Well, I see your point about coming on to strong. I also have to admit that I have been responding too to many posts at once and get confused about the purpose of that post.
I have also been arguing the same points with the “Cheesiest thing about Global” post someone else started. So being the 6VC victory thing to me is the cheesiest, it opened up my argument about Naval costs and that argument has bleed to this post.
Anyways I appreciate your comments.
Toblerone,
For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.
In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.
Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.
Uncrustable,
Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.
However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.
I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.
Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.
Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.
With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.
Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.
Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.
So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.
I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.
What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.
**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.
Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.
The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**
Toblerone’s comment, that I bolded above could not have been better said. I don’t understand, that IF, there is ever a new edition, that this would not be fixed. Which mean a significant reduction in all costs. Yes, it might require a change in initial setup, but it wouldn’t matter if done with a new edition.
The arguments for this have been said many times. It should be obvious.
With that said, the Japan 6VC rules is the cheesiest.
Regarding your last post,
What is fast mean in “then G5 u buy 3 fast in Ukr”
And do you mean by “Otherise arty in ukr and in nov and fast from back home will work, as that Western fast reaches moscow in 3 turns, the same window as the nov arty”
I have a major disagreement with your five points. They are not equivalent of all. Your point number 5,
Is by far the worst thing, cheesiest, unhistorical, unrealistic, and foolish rule axis has ever come up with. Not that your other 4 points don’t have value, but they fail to compare to number 5. The need to get rid of that ASAP. Like yesterday. I hate having to argue not to play with that rule. It is nuts!!!
Mr Roboto.
Axis Global is like chess. If someone suggests a grand strategy as being superior, that doesn’t mean the suggestion is to do it regardless of what the other side is doing.
The point is and will always be that the least efficient strategy is for either Japan and the US to go dramatically on the offensive, (not all out-just spending a majority of their resources) in the Pacific because of the unrealistic resources demanded to build a Navy, and for those resources, the rewards attained are only a fraction of the rewards attainable if those same resources were spent on Asia for Japan and Europe for the US.
That doesn’t mean that if the US foolishly goes 100% on the offensive in the Pacific, Japan should just run and hide its Navy. It merely needs to play a defensive, much less costly naval war, holding of the US while it achieves the most important Asian objectives, UK Pacific and China.
Same for the US, if the Japan goes all out, (foolishly) against the US, the US is best served by playing defensively, only holding them off, while most of its resources are focused on Europe.
This is because Navy’s are still unrealistically expensive compared to the ground units.
This is of course with the caveat that you are not playing with the horrid, unrealistic, foolish NO of Japan winning to whole freaking game with only 6 VC’s. The stupidest rule axis ever came up with.
knp7765
I am not sure what part of my post you were addressing. It seems like you didn’t address it at all. Again, my point is that Navy’s are to expensive and the transport is the best example of that.
You can go into history and see what percentage of the USA’s production capability on a yearly bases was used to build an Army and a Navy, and understand that for the US to build any kind of reasonable navy, it takes a massive percentage of their resources way beyond what was historical.
The point of the transports is that fact of what they used to represent. They represented escorts, ships (to transport), and landing craft.
Now they only represent the ships and landing craft. So why are they still $7. Almost the cost of a destroyers. That is what is nuts. I don’t personally favor the old rule, because despite the fact they represented escorts as well, visually they looked just like transports and took away from the realism and fun.
So of all the units, the transports are now the most unrealistically expensive, COMPARED to what you get for your money from the other units.
That is my point.
So my point of relevancy was this. You kept using language in terms of using more and different types of pieces for more realism. You are pointing out that the more realistic and diverse units that are introduced makes the game more complex.
What I said was irrelevant was the idea that a more realistic game would be to have only 3 units, and army, navy and airforce.
What would anyone do with that comment. Is it more realistic to have more diverse units and fight more realistic wars, or just 3 units, one representing a navy, and army, and airforce. How that is more realistic and would give more realism is beyond me. Could it be? I guess that depends on your argument. So that leaves me with what??? Or anyone reading this post. A point that gave no value to the discussion. That is why I called it irrelevant.
The challenge of course has always been realism versus complexity. It is a challenge that of course is a difficult one and you can’t make everyone happy. But guess what, they dealt with those problems. 1942 is suppose to be the begginers basic less complex game. Global is suppose to be the more intricate game.
All the biggest problems that people have been the most vocal about since the 1980’s have been fixed. Very slowly, one by one. My point is that there fix for a lack of action in the Pacific missed an obvious opportunity. The biggest problem in the Pacific was that the amount of resources necessary to build a Navy by the Japanese and US compared to what could be gained failed in comparison to what could be gained by spending those resources in Asia by Japan and Europe by the US. They attempted to fix that problem. In case you haven’t noticed, the cost of Navy’s have continued to come down, oh so slightly with each version since the 1980’s. They just didn’t go obviously far enough. That is my point. Along with the 6 VC for Japan. It is a horrible rule and completely foolish based on no historical or realistic reason. Only for the purpose of forcing the US to spend significantly in the Pacific to a point that is inefficient.
And I am not advocating the US can ignore Japan.
That is my point. And in keeping true to this post, if you are going to have defenseless transports, how in the heck, are you going to make them cost $7. Nuts!!!
The premise of this post is the idea that the Axis have such an advantage, you need to play with a bid for the Allies. In games I have been challenged too, everyone talks as though it is obvious the Allies have to get a bid. I have said before that regardless of what side has a net advantage, I believe that overall strategy, skill, and tactic matter so much more it dwarfs whatever net advantage either side begins with. The global game is so big, it truly is like chess, where no matter what strategy you employ, you can’t see everything, you can get caught off guard, and taking the right calculated risks time and time again is what wins the game.
But for the sake of this post, I grant that the Axis have the advantage, but I point out it is because of the 6 VC rule Japan which is where the unrealistic advantage comes from. Japan just has to take Hawaii, and the whole game is won forcing the US to fight an inefficient war.
This rule was to force action in the Pacific. The reason it had to be forced was because Navy;s were so expensive, the cost in resources did not justify what could be gained, as suppose to using those resources in Asia, for Japan and Europe for the US. So why not dramatically lower their cost. Then you don’t need the foolish 6 VC rule for Japan.
So in previous posts on different topics, I have posted the price structure for navy’s I have played for years in all versions, including the game World at War. It is as follows
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10 (this of course was a new development with the newer versions)
I have recently pushed for an even more dramatic cost reduction but I admit I have not tested this.
Here, 1 carrier, 2 planes, and 1 destroyer costs $31 you can buy 6 subs for that price. Subs that are attacking have the equivalent initial fire power as the defensive force, but have one more casualty and would not doubt win the battle. But with the subs defending, because you would need to keep the destroyer in the battle, it is somewhat of an even battle, so how can you complain that aircraft carriers need to be more expensive relative to subs. They are way to expensive now.
In terms of land warfare, the reason they started out Germany with so many more planes is that no one bought enough of them. Air forces have never been bought in sufficient numbers because they were always to expensive. It fighters at $8 would cause you to stop buying tanks, then you would lose badly.
So that is my take and I hope more people support a dramatically lower Naval costs in any 3rd edition that comes.
First, remember we are dealing with the fact that the Axis have the unrealistic advantage
Two, the most radical change that I am know proposing, I have not tested, but believe subs also being so much cheaper would allow Germany to put up a fight. Another words you would have a real battle of the Atlantic.
Third, the less draconian change, if you look at my previous posts have been tested. We have played that way with Revised, World at War, and Global version 1 and version2. With that let me make this statement. Whatever net advantage it gives the Allies, with the new set up, and grand scope of the global, strategy, tactics, concentration (not making mistakes), and multitasking matter so much in this game, it dwarfs any net advantage this would cause. That is my experience. Again, I have only play tested with the more moderate price cut.
Are you able to just modify the cost of the units so you don’t have to go back and forth.
This is the price structure I have played with. And this is the price structure I have repeatedly pushed for.
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10
In my last post for this subject I suggested going even further and reducing the cost even more, which I have not played with. Those costs as you could see were to cheap compared to fighters so as consequence I suggested letting fighters pick their targets in Naval battles since reducing fighters even more would pose great problems for land battles. Any changes to extreme would bring unforeseen negatives, but I would like to test it against a human being. This would be the most extreme cost structure.
Transports $3 (they are defensless)
Sub $4
Destroyers $5 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $6
Carriers $6
Battleships $9
Fighters $8 (Maybe on a roll of 1-2 they pick their target, at sea only, which would probably be more realistic after seeing a document in Battle 360, D-Day in the Pacific. Not sure how you would do this on Triple A though?)
Tac bombers $10 (target picking same as fighters)
You mean Sea Lion would be an option like in the real war!!! The only reason it wasn’t an option was because they lost the air war due to the British advancement in radar and strategic mistakes by Germany.
So yes, Sea Lion should be an option, but to think it would be an automatic is wrong. Britain still goes next. So Germany could have 4 transports instead of 2, well Britain goes next and could easily defend it with troops. Of course that would hurt them against Italy, but that is the point isn’t it. Gives Italy a chance. And if Germany went all out on transports, Britain could still defend against it. But if Germany won most of the time, don’t think surrendering a whole turn of IPC’s to take Britain doesn’t have its consequences against Russia.
But I stick with the idea Britain could easily defend against it, but again with consequences against Italy.
My ultimate point is this, ultimately, units might need to be adjusted and my points for change I think are unchallengeable in terms of a new edition.
But for the current game for house rules and trying to keep it simple, you would just not reduce the cost as much as I am suggesting to solve the balance of the game. Bottom line, after the first turn and the opportunity for Sea Lion is over, the US gains the advantage. But not by much because German subs are also cheaper.
As far as fighter picking their targets, I meant that only for the Pacific where it is more realistic. Since you can’t proportionally reduce the cost of fighters without having a major negative affect on land battles, in order to reduce naval cost the way I am suggesting, fighters would lose their importance in the Pacific since they would be over priced. So to keep their importance, you make them better, like letting them pick their targets.
You could modify how and to what extent, but since the naval units are now so much cheaper proportionally, it would work I think. You would just have to go into battle with your own contingent of fighters. Since fighters have that capability, you would always pick the enemies fighters first, and the side with fighter still standing would get the edge.
THINK ABOUT IT. That is how the battles were fought. A Navy without air cover was toast. Fighters were launched to take out the attackers air power before they reached the Navy. Of course navies has some anti-aircraft protection, so giving Capital Warships some sort of AA defense might be warranted but I don’t think necessary since the ships are so much cheaper.
This may make it more complicated without major testing so let me bring it back to my main point.
Navies are way to expensive. Reduce their cost.
I don’t think you would have to change anything at all. In my game we have played with the US and Japan already having improved shipyards. This takes it one step further.
I don’t see why anything would have to change. The only thing might be the relationship between the US and Germany. The transports would be extremely cheap but so would subs. Germany is still going to focus the majority of its resources on Russia. You would also get more action in the Med too.
First of all, Japan trying to take Los Angeles would be foolish unrealistic and not a world war 2 game, but something entirely different.
Secondly, the answer to the US ignoring Japan, is not force the US to almost ignore what is, was, and should be the greatest threat which is Germany. This is still a world war 2 game, not risk with a map of the world.
Thirdly, the game as it is today, in my opinion, if Japan was totally ignored, could end up easily taking Anzac. So if you raised the VC limit to 7, then taking Hawaii and Anzac would produce a victory.
But the answer, the true, historic, realistic, keeping it simple answer to the lack of action in the Pacific problem is now obvious. You can’t ignore Japan, you just can’t, but the majority of resources still must be spent of Germany to keep it balances. So how do you encourage meaningful action in the Pacific without altering the balance of the game in an unrealistic, and unhistorical fashion.
BY DRAMTICALLY LOWERING THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO BUILD A NAVY SO REAL BATTLES CAN BE FOUGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SO MUCH IN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FRONTS.
Navy’s are way to expensive. Make them comparable in cost to land units.
Transports $3
Subs $4
Destroyers $5
Cruisers $6
Battleships $9
Air Craft Carriers $6
Planes $8 and let them pick there targets at sea. Each side would then have planes and you would get realistic air to air battles.
This is keeping it simple to the core. Germany would be able to fight a real Atlantic battle and would offset the cheaper transports for the US.
Japan and the US could go at it without sacrificing their other theatres. Japan could really threaten Anzac and the US could build a real Navy without sacrificing so much in the European theatre.
This is the answer with the new setup.
I disagree with realism means whittling down everything to only 3 units, the army, navy and air force. It was an almost irrelevant comment.
The point of axis and allies was and has always been about starting off at a point in world war 2 that was accurate to the time and conditions that existed at that point in time. You then had the chance to refight the war without making the same mistakes and trying different strategies in an attempt to win the war. A what might have happened scenario. The game is largely marketed to history enthusiasts who don’t want to be forced to fight the war and merely repeat history, but want some level of accuracy in terms of what was at the time.
The game can only be so accurate without a level of complexity that would hurt the game, making it to tedious and long to play. But when changes that are simple can be made that bring an awesome level of realism, then to not make those changes seems a change to me.
Many of those changes have been made, but it has taken 30 years to do it. From the very first edition of axis and allies, (which I never played) to the second (which I play for over a decade) to todays versions, it was obvious each new edition was more realistic then the previous. Why it has taken this long and not yet completely fixed is a shame to me.
I think the last problem and one of the biggest was the Naval problem. Unfortunately the fix was to create NO’s instead of fixing the cost.
It would encourage action in the Pacific and you no longer need many of the National Objectives the Japanese has that force it to go all out in the Pacific and force the US to go all out in the Pacific. The victory city rule of 6 cities for Japan is what throws off the balance towards the axis. Japan only needs to conquer Hawaii once it takes China and India.
It forces the US to spend inefficiently putting the majority of its resources in the wrong area.
Besides, this post is about the real value of units. Well the game was always broken in the sense of a lack of action in the Pacific. That problem always stemmed from the massive cost of building a navy. Remember when Battleships cost $24 and one carrier and 2 planes cost the entire IPC’s of the US for one whole turn. Both the US and Japan realized those funds should be spend on the Asian and European mainland where you would get more of a return for what you spent. So they ended up ignoring each other. So the fix was to very slightly reduce the cost of a Navy and come up with unrealistic, illogical NO’s, some which lack any historical value to force action in the Pacific.
Heck, lets go further. Transports $2, Subs $3 (Attack at 2 defend at 1-Infantry are similar and only cost $3)
Cruisers $6 attack and defend on 3 like tanks so why not, ect…. ect… ect…Why should it cost so much more to build a Navy vs. an Army. You couldn’t reduce the cost of planes very much without altering the land warfare metrics, so why not let fighter pick their targets. If both sides have planes, each would pick the other sides planes. This would spawn some realistic air to air combat bringing more historic type battles.
In terms of objections that such cheap transports alter it to much for the allies, all you need is to offset it with more subs for the Germans, but then again, subs are cheaper for the Germans so it alterations would be minor if none at all.
Bottom line, Navy’s are still way to expensive. Lets fix it.
It is intended to be realistic. Why should a defenseless ship that is almost empty, (filled with troops and material) cost as much as a destroyer with massive armaments. The price of a transport is foolish.
I believe in the past, a transport represented the actual transport ships, landing crafts, and escorts. I have read this exact idea applied to an infantry. An infantry does not represent a squad, platoon, or company of soldiers, but a whole infantry element that with it would come different resources such as anti-aircraft capabilities, anti-tank infantry (bazookas), ect….
So know they made the transport represent only the transport ships and the landing crafts. And defenseless. The should then drastically lower the cost. And provide it with some AA capability as the real ships of the war did have that ability.