Posts made by eddiem4145

Reading all these replies is frustrating. Doesn’t anyone realize the cost of building such fleets. It has been and continues to be the biggest problem with axis and allies. Navy’s cost to much and are completely unrealistic. The land forces you have to give up to build even the most modest of fleets is ridiculous. The first one to do it only is saved by the foolish reaction of you opponent doing the same thing.

Though not as big as a problem as in the past, it is still a problem and instead of the solution being dramatically reducing the cost of navy’s, Larry came up with ridiculous unrealistic National Objectives (I don’t disagree with them all) to try and force inefficient naval battles in the Pacific. Inefficient because what you spend on Navy’s forces you to give up so much in what could be achieved in Land battles. This goes especially for Japan. The reason all the other versions resulted in Japan going all out against Russia is because it was the only smart thing to do.

But know, essentially all Japan has to do is capture Hawaii and the entire war is won??? So Germany could be collapsing, Italy could be wiped out and ooops, Japan got Hawaii, game over!!! Stupid!!!

Drastically reducing the cost of Navy’s was the right answer and though they were reduced slightly, they weren’t reduced nearly enough.

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

Lets just do it already.

I could possibly do Tues night, but if the game wasn’t finished in one day I am not sure I could finish it next Tuesday.

Eddie Moreno

I would really be interested in a live game. Setting up a time would be hard. Maybe a few hours on a Sunday night. I am assuming the game would go much quicker and it could be done in 3 hours. If not, 2 hours over 2 Sundays, or Sunday and Monday night.

I will be checking back for a response

How about this idea,

Since they are defenseless, lower their cost to $4. And give the AA shot as described. That keeps it simple. Each transport gets one AA shot before being sunk.

in new to triple a and have played a couple games against the computer. the computer is to simple. Wouldn’t mind playing a real human but you would have to walk me through setting up a game.

don’t really understand how casualties would be chosen in we are not playing at the same time.

Eddie

Destroyers are bought for the fodder and that makes them superior. 3 destroyers vs. 2 cruisers is the same price. 3 destroyers will always win by far. Getting a one time bombardment is rarely worth it, although there may be a case for it.

But the point is, the destroyer is not suppose to be or was ever the work horse of the Navy’s at the time. Only shields against subs. So for the purpose of naval power, the way it is now, you would never, or should never buy destroyers or battleships. Ever. It is never worth it.

It is true that changing the prices would alter the game balance. Exactly how, I am not sure, but if it was ever done for a new edition, the proper adjustment would have to be made. But they need to be made. The way it is now is not very historical or realistic. Navy’s are still way to expensive and require to much of you resources.

Not sure how you interpreted that from my post.

What I meant by $1 for the first roll, $2 for the second, $3 for the third, ect… is…

If you buy 1 dice it is $1. If you buy 2 dice it is, $1 plus $2 equals $3 total. So 6 rolls is 1+2+3+4+5+6=$21

Assuming you didn’t read my entire post, this idea is based on economic principles of diminishing returns and the efficient division of resources. Scientists not being put in a fox hole for example.

On a side note, I find the biggest possible utility for fighters is anti-surface warship units mostly for Germany.

Exactly, but I would go farther. That is there only real use. For Germany specifically, fighters are to expensive to give up on infantry with artillery, and armor with mechs to reinforce the lost infantry in the front.

For Germany, holding territory is a lot more important and as such, fighters are only bought to threaten coastal forces and still can be used as needed for ground combat. But the point is that they are to rarely bought for Germany and Russia compared to how the forces of those days were made up. Fighters should comprise at least 10% of a modern force like Germany, Bliztkrieg anyone? At least. The forces start off near that, because they are given to you. After that the percentage of the forces that make up the air force just gets smaller and smaller.

There unrealistic cost is why they started out Japan with so many, because there couldn’t be much of the historic type battles because they cost too much.

With my idea of reducing the cost of all Navy’s, you would have to respond in kind by reducing the cost of fighters. But not to much to replace armor. $8 is a good figure.

I hope to see more people support the idea of much cheaper navy’s for any future 3rd edition.

The fact is the reason they changed the set up to include so many fighter is because they don’t get purchased as they should. Considering you can’t land where you just conquered means you always have to give up a move. That really leaves fighters with a range of 3. One more than Tanks and you are spending $2 extra dollars for one extra move which would not help you much directly in the front line.

Look, we all at times like to make exaggerated statement when presenting our point of view. But if you played a game with fighters costing $8, i’d like to see you really never purchase tanks. The fact that fighters can’t land on territories they just conquered means everything and they will always be an absolute purchase for specific situations.

Mechs cost only $1 more than normal infantry yet you get only one extra move, just like fighters to tanks. (remember, because fighters can’t land on territory they just took, they only have an effective move of 3 in land battles). But that extra move in proportion is twice that of infantry. Are you telling me you have never or will never buy regular infantry. I think not.

$8 fighters would make absolute sense. At $8 the field would still be far outnumbered with tanks and mechs compared to fighters.

That would make sense if you mean you do not have to buy rolls

If UK wants to then build a complex, the money has to come from the European economy right, even though the unit came and was bought at India.

Thanks

Fixing the tech stuff would also help balance the game towards axis.

No rolling until at war.

Your idea is fine but the cost to reduce the rolls is also necessary. $1 for the 1st roll, $2 for the second, $3 for the 3rd, ect… I outline in another post how this is not only more historical, in terms of what it would produce, but it is more realistic from an economics perspective based on the idea of diminishing returns and the efficient allocation of your resources.

Germany would get a head start on Russia and the US on technology.

It has been clarified in different places and times that the units themselves, do not represent only one, or a group of that unit. For instances, one infantry doesn’t just represent a unit of infantry, but a whole battalion, division, ect… So in an infantry division, you are going to have anti air craft assets, anti tank assets, ect…

I would assume in the original axis it was the same. A fighter included all the types of planes one might find in a fighter group. Now tactical bombers were recently added to the game for versatility, but I still don’t think fighters are suppose to be just that, fighters.

There a lot of tweaks we can introduce into the game but it would make it more complicated. So I think the easiest changes should be first.

The simplest and most accurate change should be lowering the costs of ships and fighters. Though Jenifer pointed out the improve shipyards help, it is close but not close enough. The main problem is that you have to roll for it and the current rules for rolling has you roll for a breakthrough at $5 per dice, (which is way to expensive), then you have to see what you get, so unless you start with improved shipyards for everyone, it would be a start.

The price of ships across the board just needs to be redone and lowered as I outlined.

Tansports $4 (remember they are now defenseless), Subs $5, Destroyers $6 (They should not be the economical buy, but absolutely necessary to counter subs), Crusiers $8 (This should be the workhorse of the sea) Battle ships $14, Carriers $10, Fighters $8, Tac Bombers $10.

And reduce Air Bases and Naval Bases

Jennifer

Sounds like we are in agreement. Though instead of a NO for Japan for taking anything, it should be a one time loss, or every turn loss of IPC’s to the US that makes a real sting.

Also, what about reducing the cost of all the other naval ships?

The Axis should not win unless you really out maneuver the allies. By 1942, the axis were really in a bad spot since they had not made enough gains before the US onslaught came. If you want a historically accurate game, meaning not having to play it the way the war really went, but being to make your own decisions with the conditions that existed in 1942, and want a balanced game, 1942 is not the year to start.

I would love to see a 1939 game, but I wonder if that would be too long. The 1940 2nd edition in my opinion is where you should stay. I know there is a 1941 game but have not played it.

Just to clarify, when Russia is neutral, UK cannot send troops to Russia correct.

When US is neutral, it cannot send troops to Russia, correct?

What page can I find this?

The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much less than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US. This should have said "The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much more than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US.

The point that some units cost to much is obvious. I believe that is why the new set up for the 2nd edition added so many AA guns and bases, because on one would buy them.

The cost of a navy has always been to much since the first Axis and Allies. And though the cost has come down a bit, it is still ridiculously to high. For the us to buy on aircraft carrier with a full complement of planes and a couple of ships, it requires the vast majority of its income for one full turn. That is ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that in order to encourage the foolish expenditure of income for battles in the Pacific, they had to come up with unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific. Does anyone really think that Hawaii should be worth 7 IPC’s for the Japs but only 2 for the US. The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much less than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US.

Instead of making Hawaii worth 7IPC’s to Japan, its loss, even temporarily should result in a one time loss of IPC’s to the bank the US must surrender to equate to some sort of morale loss.

But the most obvious answer to encourage see battles should have been dramatically reducing the cost of Navies.

Transports $4 (since they are now defenseless with one AA roll) Subs $4, Destroyers $6 (they should be cost ineffective compared to cruisers but absolutely necessary to buy to counter act the subs), Cruisers $8, Carriers $10, Planes $8, Tacs $10, BattleShips $14, AA’s $3, Naval Bases and Air Bases $10.

Lets all rally around this concept and send a message to Larry when the inevitable 3rd edition comes out.

So far the Axis has won just less than half of our games, but every strategy has yet to be explored. We are just beginning to decide what house rules to add for realism. Optional rules from past axis and allies and expansion sets. Like Wolf Packs for Germany. We played our first game with changing the R&D rules.

One of the early advantages for Germany was that it had a head start on technology. But with $5 a roll and not knowing what you are going to get, buying rolls in not worth it. Which is again unrealistic. I am investor with a Degree in Economics and Finance. The division of labor is such that pouring all of your resources into war troops means your sending genius scientists who can’t fight for $%#& to be slaughtered. Economics teaches that the smartest and brightest scientists you pull off the front lines are going to produce the most for you money. You then get diminishing returns as you attempt to pull more and more people off the front lines for R&D. Your first dollars spent are the most productive. The last dollars spent are the least.

So what we did it this. 1 roll cost $1, 2 rolls $2, 3 rolls $3, ect… You get to pick what you roll for and can only roll one group of dice for that tech. You have to be at war, so that give Germany and Japan a head start over the US and Russia in tech. They can also afford the extra rolls.

That would also balance it out more towards the Axis.