In WW2, not every nation possessed units of equivalent strength.
Example #1: The Italian infantry was notoriously under-equipped and unmotivated, and prone to surrendering en masse.
If an average infantry unit is a 1/2, I would rate an Italian infantry at 0/1, and cost him at 2 IPCs (a lower rate of pay from his fascist conscriptors may be related to his low morale).
Example #2: The Italian fighter was the Axis aircraft with the best performance specs of the era, but was limited to small numbers because the craftsmanship required to produce it was not amenable to large-scale factory assembly.
If the average fighter is a 3/4, I would rate the Italian fighter as a 4/4 but raise its cost to 12 IPCs (the longer range of a bomber would still make choosing it instead of a fighter a live option; and a dive-bomber would still be a decent buy because it functions as a conditional 4/4 with tanks and / or these very sweet fighters that it would be tempting to purchase).
So I was thinking about going through each nation in the manner outlined above, and producing a chart for each nation’s unique units, outlining their strengths and weaknesses. Obviously Germany would get more expensive, better tanks (4/4, cost 7), and Italy would get cheaper, crappier tanks (2/2, cost 5), and so on and so forth.
Has anybody attempted this before?
Does anybody have any other suggestions for specific units?
Please let me know.
Best regards,
MIR
I did this in a variant I had called “Empire builders”
Rather than just make a COMPLETE price sheet that’s independant for every country, In order to keep balance what we did was give each nation some specials. So there was SOME variation, but not so much that it was a game breaker.
We did it as follows for each nation.
1. Air
2. Land
3. Sea
4. Economic
5. Special
Some nations, like Japan for example, had thier specials naval, land, and sea, all support conflict on or surrounding Islands, where as the russians, mostly had strict LAND advantages. For example, Japan had dug in defenders, 1 infantry, would always score 1 hit, on the first round of combat, and they’re special was they could build kamikazies (Up to 3) anywhere they had a complex, the chips would then sit under the complex. Russia, had a special unit called “the train” we used old transports from original, and they could cary 3 inf, or 1 inf 1 art, 3 land spaces. But they could also be captured… Their economic special, was +1 inf anywhere they had a complex.
That could be a place to start for you.
OR, you could buy a copy of XENO games World At War, which had individual pricing for each unit, for each nation. But it was unbalanced in my opinion.
you could buy a copy of XENO games World At War, which had individual pricing for each unit, for each nation. But it was unbalanced in my opinion.
I use this kind of rules for awhile without problem. Can’t see where it’s unbalanced…
you could buy a copy of XENO games World At War, which had individual pricing for each unit, for each nation. But it was unbalanced in my opinion.
I use this kind of rules for awhile without problem. Can’t see where it’s unbalanced…
Russian infantry costing only 2 IPC - good luck on trying to conquer Russia.
You could also build infantry anywhere you owned territory from the start of your turn.
Everyone would just get ground down in africa, and yea, Russian infantry costing 2, were unstoppable.
The proposed house rules would be better with a d12 system than a d6 system.
For example, infantry would normally attack on a 2 (Same 1/6 probability), but Italian infantry could attack on a 1. Making them unable to roll attack dice is pretty unreasonable.
The proposed house rules would be better with a d12 system than a d6 system.
For example, infantry would normally attack on a 2 (Same 1/6 probability), but Italian infantry could attack on a 1. Making them unable to roll attack dice is pretty unreasonable.
Yep, and cutting the cost to 2 does more than compensate for the lower attack and defense ratings, it actually gives them an advantage. � Each infantry unit still takes a hit to destroy. � With 20 IPC’s you can buy 10 infantry instead of 6. � Infantry will be lost in the first round or two of battle anyway, so their defense rating being cut is more than offset by the fact that there are 10 sitting there instead of only 6. � That would be 4 extra hits soaked before your better units (like armor or fighters) ever get hit, giving them more firing chances. Also, gives you more opportunities to split them up among territories (blocking tanks, blocking walk-ins, etc).
The ATTACK and DEFENSE power of sheer QUANTITY is very often overlooked by players who are not veterans of the game.
If you go to a d12 (so they still have an attack rating - say 1) and leave the cost at 3, I think that would do a better job of achieving your desired effects…
Ever play classic, with the improved factory production tech (I think it was called)? � It’s no big deal to cut the cost of a battleship from 24 to 23, but cutting infantry from 3 to 2 (especially with unlimited production) is HUGE
I like your thinking, “Make it Round”. Â My pet peeve has always been Jap tanks that can be produced en masse and attack at 3 and defend at 3 and only cost 5 like everyone else’s! Â As if! Â (Esp. Revised or Anniversary - Japan Tank Dash to Moscow strategies) Â So I think modifying units by nation would be a great house rule.
_Russian infantry costing only 2 IPC - good luck on trying to conquer Russia.
and yea, Russian infantry costing 2, were unstoppable._
Or maybe you’re not good enough…
We played 24 games since 2000 and Axis wons 11 games… so unstoppable?
With good strategies you can win without doubt!
Or maybe you’re not good enough…
No actually, I’m pretty sure it’s universally accepted that it’s unbalanced.
But I guess since your french, you surrender in all of your games, half of the time as the Axis, the other half as the allies.
So that would make it about even no?
With good strategies you can win without doubt!
Strategy can beat consistent sub par dice, even a handicap as low as 65 to 70%, but not ALSO against another good strategy.
And if the russians simply build ALL infantry @2, ALL the time in WaW, it’s a rather unbeatable strategy.
Your group must have been too busy building russian battleships.
[i]No actually, I’m pretty sure it’s universally accepted that it’s unbalanced.[/i]
Universally? who? you
[i]But I guess since your french, you surrender in all of your games, half of the time as the Axis, the other half as the allies.[/i]
No i’m not…a good old canadian guy (as you… if i’m not wrong).
This surrender strategy is interesting…I guess you already tried it.
[[i]i]And if the russians simply build ALL infantry @2, ALL the time in WaW, it’s a rather unbeatable strategy.[/i]
We changed a lot of WAW rules so the game is more balanced. In fact, better the others A&A game.
Anyway, even with the old rules, if the russain players only buy infantry he will never win the game…or maybe yes if he play against you!!! :evil:
[i]Your group must have been too busy building russian battleships[/i].
LOL…no too busy to buy icebeg bunker weapons development!
Ya I agree. You still need the T-34’s.
