With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.
Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.
Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.
So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.
I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.
What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.
Bombers should cost 13, cruisers 11.
Other than that i think the current system works well overall. It promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships to protect transports rather than the other way around. It also widens the gap between good and average players, as mistakes involving defenseless transports, and overspending or under spending on the sea often can be fatal.
Transporting men across the ocean and in turn protecting those transports is supposed to be inefficient, it was inefficient, but it must be done.
In the end land is where the money is, warships exist purely to protect/kill/block transports that move men from land to land across water.
Warships serve a severely diminished role with the old transport rules, and in fact much less money is spent on warships, taking away from a dimension of the game.
It is difficult to find the balance of naval purchases with defenseless transports, and the better player will become evident.
However, as inefficient as your navy might seem, its still better (most of the time) than investing in, 12-30 IPC, industrial complexes that cannot move, and can be SBRd.
In summation the defenseless transport adds depth and entertainment to the game, increases the gap between casual and pro players, and appeals to casual players common sense (transports are not warships)
Everybody wins (except grandpa of course)
With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.
Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.
Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
I
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.
I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.
What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.
Eddie please re-read my post and you will see why. Please also stop quoting as a supporter of making permenant naval changes to the game. I am suggesting that you might have some valid points I am not advocating some big change to the game. I support using house rules or variants not campaigning or lobbying WOTC and Larry Harris.
Uncrustable,
Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.
However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.
I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.
Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.
Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.
Toblerone,
For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.
In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.
Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.
Eddiem,
I’m not trying to be rude and actually see what you’re talking about. What I’m saying is that most people like things just the way they are. Asking for people to join a petition, campaign or saying its the best way will pretty much go over like a lead balloon and frankly just pisses people off.
I too have been playing since Classic. I have every edition except the really, really, old Nova games edition, Guadal Canal and Europe 1940 1st edition from 2010. Luckily I swooped up the second editons and a first edition Pac 40. That’s all beside the point.
You can have ideas and share them and people may like them or not. I’d recommend playing them through and posting in House Rules or Axis & Allies Variants. Even then there’s still people who are going to get uptight about that. There’s even people who b-itch about HBG units even though they don’t have to have anything to do with them let alone buy them.
Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. That’s what the forum is but if you come on strong with an opinion that everbody needs to play thier game a certain way it won’t go over well. Most players here are tourny, league or TripleA players and for the most part play strict games by the book. If you go around telling them “hey everybody we need to tell Larry to change the game” lol people don’t like it.
I personally like the historical, house rules, and customization forums. You ahould try pitching some of your ideas there. I’m sure they’d be welcomed.
Personally I’m not a TripleA/play by forum guy. There are a few of us who aren’t. I’m honaestly not trying to be rude but some sections of the forum just aren’t the best place to post radical ideas or house rules.
BTW welcome to axisandallies.org!
Well, I see your point about coming on to strong. I also have to admit that I have been responding too to many posts at once and get confused about the purpose of that post.
I have also been arguing the same points with the “Cheesiest thing about Global” post someone else started. So being the 6VC victory thing to me is the cheesiest, it opened up my argument about Naval costs and that argument has bleed to this post.
Anyways I appreciate your comments.
Uncrustable,
Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.
However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.
I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.
Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.
Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.
Well the only price change i suggested was a decrease, (-1 cruiser) nowhere in my post do i suggest any price increases to navy. I am in favor of an increase to strat bombers however (+1)
Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1.
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1
Taking away their defensive ability, but only reducing the cost by one, is actually raising their cost, as the cost of man and material is more expensive. I posted something before about transports in the past actually representing the actual transport ships, landing craft, and escorts. Not going to post it again and others have. But if you didn’t like the image of a naval Army of almost pure transports, AND I ALSO DID NOT, then the answer would have been reducing their cost, since they are now defensive, which would then require more purchases of Naval units to defend them. It would have been a wash.
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
Others have argued this and I have seen arguments that say this isn’t the case at all. In the case where British resources to stop it would overly hurt it in Africa, I would agree that any drastic changes like I have suggested might have to be reserved for a new edition, but I don’t think much change would be required.
lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.
I usually have to put the caveat, that just because I believe going on the offensive in the Pacific, or all out in the Pacific is foolish does not mean that I support completely ignoring it no matter what your opponent is doing. My point is, and if you are aware of the History of axis games you would know this, the 6VC victory was designed, as well as some of the other Pacific NO’s, to force action in the Pacific. In the original, it took the entire USA’s income for a turn to buy a “one hit battleship” and one transport. They could even buy one Carrier, one plane, and one transport. My point was instead of coming up with all these NO’s, some of which seem unrealistic, they should have just reduced the cost of Navy’s more or a combination of both.
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
Look up the post of the “Chessiest things about Global”. It has been argued better by others better. All Japan has to do is take Hawaii for one turn. All other VC’s are considered automatic for Japan. Then the whole game is won regardless of how Europe is doing. This makes the US spend to many resources in the Pacific to stop the risk of that happening.
Not interested in arguing that point on this post as I believe I have taken the point of this post on a tangent.
@Uncrustable:
I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
You probably have, since that is basically the most hated rule at the moment. At least there is no other rule that so many agree on being silly.
This rule alone nullifies the option of ignoring Japan for the first 3-4 turns. It is just not possible to win when USA spends nothing in the first 3 rounds in the PAC.
I don’t think there is anything that can be done about adding or removing VCs in any league or tournament. It’s too hard coded in the rules.
Personally, I would say the axis need at least one REAL capitol to win - regardless of how many VCs they have - as well as their actual total. That would be one of: Moscow, Washington DC or London.
I might throw in Sydney or Los Angeles (more the latter than the former) as a “capitol.” I just don’t see the United States saying “oh fine, sure, you win…we surrender. We produce 35% of the global gross domestic product, but you managed to get Egypt in a lucky strike on April the 3rd, 1947 so you win.” Ya know?
Just me, I know…
Is the game not balanced without the 6 VC rule? If it were changed to 7 would that suddenly swing the game?
Do the allies not always get a 6+ bid on most games right now? (implying the axis have the edge)
It seems to me changing to 7VCs would, at the worst, swing from axis slightly favored to allies slightly favored…and that would simply mean 6 or so bid for axis instead of allies…
Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.
Others have argued this and I have seen arguments that say this isn’t the case at all. In the case where British resources to stop it would overly hurt it in Africa, I would agree that any drastic changes like I have suggested might have to be reserved for a new edition, but I don’t think much change would be required.
Pretty vague counter here, ‘others’ and ‘i have seen arguments’.
You offer non yourself…
But lets be honest here, if Germany can purchase transports for cheap with no other changes to the game, sealion is unstoppable, and seeing as how USA cannot ignore Japan…victory is almost assured. Seriously how are the allies going to do anything productive in Africa with no Uk? Germany will have a ridiculous amount of cash to dump after taking UK, and USA will be VERY hard pressed to take it back soon. And with all those transports Germany could produce cost efficient infantry and artillery using the fleet to chuck them to the front (vs Russia), or just use its navy to take Gibraltar locking up both the Med and Egypt, meaning now Italy is rich too.
So reducing the cost of transports would require another balance overhaul, one which i highly doubt anyone (maybe except you) wants to go through.
I believe the game works as is wonderfully.
The only valid argument you offer, in my opinion, is the 6 VC rule; but this has nothing to do with transports being defenseless or too expensive.
Pretty vague counter here, ‘others’ and ‘i have seen arguments’. You offer non yourself…
You are right, I didn’t. That was why I referred to others and arguments I have seen. Not sure what you are pointing out. I then offered my opinion, which was listed as an opinion indicating it could hurt and a rebalance might be needed but I didn’t think much would be needed.
But lets be honest here, if Germany can purchase transports for cheap with no other changes to the game, sealion is unstoppable,
So know let me make my argument.
First, lowering the cost of transports is only part of my argument that all naval units are to expensive. So if all naval units were reduced, the UK could counter with naval units or,
If Germany starts out with $30 IPC, and lets say transports are only $4. Instead of 4 transports, Germany can now buy $7. That is 14 units it can transports now instead of 8. I gets an extra 6.
The UK can spend all of its money on infantry, and stack everything it can on London to stop it. How an extra 6 units makes it an automatic? Well I have the game set up at home and will have to look at how “automatic” this is. And if it fails, that is a disaster for Germany.
To the extent it would hurt the UK’s campaign in Africa versus Germany’s failed attempt at sea lion, I don’t know, that is why I said there would probably needs to be some rebalance, but in my opinion, which means I could be wrong, it would only have to be a minor one.
So reducing the cost of transports would require another balance overhaul, one which i highly doubt anyone (maybe except you) wants to go through.
So here, I am going to make reference to the Post, “aberration of defenseless transports” as to the disappointment that exist with the new transport rules. To much to argue and rewrite. It has been said many times over.
The only valid argument you offer, in my opinion, is the 6 VC rule; but this has nothing to do with transports being defenseless or too expensive.
Getting tired of rewriting the same things over and over, but OK, here goes. The purpose of the 6VC rule and other NO’s in the pacific was to FORCE action in the pacific because the way the game has always been set up, the rewards you could obtain by going all out, or spending most of your resources in the Pacific did not justify your costs, so as player became more experience, the Pacific became a wasteland.
This has improved, but not enough in my opinion as we can see these NO’s are still necessary.
In the original, it took the entire income of the US to buy just one “one hit battleship” and one transports. It could not even afford one Carrier, Plane, and transport. So if such a cost was going to be spent, it was spent in getting to Europe where the pickings gave greater rewards.
Slowly this has changed. But no enough in my humble opinion. This is evident in the fact that a new tech. is improved shipyards. But with the tech rules, it is very hard to get and the resources needed to be spent to get it makes it not worth trying.
SO MY POINT: Some say the 6VC rule is necessary for action in the Pacific. To that I say, not necessary if you just lowered the cost of all Navy’s, including transports.
Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game. And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.
Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual.
Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.
I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place. The action in Pacific is not forced by NO. Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
Changing the victory condition in the Pac to “3 out of Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu and LA” will solve all issues with Japan.
I won’t start this post by saying no offense, not that I mean offense, but by no means by the tone and arrogance of your post care if you take offense.
Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better. So as experienced as you sound, and of course more experience than me, you must have played the first edition for years. Of which case I would expect more sense from somebody in their 50’s. I am in my 40’s and purchased the 2nd edition when it came out.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game.
I will check that out when I get home and list the stats. It is a simple computation of math.
And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.
I addressed that as a potential problem that I have not thorough examined which is why I acknowledged that potential problem as something that MIGHT have to happen only with a new edition.
Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual. Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.
What benefits one benefits the other. The more dramatic the change, the more potential problems of the current situation. It depends how dramatic the change. I have heard many say they simply start with both the US and Japan with Improved Shipyards tech. That by the way makes transports $6.
I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place.
It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.
The action in Pacific is not forced by NO.
Uh, that is why they exist. Of all your comments, this makes me think that an inexperienced player is calling me an inexperienced player.
Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
I will apologize for this. I assumed that those arguing pro or against this point of view have some historical experience with the basic concept of the PACIFIC PROBLEM with axis and allies. The Pacific problem has to do with action in the Pacific once the US gets into the War. In Global it is assumed the DEI, would have been already taken. So up and until the DEI are taken, the Pacific problem does not exist. Also, Global alleviates this quite a bit by the creation of ANZAC. Global is still new and without the NO’s, specifically the 6VC rule, the Pacific would see minimal action, once Japan took the DEI, if both sides played to their greatest strengths.
The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
This is not the case both from a historical perspective and an economic one. The cost of mounting a Naval campaign compared to rewards attained in the Pacific leaves any offensive in the Pacific, specifically (again not talking about the DEI) the US against the Japanese or vice versa as an inefficient use of resources. The US historically spent less than 15% of their resources against Japan. Yet were still able to mount some sort of offensive. To build an offensive Navy to conduct the smallest of offensives in the Pacific by the US would take more than half of their resources.
You don’t have to agree with me but understand I did not come up with this idea. This has been probably the biggest complaint since the 80’s. The improved shipyards as a new tech did not come from the idea that Naval cost were perfect. Many may agree that the new current costs, when you factor how much more IPC’s everyone now has to spend, makes what we have now fine. I disagree, but don’t think people are foolish for thinking otherwise.
You would have to play near 100 games without the 6VC rule and without some of the silly Pacific NO’s to see. But again, you may still rationally disagree.
Lets not hate the game we love ;)
You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better.
I was talking about your experience in the second edition. I’ve not played A&A before the 2nd edition, so I have no idea about the changes that have been made earlier. And frankly, they don’t matter. You don’t make a balance change now, just because it has been done before. That’s not rational.
Ok, so the cost of Navy has been reduced again and again since the beginning of A&A. It sounds like it has been reduced to that level, where it finally belongs. With your argument, it could mean that if we reduce the navy cost, someone else could come and say “reduce it even more! it has been done earlier and made the game better.”
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game.
I will check that out when I get home and list the stats. It is a simple computation of math.
I should explain that point a bit more. UK-1 would need to buy all-inf in every game (yes I know, I’ve said it before. But it cannot be highlighted enough), not even depending on what G1 buys. It might be possible to hold London (although I really think a determined sealion would still be successful) but at what costs? UK will be quite out of the game for quite a while. Italy is having an easy life now in the MED, because UK couldn’t afford anything there (egypt MIC not incoming before UK-3 probably) and because navy costs have been reduced.
Maintaining a hold at Gibraltar would be very, very easy for the Axis, eventually sailing around to conquer mainland africa and brazil even before USA enters the war.
So it’s not only the act of conquering London. It’s the threat that comes with it and that trails a lot of other problems for UK.
Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual. Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.
What benefits one benefits the other. The more dramatic the change, the more potential problems of the current situation. It depends how dramatic the change. I have heard many say they simply start with both the US and Japan with Improved Shipyards tech. That by the way makes transports $6.
You are not even trying to answer my points. I clearly showed, that it does NOT benefit UK-pac and anzac in the same way, that it benefits Japan. Japan starts with a huge fleet. Any UK-pac attempt of starting to build a fleet can be shut down very easily if Japan wants to. So it basically never happens. UK-pac will not benefit from lower navy costs at all.
Anzac is building navy, yes. But they have only one minor, so that will turn out to be a problem very fast. Additionally, if Japan places the fleet at Philip or even Caroline in J1 and J2, it is always risky to build ships at all, since (like with UK-pac), Japan can just crush it easily.
Also consider this: Right now, Japan only needs to spend 16 IPC for a carrier to strengthen the fleet, while the allies need to spend 36-38 to get the same (depending if you want fighters or tacs on it). This is 225% of the Japanese IPC cost. But if you reduce carrier cost, that will shift too! Say 14 IPC, then the allies would need to spend 34 -> 242% of what Japan spent. Or 12 IPC carrier? Then it’s 266% of Japans cost.
Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.
I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place.
It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.
I’ve said it before - this is no reason whatsoever. It has been done because the cost might have been too high. That doesn’t justify future cost reduces. Following this argument chain would eventually lead to 1-ipc transporters, because “it has been done over and over”.
The action in Pacific is not forced by NO.
Uh, that is why they exist. Of all your comments, this makes me think that an inexperienced player is calling me an inexperienced player.Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.
I will apologize for this. I assumed that those arguing pro or against this point of view have some historical experience with the basic concept of the PACIFIC PROBLEM with axis and allies. The Pacific problem has to do with action in the Pacific once the US gets into the War. In Global it is assumed the DEI, would have been already taken. So up and until the DEI are taken, the Pacific problem does not exist. Also, Global alleviates this quite a bit by the creation of ANZAC. Global is still new and without the NO’s, specifically the 6VC rule, the Pacific would see minimal action, once Japan took the DEI, if both sides played to their greatest strengths.
I disagree with you here. I’m not sure what you define as the “pacific problem”. I think the problem is that Japan can reach Victory conditions very fast, forcing US to spend heavy and especially early there. This eliminates choices.
Without the NO, Japan would have 5 IPC less. Wow. That’s not really a big deal. It would mean Japan earns 65 instead of 70 with DEI (and of course the majority of China mainland and Philip and so on). Do you really think this would change the whole situation in the pac? To the point where it “would see minimal action”?
Removing the NO would not lead to that. And changing the victory condition to “3 out of sydney, calcutta, honolulu and LA” would only enable the US to choose if they want to go for Germany first (at the moment KGF is just absolutely not viable).
Both changes would hurt Japan a little, but Japan would still snowball very hard, if US does not press them in the pacific. They will overcome Anzac+China+UK-pac easily if usa makes “minimal action”.
Yes, that other NO (Guam, wake, midway and so on) is weird. It definitely is. But since it’s never achieved, and not even pursued it’s not doing any harm either. It could be removed and no one would notice.
The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.
This is not the case both from a historical perspective and an economic one. The cost of mounting a Naval campaign compared to rewards attained in the Pacific leaves any offensive in the Pacific, specifically (again not talking about the DEI) the US against the Japanese or vice versa as an inefficient use of resources. The US historically spent less than 15% of their resources against Japan. Yet were still able to mount some sort of offensive. To build an offensive Navy to conduct the smallest of offensives in the Pacific by the US would take more than half of their resources.
I was talking about game balance here, not historic accuracy.
You have great experience with earlier versions and with the history. I’ll grant you that. And while it is important to have the game in line with the general history, game balance is eventually always the #1 priority. And from a game balance point of view, this version is in a very good spot already. There are some things need to be tweaked, but the relatively low amount of usual bids (almost never going higher than +15 for allies and averagely being at +9-12) prove that.
I’m not saying reducing the navy cost is impossible. It could work, but you’d need to change a whole lot of other things. Not just starting setup. It would simply not be 2nd edition anymore.
So without turning this into a journal, let attempt to address your point in a simple manner. I would appreciate you trying to understand my point.
I was talking about your experience in the second edition. I’ve not played A&A before the 2nd edition, so I have no idea about the changes that have been made earlier. And frankly, they don’t matter. You don’t make a balance change now, just because it has been done before. That’s not rational.
So my reasoning to change anything was never simply because it has been done before. If that were my reasoning, I would agree, it would be very irrational. So the fact that you came back with that argument to my point, I hope would explain to you why the energy it takes to make a point to you is just not worth it.
So I will address a few of your points that don’t require me to make the same argument over and over again or address silly tangents.
The fact that it has been consistently done with each new edition from the 80’s including all expansion packs and Axis and Allies alternatives throughout the decades was pointed out only to show you that I didn’t just dream up the idea that Navy’s are too expensive. If you think Naval costs are just right now, I wouldn’t consider you a fool for thinking so.
I think there is evidence that Navy’s as a whole are still to expensive but I would save my arguments for that, for someone a little more rational.
So it’s not only the act of conquering London. It’s the threat that comes with it and that trails a lot of other problems for UK.
All ready addressed this. Not interested in a, “yes it is, no its not” argument. Besides, I didn’t even totally disagree with you.
Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.
Well, its just the opposite. I can see based on what your wrote, why you came to that conclusion, but look, I am an economics and finance guy. I can see the logic you followed but its wrong. If the cost of each naval unit doubled, then the nation with the biggest navy to start, has the advantage of that change. If the cost of all naval units if cut in half, it helps that start with the smallest Navy.
I disagree with you here. I’m not sure what you define as the “pacific problem”. I think the problem is that Japan can reach Victory conditions very fast, forcing US to spend heavy and especially early there. This eliminates choices.
Without the NO, Japan would have 5 IPC less. Wow. That’s not really a big deal. It would mean Japan earns 65 instead of 70 with DEI (and of course the majority of China mainland and Philip and so on). Do you really think this would change the whole situation in the pac? To the point where it “would see minimal action”?
So the Pacific Problem is this; After a new edition would come out, that made it easier or less economically inefficient for the US of Japan to go at it in the Pacific, after a few years, in tournaments and home games, the Pacific would slowly again see very minimal action because it was inefficient for either side to go on the offensive in the Pacific and only play defensively there. Since this brought a level of play not consistent with history, the complaint would resurface. You could disagree without being irrational, that with this new set up, that would not happen. Let me partially agree. The way this game is now set up, it guarantees the Pacific would not be a “wasteland” once the DEI were taken.
But, without the NO’s and especially the 6VC, there have been many on this post who have argued it would send the game back to the Pacific being a wasteland. I have been open to those arguments and see how that would still be the case. I don’t want to turn this into a book so I won’t go into why I think it would here.
But understand, that is exactly why the NO’s and the 6VC was introduced. That is why they exist.
I’ve said it before - this is no reason whatsoever. It has been done because the cost might have been too high. That doesn’t justify future cost reduces. Following this argument chain would eventually lead to 1-ipc transporters, because “it has been done over and over”.
So this king of comeback reminded me why I wasn’t going to spend to much time responding to you. My arguments regarding the reasons to reduce Naval units have at the very least, been given some credit by others, even those who disagree. But again, those were with people who were capable of having rational discussions.
To all others reading these Post,
It is obvious to me that the new Global, Pac and Europe put Xeno games and World at War out of business. So before people think I am hating the game, understand that axis and allies is the greatest game I have ever played and I love the new changes. It is so great, I stopped playing World at War and couldn’t find anyone to play it.
But the 6VC rule was such a disappointment, as I recently downloaded Triple AAA, I was hard to find people to play without it. At that point I was inundated with the argument that without it, there is no action in the Pacific and the Allies get the advantage. Then came the post “The Aberration of the defenseless transports” and I thought I could get people to support the idea of an even more cheaper Naval units for future editions.
But as Toblerone pointed out, I think I came to strong with the idea.
But I more than love the game.
