anything is further reduced.

i realize the limitations in trying to balance games only by using head to head unit comparisons but i believe one good test of balance is if their is an strategy that works absurdly well and his little chance to have a legit counter than something needs to change. I like the idea of reducing the cruiser so that at least defense vs fighter offense they are the same plus if you give it an extra capability like anti-sub or flak then it actually has a rationale to exist in one’s lineup. i don’t buy the argument that they should be kept simply to allow a person to buy a naval unit if they don’t have enoguh to buy a battleship that round. i like to give people a reason to buy each unit depending on their strategy.

A balance theory can’t simply be reduced to how certain setups work otherwise you could show that tanks are worthless as offensive weapons by a set up where the defense has 14 infantry and the offense has 6 tanks and 4 infantry costing the same IPCs to both. the likely result is that the defender wins with 4-6 infantry remaining. however this doesn’t account for the fact that on offense there is still incentive to attack by finding weak spots in the defense to overwhelm them plus the ability to bring airplanes to a spot where the defense has none.

i like to analyze the math of the game and try to keep their from being too many ridiculous flaws but i’m always discovering things i didn’t realize such as how battleships go beyond just their matchup capabilities in sea to sea combat. everytime they are in a battle and win while absorbing a hit they have effectively saved the winning side one ship by virtue of absorbing a hit that would’ve sunk something else. this means that battleships have value even if they were somewhat more expensive i think. i always just used to look at the heads up comparison of them in a sea battle to just cruisers or destroyers but those units can’t preserve units in effect like a battleship can. however you could argue that with extra cheaper units you would have won sooner in your battle anyway so who knows lol. sorry for the insane post.