Posts made by Navalland

My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.

trench 0/1/0 2HP, repair, AA, only one can be placed per territory/per turn, no factory requirement. 3Pu

infantry 1/2/1, AA, artillert supportable 3Pu

artillery 2/2/1, AA, +1 attack bonus to infantries. 4Pu

armour 3/3/2, AA, can blitz. 5Pu

No Tech.

Sub should be more cost effective at sinking ships than fighters because fighters are alredy very versatile units. There would be no reason to buy them if they had the same cost with fighters.

Submarine was 25% cheaper than destroyer in AA50 whereas in here they are 33% cheaper, just slighly more cost effective.

Carrier has 1 HP.

Though I have still some doubts about some units stats.

Fighter having the same defense and cost with armour is questionable. Maybe fighter defence should be decreased to 2?

Not sure about bomber having the same attack value with fighter either. The rest is looks fine to me.

There is no aaGun. Factory, infantry, artillery and armour have all AA ability. Same system as with naval units. no further AA ability with increasing ground stacks.

I tend to like add new units only if really needed, no Tac.

Btw land units have AA ability too, thats why I’m reluctant to increase AA shots, thet could make air units too weak.

My main goal is decreasing naval unit costs as much as possible while still keeping air unit’s cost effectiveness towards naval units plus making cruisers and battleships more viable.

Yes…

if 3 plane attacks, 3/6 chance to de shot down for only 1 air unit in ll if fleet has at least one naval unit that has AA ability.

otherwise 3 dice will be rolled 1 represented being shot down. Again having more AA ships do not have any impact.

In my game 1 plane can only have 1/6 chance to be shot down against any fleet composition.

Amount of ships do not increase hit chance in any way. 1 plane still 1/6 chance to be shot down.

Cruiser, carrier and battleship have AA ability, same as aa gun with 1/6 hit chance.

I have also optional trench unit for this reason. 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP AA repair. Only one can be placed per territory per turn.

fig 2/3/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at 1 air def, strategic bomber
sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6u
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP, repair

Destroyer/carrier/fighter combo is just too good for cruisers and battleships. There is serious costing issue especially carrier should not have been too cheap compared to cruiser and battleship.

Useless unit. I gave them AA ability they are now ok.

Britain can start with more factories only if nations are not allowed to use captured factories.

Germany+Italy should outproduce UK+Russia while Japan should be two times weaker than USA in a 1942 scenario.

If a stand alone nation historically had strong ties with the another one then its better to assign it similar colour but making it distinguishable enough.

It’s Britain’s dark brown

https://www.paintscratch.com/content/images/swatches/Medium-Brown-Metallic-1988-Chevrolet-Silverado-83644B.jpg

Its Canada’s potential dark mustard

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0063/1776/8802/products/2161-30-darkmustard_d02ed9cd-5c35-4b6f-bf5e-6bf58bdcd1a0_2000x.png?v=1572318572

Having Japanese tanks marching towars Central Asia is one of the biggest blunder in A&A WWII scenarios. It just totally eliminate all WWII feelings and this feature is not a must for balance either.

Banning Russo-Japanese front would be bad too. Better approach is reducing Japan’s power, mixing 1 Pu and 0 Pu territories between Irkutsk-Vladivostok and making it vulnerable to lose Dutch colonies. Having Chinese cavalry would be helpfull too hence China-Soviets can set up stronger defense together in Soviet Far East.

The board game designers in Avalon Hill are no better than most of custom game designers and their games are far from being perfect. Thye even totally gave Eastern Prussia to Russia an A&A 1914 which unhistorical and bad for playability for such a thing in main combat zone but nobody objected where is the New Zealand or Vladivostok.
Better map means giving the most strategic options to combatants with the least amount of territories as much as possible while achieving the war feeling. Redundant territories decrease strategic options not increase. Like how every pieces and territories have a reason to be exist in chess and backgammon this should be applied board war games too.

Of course some areas and most of small islands should be worthless in terms of Pu but you need to give reasons for combatants to control these worthless areas. If there is no way to create a situation like this, they should be removed even there is nothing wrong to remove Madagascar, Corsica, Cyprus or even New Zealand in most of scenarios.

I didn’t say small islands are unimportant, just better to remove islands if there is no reasons to fight for them like new hebrides and fiji which surrounded by only one sea zone. One of them is redundant but might be reasons to fight for one of them only.

In a board game every piece of territory (even if worthless) and sea zones have a reason to be exist hence distortion becomes handy because having too much territory not always impact positively. For example if it was a WWII map, these extra sea zones between Britain and N.Africa would cripple torch option.

Its impossible to justify these values other than balance purpose. Western Germany has always been, more populated, industrialized and richer even if we assume its value decreased due to Allies bombing in WWII Western Germany was also richer in terms of steel and coal production.

Lybia wasn’t the leading nation in crude oil production either. They were USA, Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia the letter three deserve more value also.

No island should be surrounded by only one sea zone and its better to remove unnecessary islands

Sahara desert should block Algeria and Libya only to move south

Why Eastern Germany is more valuable than Western Germany? Why Italy is more valuable than France or Britain? Azores and Libya do not deserve these values

Portugal should not touch to sz 16, Germany slo should not touch Italy.

There should have been less sea zones in the Pacific.

Some territory names are wrong.