Refer to page #38, optional rules, us marines, attack at a 2, first combat cycle!
Some units are overpriced
-
Just thinking about the game, and it seems to me that some units are overpriced.
The first one I thought of was Bombers. But now I think maybe naval units are also over-priced.
My main proof that they are over-priced is that I never buy bombers. 15 IPCs? For that price, 5 Inf or 3 Arm are a WAY better value.
Isn’t that economics 101? If someone doesn’t buy something, then the price is set too high.
Now for 12 IPCs, I think you’d see a lot more bombers in the game, a lot more long-range attacks, etc. You could lower the price on Ftrs too.
With naval units, it’s trickier because a drop in the price of naval vessels would really favour the Allies, since they need more ships. It also makes sense that each nation would only have a few, because BBs were rare.
But Bombers? All sides built those by the thousands.
Or make them 10 IPCs, and reduce attack to 3. Basically a long-range fighter, maybe as a 3rd air unit. Or a Ftr with a 4/1 attack/defense.
Just spitballin’.
-
I agree.
AA Guns 1
Infantry 3
Artillery 4
Armor 5
Submarine 6
Transport 6
Fighter 8
Destroyer 9
Bomber 12
Industrial Complex 15
Aircraft Carrier 16
Battleship 18Just my opinion.
-
Isn’t that economics 101? If someone doesn’t buy something, then the price is set too high.
interesting thoughts frood
agree with you on this bomber issue
maybe a few IPC lessbut fig
after inf its the most cost-effective unit in the game
3/4
move 4
can land on AC
can finish its turn in SZ
in noncombat AA cant shot at iti would put 10 IPC for Des
and maybe a few IPC less for Bom
others seem fine
12-14 for Bom would be fine maybe -
so overall
AA Guns 5
Infantry 3
Artillery 4
Armor 5
Submarine 8
Transport 8
Fighter 10
Destroyer 10
Bomber 12
Industrial Complex 15
Aircraft Carrier 16
Battleship 22 or 24 -
You have to factor in the SBR risk; a major deterrant to using bombers to SBR is the cost of replacing losses by AA fire. Lower that cost and the Allies might consider that pulverising Germany and Japan from the air is an easier strategy than complicated invasions.
-
You have to factor in the SBR risk; a major deterrant to using bombers to SBR is the cost of replacing losses by AA fire. Lower that cost and the Allies might consider that pulverising Germany and Japan from the air is an easier strategy than complicated invasions.
but then the game would turned just to bombing Axis factories
which doesnt seem interesting at all
a balanced forces attack is what should it be, at least that more or less all units are of similar cost-effectivity
-
you mean, like the real war???
Anyway, arn’t SBRs taken care of by reducing the cost of AA guns to 1 so that the axis could, technicalyl, ahve an aa gun for every territory, including africa!
-
By the same token, cheaper bombers would also allow Germany and Japan to take big chunks out of UK or Russian production. But lowering the price of a bomber by 3 IPCs would not drastically improve the return on SBR raids.
I think it would be fun if each side had fleets of bombers. With cheaper bombers, Germany could also menace Allied shipping more easily.
-
I just like the idea of cheaper navy because navy battles are SOO much fun. Especially when you sink 600 IPC worth of JSP’s fleet (aka EM) and only lose 350 of your own!
-
By the same token, cheaper bombers would also allow Germany and Japan to take big chunks out of UK or Russian production. But lowering the price of a bomber by 3 IPCs would not drastically improve the return on SBR raids.
I think it would be fun if each side had fleets of bombers. With cheaper bombers, Germany could also menace Allied shipping more easily.
Yes, A&A would then be called the Anti Aircraft game… or Yahtzee for ones.
nah… SBRs are good enough in this game.
You want to spruce up SBRs, you could add intercept/escort capabilities for the ftrs.
-
I’d just as soon get rid of the SBRs. I just want a different aerial unit with different capabilities from a fighter - more punch, longer range.
Actually, without SBR, a bomber might be worth the same as a fighter - better offense, but worse defense
-
Until we remove the arbitrary Antiaircraft rules, can be hard to balance SBR vs AA.
(ie. more than one AA may fire, each AA fires at X rather than unlimited)With that aside I have a feeling you just tune the numbers and it’ll work.
-
I like the initial idea of Frood!!!
It should be very fun to have Tactical Bomber aircrafts (like Stuka, B-25, Ju88, A-26, Sturmovik, etc…).
They may cost 12, have an attack of 4 and a defence of 1, have a range of 4. They did not have the ability to SBR but they may land on an aircraft carrier. Each carrier may have max 1 TacBomber, or 2 Fighter (Dauntless, Val, Kate, etc…) . Tac Bomber in naval battle could be vary fun! t make the think more balanced at this point maybe we can lower the fighters attack value (attack 2 and defense 4).Mmmmmm… too much rules to manage???
-
I like the initial idea of Frood!!!
It should be very fun to have Tactical Bomber aircrafts (like Stuka, B-25, Ju88, A-26, Sturmovik, etc…).
They may cost 12, have an attack of 4 and a defence of 1, have a range of 4. They did not have the ability to SBR but they may land on an aircraft carrier. Each carrier may have max 1 TacBomber, or 2 Fighter (Dauntless, Val, Kate, etc…) . Tac Bomber in naval battle could be vary fun! t make the think more balanced at this point maybe we can lower the fighters attack value (attack 2 and defense 4).Mmmmmm… too much rules to manage???
kinda like the ‘artillery’ of the skies in the sense it’s a new piece that fits the gap between bomber and ftr like art did between inf and tank….
-
I like the initial idea of Frood!!!
It should be very fun to have Tactical Bomber aircrafts (like Stuka, B-25, Ju88, A-26, Sturmovik, etc…).
They may cost 12, have an attack of 4 and a defence of 1, have a range of 4. They did not have the ability to SBR but they may land on an aircraft carrier. Each carrier may have max 1 TacBomber, or 2 Fighter (Dauntless, Val, Kate, etc…) . Tac Bomber in naval battle could be vary fun! t make the think more balanced at this point maybe we can lower the fighters attack value (attack 2 and defense 4).Mmmmmm… too much rules to manage???
my opinion is that by doing that the game would complicate a bit at least
its essential that this game can be played in 6-7 hours
and should be a game in which you have to think
but i wouldnt move in the direction of chess or some other game
fun should be the best element of this game
so i agree with you folks
Larry Harris and his team could in next LHTR rearange IPC costs of units
becacuse its obvious on this forum( league, tournament )
and i am sure here we have some which are among best players in the worldthat nobody, almost never buys Des or Bom, i mean almost never
-
No one build destroyers? Why? It prevents subs first strike, protects transports from lone fighters and only cost 12 IPCs … My most used UK1 is IC, destroyer and 1 inf. Can anyone explain me why no one build destroyers?
-
I’v been thinking same thoughts, Frood.
The current prices are better than the old ones, from 1th., 2nd. or 3rd. ed. rules.
But still it does not pay off to buy bombers, as well as several other units.
And I would very much like to see SBR removed entirely from the game.
Then bombers should cost about 12 ipc.
DD should cost 10.
BB 18, maybe even 16.
Subs 6.
Carriers should have 2 hits, same as BB.
Carriers should take 4 fighters.
Another opition is to change the abillities of some units that no one buys.
If bmbrs attacked at 6 then maybe ppl would buy them, and the bmbr attack value (4) is not related to
ipc loss in SBR.Think of it, even heavy bmbrs are not cost-effective.
Cost 7,5 ipc, attack at 4…
15 ipc u get 8 attack points with HB, 9 with tanks, and tanks defend well :-)
Only reason why bombers have some sort of meaning is the SBR option for bmbrs only. -
No one build destroyers? Why? It prevents subs first strike, protects transports from lone fighters and only cost 12 IPCs … My most used UK1 is IC, destroyer and 1 inf. Can anyone explain me why no one build destroyers?
when have you bought more than 1 des
-
-
No one build destroyers? Why? It prevents subs first strike, protects transports from lone fighters and only cost 12 IPCs … My most used UK1 is IC, destroyer and 1 inf. Can anyone explain me why no one build destroyers?
It doesnt pay off to buy DD’s, thats why hardly no one buys them…. :mrgreen:
Suggested Topics
