Overpriced units

@Lucifer:

I’m happy that trans cost 8, but fodder issue can be solved by a rule change, it should not be allowed
to bring trans in a hostile naval zone.

What about amphibious assualts in which there are naval vessels?  Transports not allowed?
one sub would then stop a huge assault force

Lucifer:

I don’t know why or how you got to nearly 100 smites, but think your just fine as a poster.

On destroyers they could goto 8 IPC and basically represent the opposite of subs. They counter the subs first strike ability so you need to buy them to stop ships from sinking. attack and defense at 3 for a destroyer is too great. Thats more like a cruiser. You might as well change the name to cruiser IMO.

To be honest, I’d split the DD into two units.

A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

and

A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 10

Cruisers die in a single hit to an attacking Submarine.  No return shot.  Only destroyers can stop sneak attacks.  Battleships, on the other hand, costing twice as much as a cruiser hit on a 4 or less and take two hits to sink.

That’s the value.

Ok if i can make an adjustment:

A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

and

A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 12, and gets one free roll at any attacking planes hitting at 1… like the aa gun but on the sea. Cruisers were AA gun platforms. Specialty ships used to escort and protect larger ships but also potent on their own.

other than that if you don’t like the AA thing , then give them a movement of 3 to represent their ‘cruising’ range

if they also have AA, should they cost more than $12.  or be a 2 and 2 but also have AA.  everyone would buy them if they had AA for the seas.

ok then 15?  If at 15 then they take 2 hits… BB’s are 20 IPC by mutual consensus, so a cruiser must be in line with that. hitting planes at 16.6% will not effect its cost too dramatically.

I could go 12 with AA but only 1 cruiser per sea zone would get AA privileges.

I could even go Att 3, Def 1, AA Gun 1 round, 1 ship per sea zone, cost 12, off shore bombardment (attack rate).

1 cruiser per sea zone would get AA privileges.

That would not make much sense… but how bout it gets one roll per unit rather than one roll for each attacking unit?

Also, then id say this cruiser moves 3 spaces

to summarize:

attack and defend and move at 3, cost 15, takes one hit, bombards at 3, rolls on die against one air unit hitting at 1.

Destroyer 2/2/2-8 IPC counters the subs and has the benefit of its hit can be allocated on planes, while the subs cannot. Important distinction and makes destroyers the “infantry of the seas”

@Lucifer:

What are indisputable facts is that the current DD+bmr+BB have no purpose  in the game, apart from those units that u start with, and ofc we wan’t to keep our BB’s  :-)

I could dispute the bmr as not being purchased.  I’ve seen my share of US bombers (even Japanese ones) in revised games.

You should switch subs for bombers if you’re listing units with no purpose

@Lucifer:

I haven’t played other (official) variants than classic and revised.

Perhaps you should try some variants/house rules that are so structured to make ALL units, tech (and even NAs) involved in the game.  I’m a huge advocate for A&ARe (Enhanced).  I have probably played 100 Enhanced games and can say that every game is different.

@Lucifer:

Imperious Leader:

Well then… check out Nuno’s posts and a familiar pattern will develop and a smile will be produced> smiley

Battleships should be 20 IPC , Carriers should be 15 IPC Both should take 2 hits, but carriers should go to defense of 2
Destroyers should attack and defend at 2 and cost 10
Bombers cost too much and should be 12 IPC
Transports should be 10 IPC so that people don’t take them as combat loses as much.

Yeah, I think the original quote was by Imperious.

Anyways, I totally disagree with Imperious.  I think those changes are mostly whack.

Two-hit carriers, then no need to buy battleships.  Decreasing the cost to 15 IPC as well?  Jesus.

Battleships are already good at 24.  They’re too expensive for casual buys, which makes sense.  I can see a case for reducing battleship cost, but a 20 IPC cost means two US battleships in the Pacific on US1.  Too cheap.

Bombers are fine at 15 IPC.  There are solid lines of play that use lots of bombers, and I’m not just talking about Superfortresses NA either.

Well, cruisers moving at 3 would be nice for America if they get Fast Carriers advantage.  Then their carriers can have escorts. :)

So, to get it right, IL, you would like to see 1 AA shot per defending cruiser as opposed to 1 AA Shot per attacking fighter/bomber?

@Lucifer:

Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
and by watching good players in many games.
Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.

Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment.  That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game.  Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.

Also - bombers are NOT bad investments.  There are times and places for bomber buys.  You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.

All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.

So you never build navies with UK and/or US?  What’s your Allied win percentage like?  How about those more experienced players you were talking about?

Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.

Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy?  Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good?  I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.

I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
but can move 8…
I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech!   :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.

Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies.  There were others that contributed.  And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.

As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.

2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.

@Lucifer:

I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech!   :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.

Well the first treatment of tech in first and second edition (and the CD-rom) was horrible.  It was game breaking technological break thrus obtained thru the luck of die rolls.

HORRIBLE application of a fact of WWII.  Technology was VERY important in the outcome of the war.

Revised went a long way to making tech better (less game breaking tech, targetting a specific tech means you can only get one tech / turn), but still falls short, IMHO.  Tech dollars should accumulate if a country fails to acquire a tech.

There’s still too much randomness in the acquiring of the tech.

Tech should be a part of the game rules.  If you want, both sides can agree to a no-tech game if you wish.  Fixing the tech rules is a better solution.