Thank you for clarifying!
Real value of units
-
I FEEL that the benefit would be offset sufficiently by the US coming in with cheaper transports but I could be wrong.
Of course I’m also just speculating, but I am very, very confident that it would not be offset. Japan snowballs very fast after taking India and the DEI.
Since both Germany and Japan are benefiting, USA can’t counter both of them.As without them, in my humble opinion, you would see Naval action in the Pacific greatly diminish.
And that’s the point where we disagree. Well at least partly. The 6VC rule forces the USA to spend early and heavy. Changing that victory condition would not lead to the Pacific being wasteland. It would just give USA the option of pursuing Germany first. USA would still eventually need to deal with the Japanese navy.
The NO, however, is ONLY 5 IPC!!! I can’t see how you really think 5 bonus ipc are having any effect on the grand scheme in the pacific. -
All the costs are perfect, except Cruisers. To cheapen the Naval will change the game too much. For example, the AP will now be more easily defended. More Invasions will occur, and the Allies will benefit because naval war benefits the Allies. The axis are a land powers.
If you watched Tora Tora Tora too many times i can’t help you. I love ships but i don’t want them outnumbering my infantry.
-
Excuse me? I’m just not able to address your points, because you are not giving any points except “it has been done before”. You are proposing to lower the navy cost, although there are no problems at the moment with the cost of naval units. So I don’t understand this proposal in the first place.
If I make a Post to long, it has become evident to me, it is not read thoroughly. It feels like you didn’t even read my last post to you otherwise you would not have responded the way you did. I gave my reasons for lowering naval units, then opted not to repeat myself to those who categorized my reasons as, “you don’t lower costs just because it was done before”, then reiterated my reason to you because you asked me too politely.
So I will summarize my reason very quickly. I’m sorry, I don’t have time to reargue the same points again and again.
The more expensive you make something, the less likely you are to buy it. The less expensive you make something the more likely you are to buy it. The gains in the Pacific are set, so from that point, the cheaper you make ships, the more you are going to buy them. If you got rid of the 6VC rule, I believe you would see action in the Pacific diminish to a point that people wouldn’t like it. That is my opinion and I understand not enough games have been played with others without the 6VC rule to prove that. Â
I addressed the other NO’s in my last post to you.
-
Imperious Leader,
I understand your point that if you make Naval units comparable in cost to land units, that could happen. So I guess it depends on how much you lower them.
I unfortunately realize that many games would have to be played without the 6VC rule to prove or disprove my case. These days I only play with my son and 4 games have taken more than 6 months to play. We are both experienced AA players. I also realize I would need to play numerous games with other players without the 6VC rule.
-
Mr Roboto,
The Post you read that was to Uncrustable, where I mentioned your name, (I shouldn’t have), was in reference to an earlier response you gave to me. I think your last posts to me were fine and reading that might have set you off. My apologies.
I am trying to be less foreful in my posts.
-
The more expensive you make something, the less likely you are to buy it. The less expensive you make something the more likely you are to buy it. The gains in the Pacific are set, so from that point, the cheaper you make ships, the more you are going to buy them. If you got rid of the 6VC rule, I believe you would see action in the Pacific diminish to a point that people wouldn’t like it. That is my opinion and I understand not enough games have been played with others without the 6VC rule to prove that. �
I addressed the other NO’s in my last post to you.
There is more than this way (reducing the cost of ships) to increase action in PTO:
1- Increase IPCs (from 1 to up to 3 IPCs) value for “0” and “1” IPC islands.
2- Give a random (2 to 4-5-6? IPCs) but valuable one time “Prestige” IPCs bonus for each islands group conquered.
In both case, giving more IPCs for PTO islands territories let the Japan and USA with more money and more ability to buy ground and naval units for this campaign.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32221.msg1207041#msg1207041
I do agree that:
The NO, however, is ONLY 5 IPC!!! I can’t see how you really think 5 bonus ipc are having any effect on the grand scheme in the pacific.
3- In addition to the last HR about “prestige” IPCs bonus, maybe you can add some more plausible NO perimeters of defence for Japan.
5 IPCs for the nearest perimeter:
1-Iwo Jima, 2-Marianas, 3-Guam, 4-Formosa 5-Okinawa 6-Palau 7-Philippines 8-Hainan;5 IPCs for the middle perimeter:
1-Wake Island 2-Marshall Islands 3-Caroline Islands 4-Gilbert Islands 5-New Britain ;5 IPCs for the outer perimeter:
1-Midway Island 2-Solomon Islands 3-New Guinea 4-Dutch New Guinea 5-New Hebrides;5 IPCs for a PACIFIC Hegemony:
1-Aleutians Islands 2-Johnston Island 3-Line Island 4-Fiji 5-SamoaIn addition to all this:
any Power can have a 1 time -2 IPCs “low morale” penalty (immediate surrender of IPCs like the Classic SBR of IC) when loosing any islands. -
I do agree that: Quote The NO, however, is ONLY 5 IPC!!! I can’t see how you really think 5 bonus ipc are having any effect on the grand scheme in the pacific.
I would agree with that statement. I have addressed this several times and it keeps being brought up as though I think otherwise.
There is more than this way (reducing the cost of ships) to increase action in PTO:
1- Increase IPCs (from 1 to up to 3 IPCs) value for “0” and “1” IPC islands.
2- Give a random (2 to 4-5-6? IPCs) but valuable one time “Prestige” IPCs bonus for each islands group conquered.
In both case, giving more IPCs for PTO islands territories let the Japan and USA with more money and more ability to buy ground and naval units for this campaign.I definitely would have preferred this to the 6VC rule
-
I would agree with that statement. I have addressed this several times and it keeps being brought up as though I think otherwise.
I definitely would have preferred this to the 6VC rule
I didn’t meant this at your intent.
There was a follow-up to this quote I’ve just finished when I revised the post you quoted. -
On the subject of naval costs going down (so you say), it simply has not. With the one exception of Battleships. I proved it, dont ignore the evidence. You also use a optional technology rule in your argument, not even included in all the games, and is rarely seen. It is not a valid argument regardless, you should move on from it.
Another of your arguments is the 6VC rule for the PTO in G40. One part of one game, that has nothing to do with the cost of units. There are how many other games?
Moving on…
The biggest problem with drastically reducing the cost of naval units, is you then have to drastically reduce the cost of air units, or face a boat heavy game with little air being produced (hurting Germany the most). Then once you lower air cost, now you must also lower the cost of all land units or see massive amounts of air to very little land purchases (esp from Germany).
Then you are back to square one, everything has the same relative cost, just cheaper. This creates a more hectic game, esp for F2F games, and would require more peices, namely chips. And most people wouldn’t accept it.Air is the Achilles heal to your cost proposals, because air operates over both land and sea, and must be balanced likewise.
From a relative standpoint, the cost of naval vs air vs land is perfect right now in my opinion.
And i have played well over 200 games of axis and allies, many of which competitively. Both revised and post revised rulesets.I do however feel that just lowering the cost of transports themselves would not break the game entirely.
Lets look at the price system as it stands.
Land: Attack + Defense value = cost (Infantry at 1/2 cost 3, arty at 2/2 cost 4, arm at 3/3 cost 6)
Sea: Attack + Defense X2 = cost (Subs at 2/1 cost 6, dest at 2/2 cost 8, cruisers at 3/3 cost 12, BBs at 4/4 would cost 16…but 2 hits to sink increases its cost to 20)
Air: Attack + Defense + Range = cost (Fig 3 + 4 + 4 =11, Bmb 4 + 1 + 6 = 11…they are adjusted respectively to 10 and 12, with Tacbmb at 11 in G40)Air is what brings it all together. Without air you have more flexibility in cost.
You could, in theory, simply house rule all units and facilities to 1/2 or 1/3 cost, without breaking the game. You would have to use decimals of course. This would give nations more options when it comes to purchases.
-
eddie, Â I’ve agreed with the supposition that most land and sea units with identical or similar capabilities should cost the same based on where they move and fight on the game board in relation to each other. This conversation could be very interesting if it were moved to a proper section of the forum.
I know you are not the one who started the thread. However the G40 section of the forum is probably not the best place to discuss the topic as such. Unless your intention or argument is that some of your arguments should be official rules/changes.
Again I would suggest you present some of your ideas as house rules or a variant. Â
-
Making it an official rule or change was my initial intention. But due to the lack of support I don’t intend on pushing this idea. I would like to see at the very least the cost structure for the Improved Shipyards as the default or make that tech, along with all other techs easier to get.
My last post to you, I thought would be the end of it but all of a sudden I started defending what my arguments were as I felt they were being incorrectly referenced.
I will wait as see if there are many games being played without the 6VC rule and hope to find some people to play with without that rule on Triple A before I make any more arguments regarding this.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to play on triple A for a while, that is until I have spent sufficient amount of my free time with my wife.
-
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
-
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
I wonder if you would have time to look over G40 enhancement project (by no means complete)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.0Both air and naval units are reworked, including battleships transports and cruisers…,
Enhance naval units. a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment return fire at -1(with 1 being lowest)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Same bombardment rules as cruiser.
c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
e) Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver, and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn. -
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Have you read this thread and have an opinion on what is proposed?
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619 -
Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.
I really like the idea of the transports getting a change to evade. Not sure how realistic that is, but I will definitely be giving it some thought.
-
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Battleship - leave alone
Cruiser - add AA Guns, no other changePerfect. Just my opinion there.
Carrier - increase to 18 IPC if you (as in all of you who think this way) think it makes the battleship to expensive. Or take the 2 hit ability off it?
-
Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.
With the United States making 70+ IPC a round, I don’t think navies are expensive at all. Keep in mind, Battleship costs have not changed since Classic, while the US has gone from 36 IPC a round to 70+ a round!
I’d say that the useless islands in the pacific should be grouped up somehow so that when you own a group of them, you get more IPC. Just to encourage the battle of Solomon Islands, etc.
-
BBs were 24 IPC until after revised, and classic BB was one hit!
Carriers are not the problem either, it’s subs and destroyers, that IPC for IPC are absurdly better
At G40 we are at 10 for cruisers and 18 for BB
Do the math they still are now close to on par IPC for IPC with both subs and DDs,
Subs are still better on offense and DDs will be needed as antisub and cheap blockers/fodder -
Yea, as I said, BBs have not changed since classic was revised (ie when the next game came out.) Revised, Anniversary, Global all have battleships at 20 IPC yet the boards have gotten bigger and more and more money has been put into play every round.
Since the US is making double what it was in classic, one might argue that a battleship should cost twice what it did in classic so 48 IPC. I am not going to argue it, I am just saying I can see an argument to be made there.
With that as a basis, I’m saying instead of reducing the cost of battleships and cruisers, rather we should increase the cost of submarines and destroyers.
- Transport 6 IPC (the odd number annoys me, 6 is better!)
- Submarine 8 IPC
- Destroyer 10 IPC
- Cruiser 12 IPC + AA Gun
- Aircraft Carrier 16 IPC
- Battleship 20 IPC
-
I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,
BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.
So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.
It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.
Suggested Topics
