Battlestarpimptastica vs BarbaLoca

@andrewaagamer Thanks!

@marshmallowofwar @crockett36 et alii

In the Pacific and in general-- BB is the way to go, IMO.

Personally, I prefer CV SUB FIG over either BB or CA/DD in bulk. Having 2-3 BB is intimidating (psychological), has soak (adsorbs hits), has bombardment–and the BBs are the last stuff to survive in a pyrrhic battle where both sides took great losses.

Numbers have an advantage, and so having 2 units might be better than 1 because they are more flexible.

However, the reason the CA (Cruiser) is so weak is that it can’t defend (either itself, or the fleet) against the subshot. Whether this is psychological or odds-driven, all your CA must be given up before your last DD is. Moreover, the DD is required to cover each fleet, and block other squares–so it has a much higher utility value.

I’ve tried to design a “Cruiser Crush” KGF/ATL and it wont work. You need ##s… the small advantage of novelty and bombardments isn’t worth it. With 5-6 CA in SZ 91, you’re going to get creamed, and you’ll have to lose your higher units first!

To broaden the conversation, the cruiser isn’t overpriced…its correctly priced. There are two rules that nerf it out 1) 1 bombard per amphibious unit drop 2) any interference (scramble, killing defenseless unit or sub, prebattle) blocks all shots.

I think all the rules work flavorfully, though imperfectly with one another. So to make the cruiser better, something has to give which is why people try to repurpose or reprice the cruiser.

Summation: Go big, Go BB instead.

Aircraft are trumping units in this game;  they are better than their cost, more flexible than any other unit (since they can be on land or sea).  They prevent the game from being like Risk; where only numbers matter and all the units are the same.

This is just like the sub rule, its to represent the overpowering advantage aircraft had and have over all other types of unit during that era.  Not sure what objection that raises, except that they are OverPowered.  Which is true in real life also, airpower is OP compared to its costs and that’s why they keep using it.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

Thank you Teslas for your annalysis.  I had not done the math either.  Our group has used the house rule for a couple of games and it has not deminished the need for tanks nor have we found it to be an overwhelming advantage to the axis.  The UK player has made good use of the rule as has the US players.  I have no mathmatival data to counter your information and numbers do not lie but our rolling sucks…excuse me; inhales vigorously.  I can’t hit a one or a two to save my life some games.  Mechs by themselves do not eliminate the need for Germany to build infintry and I do not feel (I recognize it is just a feeling and an opinion) that they will not eliminate the need for tanks.  Time will tell I guess as we try this rule out.

To be fair, this is why you never ever ever send carriers anywhere without a destroyer. The same problem happens if you send a carrier plus fighters to attack submarines. Since the carrier doesn’t roll attack dice and the fighters can’t hit the submarines, you just have infinite rounds of combat until the subs either sink the carrier or the units retreat.

This is also why it is recommend that when playing the pacific side as either Japan or the US, you purchase at least one sub for every carrier that the other side purchases.

You should also never tip your carriers on defense if you have no where for your planes to land, since the attacker will almost always retreat and watch your planes crash into the ocean for free.

@Variable:

It would last about as long as your post in this forum. Needs to go to Variants forum…

…um, yeah.

@Gargantua:

Where does your playgroup live? Maybe we can how and play a game?

We all live in Northwest Ohio… Toledo specifically. It seems that not many people on this site live near us, otherwise we’d love to expand our group. You are cordially invited if you ever pass through.

Well, it seems that Darth Maximus made an error. I agree that no transports means absolutely nothing. That is, it means America can do next to nothing with real meaning. I didn’t say we/I don’t build transports early with the US, we simply believe in defense first: more combat ships than transports. It isn’t impossible to fight America, they are fallible and you do have to exploit their mistakes. It just isn’t always easy to see.

It is hard to fight America due to distance and economics. Ultimately, there is no stopping them. You simply have to delay them. Yes, I am reiterating what you have said and what we have been discussing; delay is the only way.

One just has to be wise about it, not wasteful. And it isn’t an easy job if the Americans know what they are doing. If one’s aim in the game is to strike the Americans I find it typically to be a distraction and a diversion for the Axis, one they cannot routinely afford.