Yea, the economic attacks. They’re always broken, they’re just MORE broken in revised I think. (Mainly because there are even MORE ways to Economic someone.)
Not broken for either Allies or Axis, just broken in general.
@Cmdr:
Yea, the economic attacks. They’re always broken, they’re just MORE broken in revised I think. (Mainly because there are even MORE ways to Economic someone.)
Not broken for either Allies or Axis, just broken in general.
at least in Enhanced, you can counter these economic attacks
so I think they’re not as broken as you might suspect.
The counters are not too effective.
For instance, if America has 5 heavy bombers attacking you, even if your gun DOES get one or two, you’re still screwed. Add to that submarines off your coast (Japan) and rockets and there’s absolutely nothing you can do but wait for them to invade.
That’s what makes it completely broken, instead of just way too powerful. Anyone one economic would be okay, all three?
@Cmdr:
The counters are not too effective.
For instance, if America has 5 heavy bombers attacking you, even if your gun DOES get one or two, you’re still screwed. Add to that submarines off your coast (Japan) and rockets and there’s absolutely nothing you can do but wait for them to invade.
That’s what makes it completely broken, instead of just way too powerful. Anyone one economic would be okay, all three?
sending 5 bombers is totally inefective. lets say you have one die, thats 15 ipc loss. you did not bomb anyterrtory for 15 ipc so you are taking a loss.
3 At Germany, 2 At Southern = 5 Bombers
You can do 16 IPC and only lose 1 Bomber making it a 1 IPC gain.
@Cmdr:
The counters are not too effective.
I guess the best way for Jen to learn is to be shown through example.
talking about it just won’t get her there….
2d6 per bomber, 4 bombers survive. Average damage is 3.5 per die, that’s 14 IPC on average and a good chance at 13 or 15 and a decent shot at 12 or 16.
not a bad trade for the allies if they are doing it every round. Talking 5 Heavy Bombers against Germany and S. Europe. (Split, not each getting 5!)
Well it doesn’t have to be a good trade. Allies has more IPC.
Heavy bomber is one thing but rockets are free and you can guarantee techs.
OOB’s arbitary “shoot one per territory per turn” and “be shot by one per territory per turn” spreads it out and is pretty sad for Germany.
Jet fighter is one partial counter but Allies can deploy the 6 AA guns much faster than Germany can deploy the say 12 fighters.
Well it doesn’t have to be a good trade. Allies has more IPC.
Heavy bomber is one thing but rockets are free and you can guarantee techs.
OOB’s arbitary “shoot one per territory per turn” and “be shot by one per territory per turn” spreads it out and is pretty sad for Germany.
Jet fighter is one partial counter but Allies can deploy the 6 AA guns much faster than Germany can deploy the say 12 fighters.
1). Rockets aren’t FREE. You have to develop the tech and move them into position. There’s some cost associated with them.
2). Not sure what is meant by 6 aa guns firing. Germany can only be subjected to 2 rocket shots a allied player turn (assuming they build no new ICs or don’t capture one). There’s not many games where I’ve seen Russia with rockets. So now we’re down to 4 rocket shots against Germany (2 Berlin, 2 Seu).
3). Jet fighters are cheaper than rockets and an effective deterant. Stationing 4 jet ftrs in berlin gives you 4 ones to knock down a rocket, pretty good odds. Oh… they also keep HB’s off you as well.
Remember Germany can re-use the same ftr defense shield against UK and then US rockets/HBs, so there’s no need for 12 ftrs. If Germany were to only protect Berlin, the allies can only take $6 on UK’s turn and $6 on USA’s turn (max). That’s not such a devastating economic loss that Germany can not deal with it.
So it ain’t broken…
Both rocket and HB requires tech costs. I just meant that each rocket is free compared to chance of losing a bomber.
12 fighters is to on average 100% knock out the rocket.
No I am not saying its broken just possibly a stall for Germany.
AARe has convoy raid as standard. A new way to do economic damage during targeted player’s turn.
Wonder if that means its logical or opportunity to reduce gameplay reliance on economic damage during enemy’s turns. Like make a territory lose up to its income during active turn and up to its income during passive turn.
AARe has convoy raid as standard. A new way to do economic damage during targeted player’s turn.
Convoy raids only happen against UK, US and Japan.
Germany and Russia are immune to convoy raids.
LOL!
I guess the Murmansk convoys and all the trouble the Soviets had actually getting lend lease is then largely ignored? This was actually meant for Soviets use only.
I suggest all nations receiving income from either in the form as aid or the money they receive from colonial possessions is subject to interception and attacks.
In the Mediterranean Italian supplies were attacked and sunk by Malta air elements. To demonstrate that could also be assumed under economic attacks as per those rules.
Yea, I’d have to say America and Germany would be more historically accurate when it comes to immunity from submarines.
However, a good way to balance CR would be very simple. Submarines engaged in CR would have to roll to hit. 1d6 each, they hit on a 1 and do the appropriate damage given their distance.
Now it’s not automatic damage forcing the suicide of naval units to stop it or just accepting the passive damage.
Also, reducing HBs to LHTR damage would help out as well.
Otherwise, I could see the game being reduced to who can do the most economic attacks successfully, not who can out position the other.
@Cmdr:
Also, reducing HBs to LHTR damage would help out as well.
How is the better of two dice +1 so much better than the sum of two dice?
Recall there already is a 10 limit on bombing (Berlin), so you can throw away a 12 and 11 outcome.
The better of two dice (LHTR) will most likely yield a 5 or better.
Typical two dice is 7 (A&ARe). Wow $2! GAME BREAKER!
even at a max… $10, that’s $5 a turn.
yes it’s broken… totally. You’re 100% correct… NOT!
MORE IMPORTANTLY:
LHTR nuetered HBs so much militarily, they’re not even worth buying as a tech (only 1 hit?)
They’re not heavy bombers then, just REALLY accurate ones WRT military capabilities.
Well, I’m not talking militarily. But economic attacks are less a part of the game then tech or NAs and we routinely through out techs and NAs, hell we, cant use either in league or tournament play.
So if we MUST have economic attacks, why should we have so many?
I do have a compromise to allow economic attacks without overly nerfing bombers or rockets, etc. Just limit the amount of damage done to the Industrial Complex cap for a full game turn? That way Berlin cannot be hit by each ally up to 10 IPC each for 30 IPC total. It makes no sense that you have to pay more to fix your complex then you can possibly earn from it.
Just limit the damage you can do. You can still reduce a nation to no income, but now you have to own all the land except what they have complexes on and you have to bomb them down to zero.
To allow anymore then that is broken.
@Cmdr:
Just limit the amount of damage done to the Industrial Complex cap for a full game turn? That way Berlin cannot be hit by each ally up to 10 IPC each for 30 IPC total. It makes no sense that you have to pay more to fix your complex then you can possibly earn from it.
Many realism arguments for and against. But not important as AARe is about gameplay options not realism. To convince AARe team you need to talk in terms of gameplay.
There are many reasons why “negative territory income” is bad. Imagine an IC you don’t even use anymore being SBR/rocket/CR for crazy. Enemy does not even want to capture it.
Lets say UK gives up on India IC because Japan just shore bombards the crap out of it. Germany and Japan however does not take it because they can economic attack it for 9 IPC per turn.
This is why economic attack limit should be per round not per turn. Its a logical and intuitive change that AARe can take on imo.
@Cmdr:
Just limit the amount of damage done to the Industrial Complex cap for a full game turn? That way Berlin cannot be hit by each ally up to 10 IPC each for 30 IPC total. It makes no sense that you have to pay more to fix your complex then you can possibly earn from it.
Many realism arguments for and against. But not important as AARe is about gameplay options not realism. To convince AARe team you need to talk in terms of gameplay.
There are many reasons why “negative territory income” is bad. Imagine an IC you don’t even use anymore being SBR/rocket/CR for crazy. Enemy does not even want to capture it.
Lets say UK gives up on India IC because Japan just shore bombards the crap out of it. Germany and Japan however does not take it because they can economic attack it for 9 IPC per turn.
This is why economic attack limit should be per round not per turn. Its a logical and intuitive change that AARe can take on imo.
My response is as you have predicted: game play testing!
I have not seen that economic damage is so lopsided as to break the game.
I am not opposed to altering rules (we have done so when game brealers were done in the past).
I will try to test this theory out in my next few games as the allies in my FTF player group.
I do not think CR’s should be reduced however (like Jenn’s roll a dice suggestion). We want to encourage naval warfare, and sub CR damage is a payoff for sub purchases. Also, CR should remain seperate from economic attacks, specifically since they’re done at different times.
I’d relinquish the CR damage done by submarines if the damage was capped to territory limit.
Other option, or maybe in addition, give the defender the option to destroy the Industrial Complex instead of paying to fix it? So if you SBR the Indian IC with Japan and do 1-6 IPC in damage, England just decides to destroy the complex instead of pay the money to the bank. England’s out an Industrial Complex (15 IPC) but Japan’s also just cost themselves the IC by attacking it financially instead of invading it outright.
Sure would put a new spin on things!
Hopefully there are enough gameplay issues that AARe revised without game breakers.
Though I guess not all AARe changes were due to game breakers but also other gameplay issues.
So there is still a chance even if tiny that AARe would change economic damage to per round limit hehe.
Destroyable IC opens up another game option. Wonder if AARe team considered it before.
I do not think CR’s should be reduced however (like Jenn’s roll a dice suggestion).
I wonder if player should have the option to not deploy at that particular IC that turn and not cop the damage.
Ok probably too complex for AARe style.
I’d relinquish the CR damage done by submarines if the damage was capped to territory limit.
CR damage IS capped to territory income value.
Don’t you remember how you parked 5 submarines (and not anymore) off US west coast in the 1st game?
Destroyable IC opens up another game option. Wonder if AARe team considered it before.
I think we discussed ‘scorthed earth’ but settled on mobile industry NA for Russia.
True it is only for Russia, but it is another counter to the Axis economic attacks
