Larry’s response (posted on his site):
National objective question – Why do the Brits get a bonus for capturing a Japanese controlled territory (not island as you put it), but it could be an island. Hey, I think it’s a big deal if those under manned and under paid Brits managed to take a Japanese possession or two, and get a bonus for doing it. Makes em strive in the right direction, that’s for sure. Hummm if I could just capture something Japanese… I think my national moral would go through the roof. Let’s march into that Sushi bar and take it over!
Does this mean that UK is only supposed to get this NO if the UK controls a Japanese starting territory, not if any Ally (America) captures one?
No, Britain gets it if any ally occupies a japanese territory. That’s the main reason why it’s a little odd: generally the US is the only power in a position to accomplish this on the brits behalf.
Larry’s response (posted on his site):
Flying Tigers… Solution… Place 2 more Chinese (in either scenarios) infantry on Yunnan. Make em really pay!
Hm… how do we have to understand this?
1. an “official” rule change or
2. an “official” optional rule or
3. just an idea for a house rule
?
[about Egypt:] Other than adding an addition UK unit (infantry I guess) I dont know what to tell you.
Ooo, there is a solution :D
Solution… Place 2 more Chinese (in either scenarios) infantry on Yunnan. Make em really pay!
…writing this down…
I cant really argue with a bunch of good players, however. If they say cruisers are a good purchase at 11 and I say they are “an ok purchase” at 12 ok I hear ya.
Hmm, are you saying cruisers are a good purchase at 11?
I dont always agree with this assumption, however.
Damn, you aren’t :( Let’s see why…
Id like to give you some insights on how I see it. I look at the over all cost in IPCs for each unit’s ability to score a hit on the enemy. A sub costing 6 and having a combined attack and defense total of 3 (2 on attack plus 1 on defense) cost me 2 IPCs for each opportunity to hit my opponent. Thats funny, thats the same price-per-opportunity to kill something as a destroyer has They cost 8 and have a combat value of 4. (8/by4=2). Cruisers at 12 and divided by 6 (3/3) is also 2. A battleships with its price tag of 20 has a cost per potential hit at 2.5. Of course a battleship has two lives so its cost really is 1.25 IPCs per hit opportunity. Good deal! But it cost so damned many IPCs. In defense of the lover priced cruiser, Id like to point out that it has the same cost/kill ability as a destroyer or a sub. So why pick on the cruiser. Yeah, I know DDs have a that special anti-sub thing and subs have their own special points of (I want to say: confusion) value. But a cruiser has a 50% chance of scoring a hit during a bombardment (its special ability). In any case, I assigned a value of 12 to the cruiser perhaps it should have been an 11. I could not always use this simple formula when assigning values to these various units. I also had to take into consideration my perception of what was fun but yet made the most sense. Kind of subjective dont you think. Look at the bomber or the carrier for example. They have a cost of 2.4 and 2.33 per kill ability.
Hmm, nice reasoning. BUT dear Larry Harris, you’re forgetting the most important value of a unit! In your view, a unit’s price is determined by “kill ability” and “special ability”. These are indeed 2 major factors, but you’re forgetting the most important one: “hit taking ability”. Let’s calculate that for each naval unit shall we? sub: 1 hit for 6 IPC’s = ~0.15 DD’s: 1/8= ~0.13 Cru: 1/12= ~0.8 BB: 2/20= ~0.1 (excluding the autorepair after each battle) Loaded carrier: 3/34= ~0.9. Well now, guess who’s coming out at the bottom, also having (imho) the worst “special ability” of all. It’s big plus should be the “kill ability”, so 11 for a Cru would still make it not so good a deal. Imho, 10 would be very defendable, subs would still be bought, DD’s would still be bought to counter subs and for cheap hits, and the cru would simply be good value for the money; yer basic sea unit taking over the role of core fleet unit, from the DD who isn’t made for this role in the first place! Sorry mr. Harris, but the logic you’re using to refute cheaper cruisers is wrong/incomplete, please consider to rethink this…
So summarized: 1 inf extra in Egy, 2 in Yun, and a Cru of 11 (or 10?!). Please mr. Harris, make this the official LHTR for AA50, so I can convince my friends to play with these more balanced rules. Otherwise those shiny new Cruisers in AA 1942 will stay in the box too much :|
@P@nther:
Larry’s response (posted on his site):
Flying Tigers… Solution… Place 2 more Chinese (in either scenarios) infantry on Yunnan. Make em really pay!
Hm… how do we have to understand this?
1. an “official” rule change or
2. an “official” optional rule or
3. just an idea for a house rule?
House rule. If it ain’t in the rules or FAQ, it ain’t official.
By the way, guys, if really want Larry to see any of your feedback, you should post it as his site.
You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability. That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60). Extra hits. It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet. I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships. At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships. I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.
It’s also not clear why the regular powers collect their income at the end of their turn, but China collects its infantry at the start of its turn (to its disadvantage). It’s already very marginalised once Japan moves
This was done for reasons of rules consistency. China receives new units at the same time as the US, during the Purchase Units phase.
A poor reply: for rules consistency, China should be able of getting IPCs, purchasing all type of units, attacking out of China and surviving until her very first turn as any country. Or there were any chances of jap tanks blitzing chinese non-industrial and mountain areas?
China is the flaw in this game. Fix that as soon as possible and stop messing with techs that worked
Larry’s response (posted on his site):
China Collects income at start of its turn:
I kind of like the idea of letting the Chinese react to those last Japanese moves. You seem to say… in fact you do say that this is disadvantages to the Chinese. I guess it depends on how you look at it. I do think I see a misunderstanding here, however… There’s a sentence in the second paragraph of the China Rules that reads:
The U.S. player must complete the Combat Move and Conduct Combat phases for Chinese forces before beginning the Combat Move phase for U.S., or vice versa. It’s the “vice versa” that may not be clear. Vice versa in this case means that its either the Chinese or the Americans that are moved and conduct combat – not both at the same time. No where does it say which power goes first. It does say vice versa, however. This permits the player to move his Chinese or Americans first (or vice versa). If he (the US player) elects to move his American units first, he’d end up paying the Chinese before China has its turn. If he elects to move the Chinese first, he’d pay the Chinese at the end of the Chinese turn. Both armies are reinforced at the same time – and that time is when the US places his units.
OK, this was a really confusing sentence :? I finally think what Larry is trying say, but still I’m confused. It’s supposed that you buy units before combat moves and deploy them after NC moves. Then, order of China and USA attacks is irrelevant so why mess with chinese purchases? Why not give them just sane plain old IPCs or at least some sort of infantery counters?
It was so really difficult make China a independet full power? That gives more consistency to rules :| As now, rules give Japan all the power without any disadvantage. Make the non-agression pact rule or at least make China non-blitzable by tanks
That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60). Extra hits. It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet. I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers -
Cruisers at 10
Destroyers at 8
both with 2 battleships:
42.6%
52.1%
accounting for the SD of 3, could makeup the difference.
the same with no battleships mixed in:
45.6%
52.4%
solution: keep them @ 10, give them free AA @1 ( first round only) vs. air and give them ASW ( like the DD)
There are some very simple fixes:
Make England go first. (Then Germany, etc.)
Move the Chinese fighter to Sikang. As it stands now, and feel free to pass this on to Larry, I kill every last Chinese unit in Japan 1. From there, it’s pretty easy walking to Moscow. I know he doesn’t like that, so see 3)
Russo-Japanese pact. Japan cannot attack Russia unless: Germany/Italy is in allied hands (either or); Moscow, Washington DC and/or London have been captured by the axis. Any of those happen, Japan can attack Russian territories. (Russian forces are either forbidden to be in allied lands or they are treated as allied units and not Russian in regards to this treaty.)
Drop cruisers to 10 IPC in cost. Up bombers to 20 IPC in cost, but give them AA Gun protection. Validate the 20 IPC cost on Battleships, give them an AA Gun ability (same rules for multiple AA guns if there are multiple Battleships in a zone.)
You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability. That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60). Extra hits. It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet. I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships. At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships. I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.
I also agree Holkann had a great point - pretty much the same thing I was thinking when I read Larry’s reply. Hit taking ability is a major factor.
It is difficult to really compare the ships because every one has different abilities. You compare 5 cruisers to 3 battleships because they have the same cost, but it’s hard to compare because of the auto-repair ability. Put it this way, if I had 5 cruisers I wouldn’t want to attack 3 battleships with them, and if I had 3 battleships I would want to attack 5 cruisers because I have the option to retreat after taking 3 free hits.
Also, if you “buff your fleet” with a bunch of destroyers, you’re right that they’re more efficient than cruisers - against other fleets only. But my land and air units on land are not afraid of your destroyers coming closer, but your cruisers are menacing. Also, Larry had a great point about the cost. Battleships “only” cost 1.67 times more than a cruiser, but many times I do not want to commit 20 IPC’s to one unit. Or what if I have 12 IPC’s I want to spend on my fleet? Which is better, a destroyer or a cruiser? I can’t buy 2 destroyers with 12 IPC’s.
I don’t think 12 IPC cruisers should be in the top 20 of our suggestions for improvements to AA50. We’ve come a long way from 24 IPC one-hit battleships and 18 IPC carriers, though, haven’t we?
I’m “writing this one down” - no new complexes on islands - brilliant.
This thing with unit additions is of course what is the simplest balance change and I find it interesting that Larry does acknowledge this need when presented with playing results considering he earlier on stated that cash-only bids are to be preferred. Should this be the competitive format of the game?
1) Optional rules (int’ceptors+Dardanelles closed)
2) 1 UK inf in Egypt added (effect: chance of surviving with 1 armor+1 bomber or better with a max attack down from 60 to 36%)
3) 2 Chinese inf in Yunnan added (effect: chance of clearing area with no fighter losses with a 3 inf, 2 fig attack down from 84 to 24%)
As for cruisers and east indies, these are more complex changes and harder to get a consensus on. If we play with a balance-adjusted format we probably won’t be so absorbed with these other issues. UK buys cruisers mostly, which mirrors reality if we look at war production. Carriers protected by destroyers were the main battle instrument for Japs and Yanks, no harm in that being the case in the game. I wouldn’t mind cruisers at 11 IPCs and a no ICs on islands restriction, but can imagine consensus on these changes being more difficult to get.
Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.
No AA guns on boats, it doesnt solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.
Now on this note, AA guns. There should be more of them…Gibraltar, Hawaii, and China should start with one…this adresses the issue of japan spaming aircraft at China, with an AA gun the chinese have a Headquarters, so to speak, representing enough firepower to fend off a major air attack.
As for Egypt, thats how the cookie crumbles. It was a tough battle, it could have gone either way, what needs to be represented better is the surrounding territories. More goofballs running around africa, another south african, always a guy in perisa, another in transjordan, it wasnt all or nothing cram everyone in egypt, the UK had there what it could fit there logisticly, and it had reserves.
Island Factories…I despise them, 100% Ahistorical. …but im a fan of victory cities priducing 1 infantry a turn if you pay.
Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepency, but its all realitive. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost alot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and thats pretty ahistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargan.
And most importantly what is this I hear about AAE40 and AAP40 that Larry is talking about? Re-releases, with fixes? Is there any more info?
Look at AA42. I have been posting on this without respite for the last week.
AAE40 and AAP40 fact Sheet>
Also. Cruisers were AA gun platforms. They protected and escorted larger ships. The game has no accounting for how planes and ships interact except to just jumble the attack and defense factors w/o any reasoning to account for ‘targeting specifically planes attacking ships’
The disparaging combat results of the Cruiser at 12 compared to a destroyer make or rather force you to lower the cost to 10 just to get the combat results close to equal. So to add this little bit about giving them a AA roll (just for the first round) seems justified.
Planes and ships dont interact
Air Squadrons and Fleets interact
Why should a fleet of epic proportions be able to throw up an AA net that knocks down whole Air squadrons before they even get a chance to attack.
Combat is a seemless and brutal affair in axis and allies, the opposing forces meet on the field of battle and roll at the same time. And let the gods sort out where the bullets land.
Destroyers dying first is destroyers sacrificing themselfes in the outer cordon.
Why should a fleet of epic proportions be able to throw up an AA net that knocks down whole Air squadrons before they even get a chance to attack.
Well if you consider that “AA net” to be merely a one time roll prior to the start of naval battle of one roll from each Cruiser hitting at a ONE, THEN i too will call this epic proportions, but its nothing if you don’t have cruisers. Now that the Cruiser is deficient unit even at 10 IPC, this may balance it to even.
I agree that when playing with NOs, you should:
1 more infantry at Egypt
1-2 more infantry in Yunnan (1941) and 0-1 more inf in yunnan (1942)
However, I disagree with reducing the price of Cruisers without reducing the price of Carriers. If cruisers go to 11, then carriers should go to 13. And I would never accept cruisers going to 10, ever.
I like the idea of Battleships having to return to their port to repair. I have always argued with my friends that battleships should not repair at the end of combat, they should repair at the beginning of their owner’s turn (this would allow a BB damaged by the UK to be sunk by Russia/USA, etc, instead of just repairing so quickly).
I would also argue that China should be able to get the benefits of attacking during their turn, OR they place units equal to half their territories rounded UP (instead of down).
To me, a factory in the East Indies is rather dumb when compared with a factory in India and Burma, which are much closer to the action and do not need transports to function.
Vegryn - all excellent points.
However, I disagree with reducing the price of Cruisers without reducing the price of Carriers. If cruisers go to 11, then carriers should go to 13. And I would never accept cruisers going to 10, ever.
I’ll have to do a bit more analysis on your 13 cost Carriers, but my initial reaction is that I see them bought plenty already. They are pretty competitive on defense (stacked with 2 fighters of course), and have the flexibility that when the pressure is off the water, the planes can up and leave.
With the IC in East Indies - why not get one in all three places? 9 units flooding into Caucusus every turn… ouch!
It did not surprise me that Larry’s response to the OP was to be defensive to his creation. I don’t blame him, I would have been too. If he was to admit that the game was inferior in any way would be to admit weakness in the AA family of games. Why would he do that? But of course it does not take a genious to know that some of the changes mentioned by the OP were just (loved your letter to Larry OP, nicely done).
I for one am going to add 1 extra infantry in the UK as a house rule. I am also adding the two extra Chinese units to protect the flying tiger (in 41) and make it harder for Japan to roll through China. I like Cruisers where they are at 12. If you want to take advantage of the bombardment feature then you have to pay for it. Otherwise buy Destroyers. I also like the no IC’s on islands (UK, Japan, Australia exception) because it does not make sense historically.
What we have to remember is that each and every one of these proposed changes to the game will indeed have a impact on the outcome. We may find it easy to pick out what we deem weaknesses of the game but lets put them into action first and see how they play out. We may find that the game is better off the way it is. Just my opinion.
Also, thanks to Larry for responding to the OP. It shows class and caring for his creations that the takes the time to respond to his fans.
Regards,
scampb
I agree that when playing with NOs, you should:
1 more infantry at Egypt
1-2 more infantry in Yunnan (1941) and 0-1 more inf in yunnan (1942)However, I disagree with reducing the price of Cruisers without reducing the price of Carriers. If cruisers go to 11, then carriers should go to 13. And I would never accept cruisers going to 10, ever.
I like the idea of Battleships having to return to their port to repair. I have always argued with my friends that battleships should not repair at the end of combat, they should repair at the beginning of their owner’s turn (this would allow a BB damaged by the UK to be sunk by Russia/USA, etc, instead of just repairing so quickly).
I would also argue that China should be able to get the benefits of attacking during their turn, OR they place units equal to half their territories rounded UP (instead of down).
To me, a factory in the East Indies is rather dumb when compared with a factory in India and Burma, which are much closer to the action and do not need transports to function.
Agree with you except about an East Indies complex being dumb. First round East Indies complex seems to be a no-brainer for the Japs. It’s safe from conquest, being on the island. Japan can’t build IC on India turn 1, of course. And Burma is usually vacated to kill the flying tigers, so not wise to buy an IC there. Also, it’s better to be able to build 4 units than 2 or 3. Yes you’re buying transports - transports that lead to taking over Africa, Australia, whatever your heart desires.
I’m definitely playing that IC’s can’t be built on islands except Australia from now on. I play both sides, solo, frequently and the East Indies IC at the outset is a powerful move that doesn’t make sense. The 4 IPC’s is due to natural resources in the islands, not industrial capacity.
