It doesn’t matter if the land unit survives to retreat or not. Just its having moved into the territory establishes the retreat path.
Some units are overpriced
-
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:
-
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:
thats what i am talkin about all the time
-
As Axis_roll said,the TacBomber may be considered like the artillery of the sky, a piece that may be used to boost the punch of the attacking unit.
I know that the cons to this proposal is the complication to the rule, and also the fact that we have not the plastic piece to model them.
And I know also that the fighter piece in A&A is used to model fighter, fighter-bomber, dive-bomber and so on…
But I like the idea! :-D
-
I disagree with the idea that certain units are “overpriced”.
Although I think that unit costs could stand to be changed, a lot of what I see in this thread is “ya this thing aint no good so jack it up some lol”. Perhaps not QUITE that, but essentially.
The mentality here is “If it isn’t ALWAYS good at its price, it’s not worth buying.” And that’s quite wrong. In different circumstances, players will want to make different unit purchases. There are times and places for bombers, destroyers, carriers, battleships, transports, subs, AA guns, and so forth.
For example - if you have an assault rifle, it’s pretty useless against a tank. But a missile launcher is pretty useless against a massed infantry charge. So the idea is, you have to buy everything in the right proportions. If the enemy has a lotta tanks and just a few infantry, get a lot of missile launchers and a few assault rifles. If the enemy has a lotta infantry and just a few tanks, get a lot of assault rifles and a few missile launchers.
i am so wise, i should like have my own TV talk show and stuff.
-
The show could be called “Newpaintbrush and the Rubber Kitchen”
-
Pimp my units, pimp my bomber, pimp my battleship :-D
-
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.I generally like these suggestions. I also like the idea of bombers being the artillery of the sky.
Comment in general - you can’t just base IPC cost on punch value. The range of aircraft also add to their value, as they create a lot of tactical options - eg. a Ftr in WE can hit Z12 or Norway or Belo. Bombers even more so, which is why it would make the game really interesting to have more of them around.
The other value of air units is that they can “retreat” after helping to take a territory, so you can take a territory with just 1-2 Inf.Re: the artillery idea, that actually reminds me of another idea I’ve had, which is to make artillery more like Ftrs - they actually stay back the territory they are in and can’t move into a newly captured territory. This would make them useful for swapping territory, which would really help Russia out (but therefore might unbalance the game?)
Good point, DDs are also overpriced. It’s worth having one to counteract enemy subs, but apart from that I never buy them.
ACs are fine I think, people do buy them (DM has bought about 8 so far in my game)
BBs are perhaps ok too. As I said before, if you tinker with the navy too much it could boost the allied side more than the axis.
Suggested Topics
