League General Discussion Thread

as for bombers, i am playing a game against axis, the opponent bought bunch of bombers with Germany, even few with Japan. Maybe 1-2 with Italy too.

I’m just catching up on these posts so apologies if I missed anything.

I’m not opposed to the changes proposed around cruisers and Battleships and I’m curious about how the game plays with more of them on the board. Although I’m not sure what the price point is that makes them more common. Air has the advantage of being relevant to both land and sea whereas naval has very limited relevance to land, although I suppose that is also an argument to change the relative pricing of naval units relative to air. And at least with BM the marine unit mitigates that somewhat.

For air, while I’m also not opposed to trying something I am more hesitant about reversing the relative costs of figs and tacs/bombers. Figs are definitely the most common buy but, unlike naval purchases, I do see all 3 bought regularly. And I think because figs are the defensive unit and tacs and bombers are offensive there is some logic to the current relative costs . The axis need to play offensively (and in my experience they are consequently more likely to buy tacs and bombers) and the allies need to play defensively for much of the game (and so primarily buy figs until late game if they have managed to go on the offensive) So making offensive units more expensive does help mitigate against the axis advantages and changing it the other way might impact game balance to the benefit of the axis.

@gamerman01 I think I know the big game of which you speak! And I agree that AA is underrated.

I’ll add that in large battles, even with the battle calculator average, adding AA (as long as they would be able to roll a die) is comparable to buying figs in terms of its impact. And since so many smaller attacks involve small numbers of land units supported by several air, having one AA in the mix really complicates the choices for the attacker.

That single AA in Caroline Islands has probably won some games for Japan.

Hello,

Can you please remind me of the rules of how often you can play the same opponent in the same game version? If I remember it right, you had to complete a certain number of games in total during a year before you could play a 3rd and 4th game against the same opponent.

Thank you,
Martin

Great - thank you very much for your quick help!

I am glad I was not completely mistaken :-)

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

@gamerman01 I think I know the big game of which you speak! And I agree that AA is underrated.

I’ll add that in large battles, even with the battle calculator average, adding AA (as long as they would be able to roll a die) is comparable to buying figs in terms of its impact. And since so many smaller attacks involve small numbers of land units supported by several air, having one AA in the mix really complicates the choices for the attacker.

That single AA in Caroline Islands has probably won some games for Japan.

other boosting (instead of lowering the cost and increasing the number of planes u can hit) of aa guns could be

• moving at 2 moves (like mechanized aa gun - maybe with a cost of 6 )
• shooting at planes that fly over the territory regardless if they are attacking it (especially in CM)

but i think that even if they stay on 5 IPC , its ok since u guys brought some good reasons for it

and my opponent in the last game, told me after the game finished, that until that game of ours, he didnt realized the importance of aa guns (he more or less thought they are of small benefit) -

P.S.i moved all the aa guns from UK and USA to Europe, bided 3 aa guns with UK Pacific, brought those from India forward, and bought several with UK in the Middle East

ANZAC aa guns were doing trouble to Japan too in the islands

so, they can be tricky, i agree

what abut transports? we dont mention them? need any correction ?

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

I’m not opposed to the changes proposed around
[…]

agreed! Nice reading here. Another two cents: Eponymous balancing has been aiming to between X and L more than between the units (costs) - independent of bidding ?
Between gameplay and historicity I am favoring the former. I like playing a strategic boardgame and only accept the (world) war theme…
(dunno if I made a point, but have arrived at the office))

just one more comment about aa guns

It seems to me that the greater level of the player, the greater use of aa guns

Best players tend to avoid risky battles (not just big ones, but small ones too) and achieve victory over strategic dominance, and thus avoiding the dice related cases in which luck can prevail on the opponent`s side.

That said , in games among very good players (and i think that the general level of play on this forum is really big and growing) aa gun cost of 5 IPC isn`t that much expensive i would agree.

As for the side thing, since the allies use aa guns more , a change it that perspective would lean more to their side - but since they are bidding already maybe it wouldnt be such a bad idea, like the negative impact (on the allies) of making fighters expensive and tacs cheaper about which Farmboy has spoken

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in League General Discussion Thread:

of practical proposal, I would have cruisers cost 10 and battleships c

Just one note on this great post.

I think we all agree that its normal that we buy more subs and dds then cruisers and bats.

But is normal that my opponent and I play 18 rounds and we buy 0 cruisers and 0 battleships.

I think it isnt.

And that just happened in my latest game.

@Amon-Sul

For my two cents as a person who is a grinder, not a champion, but a play tester and an allies advocate, I say don’t mess with the unit costs. normalize tech. I completely agree about aa guns. Love them. They fail me sooooo many times, but once in a while… Tech would do the same thing. It would make the game more interesting, more historical. Every one of those tech options AND MORE were in the war by 45. And the enemy never alerted you of the change either. Completely shocking and horrific, but immersive!

I am talking to people who care about the W. I like to win, but care about fixing and flavoring the game more. And passing it on to future generations. It is a good hobby. Good for the soul. character. So I believe that the game that this group plays ought to be as close to OOB as possible with the bid and encouraging tech. I think that you brilliant gentlemen can, by including tech–a real gap in Larry’s masterpiece that needs to be filled.–take this game to new heights, new metas.

Larry didn’t know what a meta was. I think I piqued his interest, describing the tendency to go with a kjf these days. And the larger bids.

https://youtu.be/1tM86tvidZ0

@crockett36 I didn’t ask, but I made this public. just about aa guns.

@crockett36 Okay. No one’s going to bite on tech. Though I was told last night that if I gave it a go I’d get used to it!!

Anyway, how about this challenge: make bm5 allied favored so the Axis need the bid. There is a moral component to the game that the classic rule book recognized. If you care about the w you end up meditating on how to get the bad guys to win for endless hours.

In BM4 can a power, that just DOW to neutrals, fly over a neutral territiry to attack a non neutral power?
Particularly, UK DOWs to neutrals, and sends fighters from Gibraltar (w/air base) to W Germany. Years back it was prohibited. Can someone advise how it is ruled in BM?

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40942/l24-bm4-me1945-vs-pacifiersboard-l-22