Thank you for clarifying!
Real value of units
-
Cruiser: This is by far the weakest unit per IPC. It should cost 10 IPCs to match a fighter. It’s still weaker in defence, but does not need a carrier and has the bonus of bombardment.
The suggestment of cruiser having AAA ability sounds very interesting too, since cruisers don’t have a special ability at the moment (besides bombardment), while every other ship has.The problem with a 10 IPCs CL is that 2 hits 20 IPCs BB will not be buy anymore:
2 CL= A6D6M2 2@3 bombardment and you can hit twice/rnd vs A4D4M2 1@4 bombd. can only hit once/rnd.
Do you see? And then you must lower BB to 18 IPCs… creating a double rule change but it still can be consistent.Many also suggest to upgrade CL to a 3 moves ship and keeping the 12 IPCs cost.
-
So if I get it correctly,
A tier of {2bb + 2ca + 2cv} in your fleet will give you 6 first strikes@1 if aircraft are present in a naval battle (limited to the number of aircraft:)? For only the first round or every round? Yes, same rule as OOB AAA.
Personally I like it. It adds to the value of CA whilst also adding to the value of CV so that their relative value stays the same.
You see all the point in this HR: BB and CV unit alone are the same as OOB rules.
I only wonder if it would be too strong perhaps, upsetting the balance of the game but that would be a matter of playtesting ;-)
Maybe, my first draft of this HR was to give only up to 2AA@1 for Cruiser and BB, letting aside the carrier. IMO, if a full fleet 1DD, 1CL, 1CV+ 2Fgts, 1BB can only bring 2 Fgts then it can only oppose an antiaircraft gunnery against 2 enemy planes. Here is a pure symmetry criteria appeal.First anticipation: Germany will have a little more problems hitting the RN hard in G1 (UK BB+CA in 2 areas), same for UK performing “Taranto” (Italian BB+CA), Japanese fleet will be a bit stronger in defense (2BB+2CA+2CV tier) but weaker in offence since the USA also has at least 1 tier for 3@1.
Wonderful idea at first glance! Sincerely hope this would not upset game balance so could be incorporated into the main rules set!
Thank you very much for your enthusiasm.
This HR is not far from actual rules which said that an Inf get +1 to attack when paired with an Art unit.
Amongst all ideas and spaghetti on the wall I threw, I think it is the less alien to A&A system rules and the more historical.
(Have you watched the documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE) -
Cruiser: This is by far the weakest unit per IPC.
It should cost 10 IPCs to match a fighter.
It’s still weaker in defense, but does not need a carrier and has the bonus of bombardment.
The suggestment of cruiser having AAA ability sounds very interesting too, since cruisers don’t have a special ability at the moment (besides bombardment), while every other ship has.This is by far the weakest unit per IPC.
The more I make simulation in a battle calculator the more it reveals the truth of this blunt sentence.Therefore,
It should cost 10 IPCs to match a fighter.
Even all the little AAA / 3 moves adjustments to get light cruiser (CL) a more interesting unit doesn’t counterbalance the competitive DDs, BBs and fighters in combat.I put to test: CL A3D3M2C10 vs BB A4D4M2C18, 2 hits
9 CL vs 5 BB = 40% vs 56% for the battleship
4 CL vs 5 DD = 45% vs 50% for the destroyer
3 CL vs 5 Subs= 43% vs 57% for submarines rolling “1” on defense!!!
3 CL on def vs 5 SS on offence= 8% vs 92% for the subs of course.And finally, 3 CL vs 3 Fgt = 24% vs 63%.
The only even match: 3 CL on def vs 3 Fgt on offence!Larry Harris always refuses to lower cruiser to 10 IPCs because the BB at 20 IPCs becomes of no interest.
Now, I say just lower the cost of both cruiser and BB of 2 IPCs.
Get cruiser at 10 IPCs and battleship at 18 IPCs.
At least, cruiser will be a better match even if it would still be inferior in battle against all other units.
Just add some of the other little +1 move or 1@1 AA to get a better balance unit inside the A&A system.Probably it would need another thread in House Rule to discuss this unique solution (for not derailing this actual thread). It is:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619 -
Yes I agree. 10 IPC cruisers are still weaker than everything else except 20 IPC battleships (which are the 2nd worst sea units right now).
I think the main point of cruisers and battleships being too weak is because they don’t really have a certain role to perform.
Subs: By far the best attacking unit. Still very strong on defense due to being cannon fodder cheap. Strong convoy. Requires the enemy to have destroyers.
Destroyers: Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blockers. Prevent first strike and submerge.
Carriers: Carries planes, which not only have a longer range than ships, but also are not blocked by destroyers.
Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).So my suggestion to solve the current sea imbalances:
Give bombardment to only one of these ships and buff it. Give the other ship an entirely new skill, so that every ship has its own role. A possibility would be to give battleships the skill to bombard facilities. It could work like rockets (the technology). Every BB can shoot at one harbor/airfield/factory within a range of 2 (or coastal only maybe) for 1d6.
-
Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).So my suggestion to solve the current sea imbalances:
Give bombardment to only one of these ships and buff it. Give the other ship an entirely new skill, so that every ship has its own role. A possibility would be to give battleships the skill to bombard facilities. It could work like rockets (the technology). Every BB can shoot at one harbor/airfield/factory within a range of 2 (or coastal only maybe) for 1d6.
Interesting and never discuss options.
You should post it in the House rules on Light Cruiser thread I have just started.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619 -
MrRoboto,
I have reply to your post here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202630#msg1202630 -
Reading all these replies is frustrating. Doesn’t anyone realize the cost of building such fleets. It has been and continues to be the biggest problem with axis and allies. Navy’s cost to much and are completely unrealistic. The land forces you have to give up to build even the most modest of fleets is ridiculous. The first one to do it only is saved by the foolish reaction of you opponent doing the same thing.
Though not as big as a problem as in the past, it is still a problem and instead of the solution being dramatically reducing the cost of navy’s, Larry came up with ridiculous unrealistic National Objectives (I don’t disagree with them all) to try and force inefficient naval battles in the Pacific. Inefficient because what you spend on Navy’s forces you to give up so much in what could be achieved in Land battles. This goes especially for Japan. The reason all the other versions resulted in Japan going all out against Russia is because it was the only smart thing to do.
But know, essentially all Japan has to do is capture Hawaii and the entire war is won??? So Germany could be collapsing, Italy could be wiped out and ooops, Japan got Hawaii, game over!!! Stupid!!!
Drastically reducing the cost of Navy’s was the right answer and though they were reduced slightly, they weren’t reduced nearly enough.
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10Lets just do it already.
-
You maybe right on the diagnosis but it doesn’t prove that your solution is well balanced.
What is the reasoning behind the lower costs of warships unit you suggest? -
@Baron:
(…)
(Have you watched the documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE)Just did, nice one!
-
@Baron:
(…)
(Have you watched the documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE)Just did, nice one!
Glad you like it.
-
To make cruiser and battleships preform better one can take back the old revised rule that units killed by naval bombardment does not fire back.
-
It would encourage action in the Pacific and you no longer need many of the National Objectives the Japanese has that force it to go all out in the Pacific and force the US to go all out in the Pacific. The victory city rule of 6 cities for Japan is what throws off the balance towards the axis. Japan only needs to conquer Hawaii once it takes China and India.
It forces the US to spend inefficiently putting the majority of its resources in the wrong area.
Besides, this post is about the real value of units. Well the game was always broken in the sense of a lack of action in the Pacific. That problem always stemmed from the massive cost of building a navy. Remember when Battleships cost $24 and one carrier and 2 planes cost the entire IPC’s of the US for one whole turn. Both the US and Japan realized those funds should be spend on the Asian and European mainland where you would get more of a return for what you spent. So they ended up ignoring each other. So the fix was to very slightly reduce the cost of a Navy and come up with unrealistic, illogical NO’s, some which lack any historical value to force action in the Pacific.
Heck, lets go further. Transports $2, Subs $3 (Attack at 2 defend at 1-Infantry are similar and only cost $3)
Cruisers $6 attack and defend on 3 like tanks so why not, ect…. ect… ect…Why should it cost so much more to build a Navy vs. an Army. You couldn’t reduce the cost of planes very much without altering the land warfare metrics, so why not let fighter pick their targets. If both sides have planes, each would pick the other sides planes. This would spawn some realistic air to air combat bringing more historic type battles.In terms of objections that such cheap transports alter it to much for the allies, all you need is to offset it with more subs for the Germans, but then again, subs are cheaper for the Germans so it alterations would be minor if none at all.
Bottom line, Navy’s are still way to expensive. Lets fix it.
-
I dunno,
Wouldnt much cheaper ships make Germany’s job much harder? Usually every German ship bought means better chance for Moskou to survive and run amok.
The allies, ofc, do not suffer from this handicap.
On the other hand, if Germany would go for a Sea Lion I think it could perform much better than nowadays, maybe even too good…
And last but not least: Ships usually take MUCH more TIME to build both during WW2 and at present time. Carriers easily taking two years to construct.
I think the higher price for ships represent that fact, because if ships are so cheap, Nations would produce carriers and battleships at a rate that is totally out of historical context. -
eddiem4145,
The changes you are proposing are so radical that perhaps it would make sense not to use this game as a base because you would need to redesign the entire setup as well as key game mechanics.
-
I don’t think you would have to change anything at all. In my game we have played with the US and Japan already having improved shipyards. This takes it one step further.
I don’t see why anything would have to change. The only thing might be the relationship between the US and Germany. The transports would be extremely cheap but so would subs. Germany is still going to focus the majority of its resources on Russia. You would also get more action in the Med too.
-
If transports cost 3 IPC, I would conduct Sea Lion in virtually every game where I played Axis.
If planes could choose their targets, Japan and Germany would be greatly empowered because they have an enormous starting air advantage as well as more money than their primary targets like Moscow and Calcutta.
Letting Germany target the Soviet air force first would reduce Soviet odds significantly since they’ll lose their best defenders in the first rounds while in return Germany will only lose a couple of its best attackers.
This would be be even more crazy in naval battles because the attacker could damage all of the enemy carriers then retreat simply to deny landing zones for the defender and force all of their planes to crash, or it could sink all destroyers and take massive advantage of sub surprise strikes.
-
You mean Sea Lion would be an option like in the real war!!! The only reason it wasn’t an option was because they lost the air war due to the British advancement in radar and strategic mistakes by Germany.
So yes, Sea Lion should be an option, but to think it would be an automatic is wrong. Britain still goes next. So Germany could have 4 transports instead of 2, well Britain goes next and could easily defend it with troops. Of course that would hurt them against Italy, but that is the point isn’t it. Gives Italy a chance. And if Germany went all out on transports, Britain could still defend against it. But if Germany won most of the time, don’t think surrendering a whole turn of IPC’s to take Britain doesn’t have its consequences against Russia.
But I stick with the idea Britain could easily defend against it, but again with consequences against Italy.
My ultimate point is this, ultimately, units might need to be adjusted and my points for change I think are unchallengeable in terms of a new edition.
But for the current game for house rules and trying to keep it simple, you would just not reduce the cost as much as I am suggesting to solve the balance of the game. Bottom line, after the first turn and the opportunity for Sea Lion is over, the US gains the advantage. But not by much because German subs are also cheaper.
As far as fighter picking their targets, I meant that only for the Pacific where it is more realistic. Since you can’t proportionally reduce the cost of fighters without having a major negative affect on land battles, in order to reduce naval cost the way I am suggesting, fighters would lose their importance in the Pacific since they would be over priced. So to keep their importance, you make them better, like letting them pick their targets.
You could modify how and to what extent, but since the naval units are now so much cheaper proportionally, it would work I think. You would just have to go into battle with your own contingent of fighters. Since fighters have that capability, you would always pick the enemies fighters first, and the side with fighter still standing would get the edge.
THINK ABOUT IT. That is how the battles were fought. A Navy without air cover was toast. Fighters were launched to take out the attackers air power before they reached the Navy. Of course navies has some anti-aircraft protection, so giving Capital Warships some sort of AA defense might be warranted but I don’t think necessary since the ships are so much cheaper.
This may make it more complicated without major testing so let me bring it back to my main point.
Navies are way to expensive. Reduce their cost. -
I think you’re underestimating how much this will help the Axis in the early game (which is critical). I would be happy to test play your price structure in a game on the forum via tripleA to demonstrate.
I think reducing naval cost without other setup changes may be possible, just not so severely.
Your other idea still suffers from the fact that the Axis start with far more planes.
-
This is the price structure I have played with. And this is the price structure I have repeatedly pushed for.
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10In my last post for this subject I suggested going even further and reducing the cost even more, which I have not played with. Those costs as you could see were to cheap compared to fighters so as consequence I suggested letting fighters pick their targets in Naval battles since reducing fighters even more would pose great problems for land battles. Any changes to extreme would bring unforeseen negatives, but I would like to test it against a human being. This would be the most extreme cost structure.
Transports $3 (they are defensless)
Sub $4
Destroyers $5 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $6
Carriers $6
Battleships $9Fighters $8 (Maybe on a roll of 1-2 they pick their target, at sea only, which would probably be more realistic after seeing a document in Battle 360, D-Day in the Pacific. Not sure how you would do this on Triple A though?)
Tac bombers $10 (target picking same as fighters) -
I am not interesting in testing the “planes select targets at sea” idea since waiting for OOL in a non-live game would be tedious.
If you want to test the extreme price structure we could announce our Buy in a forum post and then edit the power’s IPC to the remainder before combat. Then we would add whatever the Buy was onto the board during mobilize using the edit function. This would also be more tedious than normal, but wouldn’t require any extra OOL delays.
If you’re game, take the Allies and choose a reasonable bid (since it is my argument that this will tilt balance towards Axis).
Suggested Topics
