Historically (i think) cruisers original task was to operate alone far away from their homebase. Therefore i would rather think the opposite of you idea would be right.
Maybe like this:
A Cruiser’s Attack and Defense is increased to 4 if it is the only unit in this specific fight.
@Baron:
I believe that Cruiser should be an offensive weapon inside the ships roster.
Otherwise that makes Fleet on defense too hard to attack by the same warships roster on 1 unit for 1 unit basis.
As it is already with carriers? ^^
@Baron:
Do you mean that Cruiser get this stats:
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 2
Shore bombard 2
Cost 9It is a completely new idea.
I like this concept because it provides a way to understand why many Cruisers were Anti Aircrafts platforms.
Exactly
Edit:
However, one should keep in mind that the Allies do profit a bit more from these changes as the Axis. Therefore the bid should maybe adapted to that.
We recently tested the following, and we were quite confident with it:
Battleship: 17 IPC (no changes to rules)
Cruiser: 9 IPC (Attack decreased to 2)
Battleships now are a real strong weapon, as far as you can afford them. Especially if you already have the superior navy, the hit absorption is useful, as you hopefully don’t lose any units in battles vs smaller navies. A really strong buy for USA and/or Japan.
Cruisers get a completely new job. They are the cheapest way to get a strong defense. Especially useful for defending small groups of transports against enemy air raids. They totally outvalue aircraft carriers in this role, but their ability to support a subsequent land battle is very limited (bombard at only 2. No fighters can participate in defending the land units later on). Therefore Cruisers shine at attacking islands, but carriers are still better for large invasions.
According to this poll, the average bid is 5
Honestly (and sincerely don’t mean to insult), your comments suggest to me that you are not playing at a high competitive level. Against typical players, the skill level will have a much larger impact than a few bid. This is because people will mistakenly leave units in a position for the opponent to win 10-50 point battles. Bids to balance really shine when both players are playing optimally, the games are going 20+ rounds with 150 unit stacks. I would stick to my suggestions in the original post if you’d like to try revised with the new rules.
Of course im no experienced player, i made 6 games before. But still i wish to have as balanced starting circumstances as possible.
Hi, firstofall mucho thx for your answer.
Considering your arguments:
1. I do not directly want to avoit 50/50 battles, but i do want to avoid musthaves.
The chance to sink 2 US transports and a destroyer is too tempting not to do it. You can only lose one sub if you fail. Therefore, to maximize axis chances to win, moving this sz8 sub to sz10 is inevitable.
I dont like having only one way. Before, this sub could do various moves, depending on what you do in med and in north atlantic. But with transports not being able to defend, this 8-10 move is he best you can do, independent of how you want to attack the british ships. I think it is the best option to simply move the starting position of the sub from 8 to 7, here it is still possible to help attacking british ships in 2 or 13. You simply lose this (too profitalbe) US attack (that was anyway impossible in revised).
2. Yeah, skill should decide. And with even skills luck should. But not one single attack in the first round should be able to have such a high profit as the 8-10 move (crash 22 for 6 risk).
A) True, as mentioned.
B) Im not sure how this should (auto)happen, as G can act before UK, and has various options in the med. Dont see such a big problem here. Maybe I’m not experienced enough to see that, could you explain it more detailed? I think with fighters, bomber and the battleship (and even the sz8 sub) it is possible to crash both, the UK battleship AND destroyer in the med, and therefore saving the german med fleet (at least for a while). Sure, you cant use those air units at the east front or in the north atlantic, BUT you have the option.
C) Sure this transport is an autoloss for J if UK attacks it with a fighter form sz or the destroyer from sz 35. BUT if UK does so, the carrier and/or the destroyer is a (nearly) autoloss afterwards. This is not a very profitable move I think. You CAN do it to slow down Japans land offensive, but it costs UK more than J. UK has other useful options in the indian ocean. I dont see a general problem here. Maybe im wrong here, and the other options are crap, but me as UK-player would more like to save the indian fleet in the fist round, trying to meld it with either survivors from the med or with the australian.
I wouldlike to change as few as possible to the starting setup of revised to make it work. I like to have choices, and not being forced to THE ONE by far most useful attack.
Hi, i have the 2004 Version of the game, but we want to play it with the newer rules of 1942 second edition (except cruisers that are not in box, but as it seems cruisers are anyway obsolete).
I think the new rules and prices for he units are better balanced, but several of the changes bother me, for example the fact that transports cant fight. At the start, there is one german sub in sz 8 and a US destr + 2 Transports in sz 10, what was no real problem in revised (a sub could not really attack 1 Dest + 2 Trans), but with the new rules the germans have now a very luck dependet chance to get a huge advantage from the beginning (killing those dest and 2 transports).
The change of the rules to 42 2.ed BUT using still the revised start setup can not work really properly imho. My question is now, how should i change the start setup of revised to get a balanced game? I could simply change the starting position of this sub from sz8 to sz7, but im not sure if there are no other problems that i dont see yet. Has anyone experience with this kind of hybrid game? I could simply buy the new version of the box but i dont know if that mony is worth it. Can anyone help me?
As i have recognized, an axis bid of about 7$ is suggested for revised edition, i am wondering now how this bid would change if i use the new rules. Tanks cost more what is i think more a problemfor germany as for the other nations. Bombers cost less, what i think allies profit more of. Subs changed a lot, not knowing which side profits more. Carreirs etc… What do you progamers think? I like to have a well balanced game with both sides have about 50% chances of winnig.
Another question reguarding the rules of amphibious attacks:
Can a transport load troops and do with them an amph attack IN THE SAME TURN? As i understand it, loading troops happens only in the non combat move phase, so it should not be possible, but i read some forum posts here that seem as it would be possible. Please help me.
Thanks for your answers.
You chose a bad example, as the in “small” battle, the defender doesnt have an artillery. Get two battles, same unit mix, different size (1inf 1art vs 1inf 1art … 2inf 2art vs 2inf 2art) and see, how both battles are affected same.
It doesn’t really affect small Amphib Assualts, because only the first round changes.
I dont get that. Small Amphibious Assaults also have a first round. They are as affected as large ones. Or do I understand something wrong?
do you think tanks need a change? i havent considered that so far, tanks seemed to me rather balanced.
Hi,
i played several times with friends, and some imbalanced costs seemed to occur. Now i wonder, if it would improve the game, simply changing some of the unit’s prices.
My idea to do so was:
Battleship down to 20
Destroyer down to 10
Bomber down to 12
What are your opinions on these changes? Did i forget something major? Are changes too harsh?
