IPC Cost Reduction

That’s one of the problems with games is everybody banks there planes. My own game at least has it where u can lose planes in naval and ground when u don’t want to. If there’s a bonus plane kill u have to take one as a casualty

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! :)

I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.

This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:

for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.

The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.

So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.

Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)

7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense

If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.

If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.

Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.

The on going discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

Transport and Cruiser A3 D3 C19, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/19^2) = 0.30

Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

I revised the opening post.
As comparison points, a Fighter A3 D4 C10 off/def is 1.08 / 1.44

Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/8^2) = 1.125

Submarine A2 D1 C6
Offense:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
36*(3/6^2) = surprise strike 3.00
Defense:
36*(1/6^2) = 1.00
36*(1.33/6^2) = surprise strike 1.33

You need to send 2 Destroyers to get a similar defense value with Classic Transport strength 0.5625:
Transport and 2 Destroyers A4 D4 C23, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/11.5^2) = 0.544

Or make defenseless Transport a 4 IPCs unit:
Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C12, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/12^2) = 0.50

Now, if you want to introduce a Classic TP with the same strength of actual DD+TP combo 0.32:
You need to make TP cost 10,5 IPCs:
Classic Transport A0 D1 C10, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/10^2) = 0.36

At 11 IPCs, it would be 0.30 though.

Transport defending A0 D1 would be interesting at a clean 10 IPCs.

@SS:

:-D :-D :-D

@crusaderiv:

I’ve seen the T34 and sub rules somewhere…

Sorry, I completly forgot that you wrote such HR.
So I credit the idea above as yours Crusader.
I was thinking about ATG and this T-34 redux cost came to my mind as another way to provide a counterweight to German’s MI, MArt and Tank.
Then, I looked for a way  to give a special thing to Germany.

I resulted into your HR.
I like it as a small mod which add a lot of historical flavor.
Good idea Crusader!

Do or die?  :-D haha

I guess it’d be rather like Classic then, where you had to save to invade neutrals, except in this case you’d be saving ipcs to have the option to retreat! Might be fun. I could see a way that might be worked in if the players were agreeable.

As for the standard bonus, depending on which board you wanted to try it on, the influx of cash can definitely make purchasing strategy more interesting out of the second round and on. I’ve tried it on Revised, 41, 42.2, AA50 etc as my most basic cash bonus and people seem to enjoy it. Makes the land grab and combats just that much more intense, since you always have the bonus buck in the back of your mind

@Gargantua:

I agree with LB.

Infantry spam would be the way to go.

I used to be able to buy 6 inf, OR a battleship.  now I can buy 16 inf…  Same for tanks as LB mentioned… 4 inf to 1 tank, instead of 2.

This was enough of a probably in classic, that some people said “Infantry breaks the game”.

The other concept you could try… divide all current costs by 1/2, and make it mandatory to buy 2 infantry for $3.  You could also pick an arbitrary number for tac’s.  (honestly they should cost the same as fighters, they are no better or worse).  Make transports cost 4.

Theoretically, the dice effect on the game would diminish, because you’d have so many units on the board… but then managing units, or the “potential” of units - like when trying to calculate if you can defend your capital, become burdensome.

Yeah I know how much inf they will be, Russia buys 36 Infantry every turn.

@Variable:

I may try this for AA41.

Yeah, this would be great for aa41, cause the units will be so little, like germany attacking with 7 Infantry, 3 tanks, 2 fighters.

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)