Posts made by B.AnderssonGameMaster

@frimmel:

I like the rules in the box. Mr. Anderrson you seem to be suggesting a simulation far more detailed than the one Axis and Allies was created to be. I think too that the prices are in line and balanced with the other prices in the game. Also if rules were changed to allow defense to build up faster than the attack (which your own math shows not to be the case) wouldn’t we just be spending the afternoon not losing instead of trying to win?

No, no, no my friend! I sugest a game that should be easier to play and with fewer rules and units as well, but it is not the issue here. Ones again, the Q is if one thinks that the price for naval units in line with the pricing scheme of the game overall. And you have clearly made your opinion on that. But tell me then, do you play with a bid for the Allies?

Secondly the backbone in the design of the game was to make it easier to build up defense faster then attack. For a land based battle this is surely the case, a stack of just INF is the best way to spend your money (if just considering one battle were mobility is not an issue)! This should also be the case for navy, I think! I dont say navy should be more important, just that I found it too expensive in comparation with air units that in turn seems to expensive in comparation with land. That is the reason why we see many more land based battles than naval battles.

@ncscswitch:

But you are ONLY thinking of the naval battles.

Those are largely irrelevant to the game.Â

The purpose of Navy is to get US and UK land forces to Europe.

You are so naive! My question was not about who it favors, but if the cost are in line with the pricing scheme of the game overall. I say the cost for navy is not in line with air, the units that conects navy with land. No doubt about it.

You are talking about another problem, how to make navy more important and at the same time dont favor the Allies. There are many ways to solve such a problem. One thing would be to implement connvoy raid rule for subs, then navy would become even more important for all. Still I agree that cheaper navy favors the Allies, just like air tansports would. But an air supremacy rule for FTRs would favor Axis. There is always one or another way one can compensate to get a balanced game. One can raise the price for transports and that is the true issue of yours! Lets say a transport will cost 10-12 IPCs, were as BBs, CAs and DDs are cheaper than today. There is not an easy way of find out a price for those transports. Lets say a transport represents a bigger formation of escort destroyers and transports, than a transport might have a 2 in defense or a in-built submarine interruption ability (or maybe not). I say it is not necessary that a navy that is cheaper over all need to speed up the game. It is about thinking outside the box! However I agrree about that it is important to balance any changes in a way that the Axis powers dont start too deep in a hole and quickly loose ground. Never the less a cheaper navy over all, does not necessary put the Axis in such a position as you say. It all depends on the changes one make for the game.

@newpaintbrush:

Disagree for reasons already stated in your other thread…bla.bla.bla…
You make no allowance for fodder units.Â

Well, cannon fodder cost at least as much as a sub. Do I need to say more??? I know that subs may not attack or defend against air, so those subs need protection. Right! But even if one buy other naval units the sub is more bang for the bucks compared to any kind of defensive buy! I say it is thanks to the inability to hit air, that subs are no game brakers. However I do say that the price for a FTR is not in line with price of naval units (CA, BB, DD etc). An attack by land based FTR only always have the odds to win by far over any kind of formation of ships and carrierbased FTRs. That also includes BBs that can soak up hits. If you cannot get it, you need to learn basic math. Ok that is a fact!

@ncscswitch:

Then you are talking a lot of new Axis planes… to allow the Axis to sink that cheaper Allied navy…

And that means that Russia is toast early in the game.

Who said anything about planes! I do advocate the implementation of a rule for air supremacy advantage, to make figthers a beter buy! However I would give the Axis more subs or other naval units instead of more planes, since otherwise Russia will be toasted earlier in the game. Just like you said!

@ncscswitch:

To my thinking…

…ONLY the Allies need spend significant income on Navy in the game.  Thus decreasing naval prices is a massive Allied advantage.

I believe the naval units have be to in line with the pricing scheme of the game overall, even if any changes will favor the Allies.  Then one need to allow the game to swing by giving the Axis a better position to start the game in. Don’t you agree!?

Seems like many people use #2 as a standard rule for A&A (all versions)! Is there anyone who use an alternative rule for air supremacy as a standard?

This poll is not about if cost changes have to be made for better historical accuracy, but for better game balance!

Navy builds are hadly cheap and are not in line with the pricing scheme of the game overall. The cost for naval units are simply prohibitive. What should undrelie the game design are that the defender can always build up the defense faster than the attacker can build up the offense, IPC-for-IPC.Here is what an article from Avalon Hill says: http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=articles/strat/aa20020724

However, an attacker that builds submarines will beat the best naval defense, a fully loaded aircraft carrier, on a IPC-for-IPC basis. Even if an attacker use landbased fighters to attack any formation of naval units (including carrier based figthers), the attacker need to spend less IPCs than the defender.

Any suggestions how to solve the problem?

@Micoom:

I don’t like Japanese bombers… in the North African Express… Commando Frogmen and Gustav Line look good. Dessert Tracks, sounds also nice… But is there a reason for it, to be a Italian NA, instead of UK’s to name one…??

No you are right! It is hard to get something that makes sense as a NA for Italy. If you could feed me with some ideas, then I can try to develop those ideas!?

Italy National Advantages

1. Gustav Line Defenses
During World War II, the road to Rome was a heavily fortified by the formidable Gustav Line defenses.
Your artillery in Italy defends on a 3.

2. North African Express
Each of your bombers may act as a transport for two infantry (Axis: German, Japanese or Italian). These bombers must land/stop after off loading but may not reinforce a just captured territory.

3. Desert Tracks
Allow Italian armor to move through Sahara. They must both enter and leave Sahara in same turn and cannot retreat into this territory. (Any Italy units in Sahara at end of Italy’s turn die).

4. Axis Pact

needs some work

Allows any German forces that end their turn in an Italian held territory to be used by Italy in THEIR attack, even if the German forces were used during Germany’s turn. Aircraft so used MUST return to the there starting point (where they were when Germany ended their turn) at the end of battle. All such forces revert to German control at the end of Italy’s turn.

5. Commando Frogmen
Italy was the first nation to use frogmen and human torpedoes. This secret naval weapon did a great deal of damage to the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.
Each turn one of your submarines may target specific enemy ships, attack only. This submarine hit on a die roll of 3 or less.

6. Self Propelled Artillery
The Italian military lacked modern tanks to support their war effort. As the war progressed, Italy made significant advances in their self propelled artillery design.
Your artillery may give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

Search roll sounds too complicated, why not just stick to the one die roll for each aircraft and hit on a die roll of 1. The AA ability should be built-in for all ICs and only aply for SBRs! Maybe the cost for an IC should be raised?

@Imperious:

LOL WE ALLREADY CAME UP WITH THIS!!!…Â

So how does your rule designed?

@Imperious:

OK BETTER… WHERE ARE THE NA’S?

I likr the other ones you made. I will take other look on them this weekend! Are not you busy with football games?  :wink:

#1 Air Supremacy

Fighters can support infantry attacks and artillery defense if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat. Air supremacy increases your infantry’s attack to 2 or your artillery’s defense to 3. Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.

#2 Air Supremacy

Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

Why not just use an IC with a built-in anti-aircraft capability. Any suggestions?

@newpaintbrush:

No, there is also the IPC gained from the surviving USSR infantry killing attacking German invaders.  In addition, USSR also gains a positional advantage by trading infantry produced two turns ago for infantry produced four turns ago.  Also, if Germany takes too long to take Russia, the Allies will win.  The alternative is NOT attacking German held territory, in which case the Germans simply gain 2-3 IPC per turn.  Do you understand what I mean?

Well, we are talking about trading for a singel small territory. It wont delay an major attack from Germany. When Germany goes for Moscow it wont be just a INF or two. However in small battles before Germany is ready for the big go, these kind of trade battles might happen. You are right about that a 2 INF and 1 FTR combo is a better trade than a 2 INF and 1 ARM, since the trading will be worth 6 IPCs instead of 11 IPCs. But is still trading as long as both side have a FTR to use instead of a tank. So if we consider that both Germany and Russia will have FTRs, then such a battle will just be a better trade than using ARM. I would say if Russia does not have a FTR to back up such a battle (trading), it is simply not worth it if Germany have FTRs! This is just easy math.

Germany will simply gain those 2-3 IPCs no matter if Russia attack and captures that territory since they will counterattack with INF and FTR and hence use the same tactic. As long as both sides use FTRs in such a trade  battle, the trade will be 6 IPCs (2 INF) for 6 IPCs. If one accept the trade Russia will gain 2-3 IPCs per round and so will Germany. But if Russia does not have FTR the trade will be 11 Russian IPCs for 6 German IPCs to gain 2-3 IPCs, that is a net loss of 2-3 IPCs!!! That is the reason why Russia should not take on such a trade battle and hence those expensive FTRs Russa starts with are very expensive. Right!

In your scenario a FTR is a better unit than an ARM, but it is not always the case! Sometimes one want to stay in a just captured territory to beef up defense for a counter attack also it can capture a territory! Not to forgett the fact that AA Guns can targey those FTRs, wich makes them a risky buy! So I would say that the FTR and ARM complement each other as units in that way. They are simply good for different purposes. Hence the pros and cons are even so far. The true question is what justifies those 10 IPCs for 3/4 unit compared to a 3/3 unit for 5 IPCs. If we consider a fictive FTR unit that can move and attack land only, what would such a unit be worth? I say 6-7 IPCs, since such a unit mainly would be better for defense. INF still is the best defensive buy, so that argument is not very strong.  I say the main reason for those extra IPCs is the extra mobility, 4 in movement compared to 2 for an ARM. That mobility advantage is worth at least 1 IPC. So those extra 3-4 IPCs, of buying a FTR compared to an ARM, is basically assignable to a better range (movement) and option to fly across see and to engage naval battles. I say a that the versatility of a FTR makes it worth at least 8 IPCs, but to be balanced for naval combats the price need to go up a bit. I belive that a 8 IPC FTR would become a game braker for naval battles (for mathimatical reasons not disclosed here). As the design for navy cost and capabilities are now, I say 10IPCs  is a balanced price for FTR. Still 10 IPCs is hard to motivate for land based combats, and that is why I suggests the use of an air supremacy rule! Such a rule should also affect naval battles, to capture the historical importance of controling the skies and make CAs even more important! Your arguments for a 12 IPC FTR are indeed something I would like to here more about. As long as one can lower the cost without braking the game balance, that unit is not perfectly balanced for the game. That is the true reason for the reduced cost of a FTR in A&A:R!

@newpaintbrush:

Where to start.

First, fighters are used against ground targets so ground forces are not committed.  This makes fighters VERY valuable against ground targets; decreasing the IPC cost to 8 is, I think, FAR too good.

Example:  USSR has a stack on West Russia and two fighters in Russia.  Germany holds the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia with one infantry on each territory.  USSR attacks Ukraine and Belorussia with two infantry and one fighter each.  The most likely result is killing the German infantry worth 3 IPC and gaining a 2 or 3 IPC territory.  USSR will lose the 6 IPCs of infantry to the German counterattack, but the USSR infantry can cause more casualties as they die.  So the USSR will have a clear IPC advantage from the attack.

But if the USSR tries the same thing with two fighters and a tank each. Germany takes back.  Now, instead of spending 6 IPC of units to gain 6-7 IPC of territory and German units (plus a positional advantage), USSR now spends 11 IPC, unacceptable.

That is why fighters really ARE worth 10 against ground targets.

I dont follow! I get the point that FTRs can retreat and never land in the territory just captured.
The cost of 6 IPCs for INFs are wrong, two INf per territory (2), that is 12 IPCs that will for sure be lost in a counter attack! Germany will loose at least two INFs that is 6 IPCs. The gain of 5 IPCs (2+3) for the terrotories just captured are just trading IPCs with Germany, since they will gain it back in a counterattack! I dont think that trading IPCs on one-for-one basis with a economical stronger enemy like Germany is wise for Russia! The on who think so will loos for sure! The tank thing you use in your scenario is very odd, I dont follow at all. USSR spend 11 IPCs on what? I thought two tanks cost 10 IPCs! No, I think you need to be more precis here! Fighters are not costeffective for 10 IPCs in a ground based combat. It all depends how much the movement is worth. As it is now it is worth some 4-5 IPCs for two additional movements for both land and sea! I hardly find that a good buy. But if the air supremacy rule would be included, then there would be a strong incentive to buy FTRs. Just deny an enemy air supremacy as well as giving an extra punch in an attack!

@DarthMaximus:

….
I’d be very tempted to just buy 45 trannies.   :-P

It is cheaper to defend then attack, so as long as your navy is strong defensively you need not worry.  Make your opponent spend on offensive units.

…

TRNs defend on a 1 and attack on a 0, hence no good idea of buying them without protection of DD and CA loaded with FTRs! Use two BBs and one fully loaded CA along with a DD and some SSs and attack for one round, then retreat and use those two hits for your BBs. As long as the enmy has got TRNs in his navy worth the same IPCs I gues you will come out a head! You should try these new rules for navy along with the air supremacy and convoy raid rules. You will see!

I always play with the tech super submarines (revised), hence no chance for air to hunt subs alone:

Super Submarines
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack and defend on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines only, unless an enemy destroyer is present.

One could play with the rule as standrad. The rule that says submarines may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines only, unless an enemy destroyer is present. This will definitely force the Japanese, UK and US player to think about navy!

@DarthMaximus:

Where are the trans?   :wink:
Or will those troops be swimming to their destinations.   :-D

Just in case you did not notice, I was talking about combat/fighting capabilities. However I don’t think the cost or transport capability need to be changed, due to the rule for convoy raids. That is incentive enough to buy a navy!!! My friend, you need to think outside the box :wink:

A 2/2 DD for 8 IPCs would dominate a 2/2 SS for 8IPCs, since the sub cannot defend against air. One will always prefer DDs compared to a SS, hence no opening fire for any SS!

I say a 2/3 DD (with shore bombardment ability) for 10 IPCs will do, were as the cost for a BB should be reduced to 20 IPCs. Lower the cost for a CA to 14 IPCs, not raising it to 18 IPCs. It should be cheaper to defend than attack. However still a SS and a FTR is slightly better in offence than a fully loaded CA for 14 IPCs. What makes the difference is air supremacy from carrier based FTRs over SSs, but only if CA is protected by one DD that disrupts the surprise attack from SS. So no more stacking of SS, except for defense! When it comes to attacking FTRs one has to consider the fact that a defending CA always (except for LRA) has the initiative against attacking FTRs! Hence the fact that an attacker with FTRs or SSs will win on a IPC-for-IPC basis against a defending CA that is fully loaded (strongest naval defense) is more theoretical than practical.

However the price for a FTR should not be raised, keep it 10 IPCs. More over one should include the air supremacy rule, or else the DDs will dominate the CAs (better in both defence and attack)! The air supremacy rule will make CAs important, in offence when attacking an enemy force without FTRs and in defense in order to deny an enemy naval force air supremacy!

Do the math and you will see how balanced it is (see below)! To find out the true fighting power, one need to consider the number of units that can absorb hits especially BBs 2-hit ability. BBs will be the best attack unit as long as used in combination with a DD (to disrupt submarines) and FTR (to cancel enemy air supremacy), just like it should be! No longer are subs the best offensive unit (as long as the enemy is protected by DDs)! Great!!! So why buy a SS? I say, SS are for protection from amphibious assaults and convoy raids (see rule clarification below)! Just like it should be!!!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese palyers are susceptible to suply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese palyers collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

10 CA + 20 FTR (14 IPCs/AC & 10 IPCs/FTR)

Cost: 340
Att: 110+320 = 70
Def: 310+420 = 110
Hits = 30

17 BB (20 IPCs/BB)

Cost: 340
Att: 174 = 68
Def: 174 = 68
Hits = 34

34 Ftr (10 IPCs/FTR)

Cost: 340
Att: 334 = 102
_Def: 434 = 136 (meaningless)_
Hits = 34

34 DD (10 IPCs/DD)
shore bombardment on a 2

Cost: 340
Att: 342 = 68
Def: 343 = 102
Hits = 34

42,5 SS (8 IPCs/SS)

Cost: 340
Att: 42,52 = 85
Def: 42,52 = 85
Hits = 42,5

@ncscswitch:

Not sure I agree with upping the FIGs to 12 again.  Lowering the price to 10 has resulted in more FIGs being bought in Revised than in Classic (raising the price makes sense from a “naval” persepctive, but makes FIGs a really BAD deal for Land use, where most FIGs see their main use anyway.

You are so right! FIGs should be the best piece for naval battles, no question about it! I think thecost of 10 IPCs even might be too much. Perhaps 8 IPCs in a land based perspective!

@ncscswitch:

As for increasing the price of a TRN…  That just serves to re-secure US and UK and push the fight back to Germany/Russia even more.  Keeping TRNs cheap, and allowing ANY of the nations to drop 3-4 in a single turn makes all of the nations pay a bit MORE attention to enemy naval activity, not less.

Yes!!! That is correct. The price and load capabilities of TRNs are the main factors that will affect the degree of naval activity.