Where to start.
First, fighters are used against ground targets so ground forces are not committed. This makes fighters VERY valuable against ground targets; decreasing the IPC cost to 8 is, I think, FAR too good.
Example: USSR has a stack on West Russia and two fighters in Russia. Germany holds the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia with one infantry on each territory. USSR attacks Ukraine and Belorussia with two infantry and one fighter each. The most likely result is killing the German infantry worth 3 IPC and gaining a 2 or 3 IPC territory. USSR will lose the 6 IPCs of infantry to the German counterattack, but the USSR infantry can cause more casualties as they die. So the USSR will have a clear IPC advantage from the attack.
But if the USSR tries the same thing with two fighters and a tank each. Germany takes back. Now, instead of spending 6 IPC of units to gain 6-7 IPC of territory and German units (plus a positional advantage), USSR now spends 11 IPC, unacceptable.
That is why fighters really ARE worth 10 against ground targets.
–
There’s a lot of talk about chopping naval unit costs. I disagree. My belief is - ground units are cost effective, air units less cost effective against ground but more cost effective against navy, and naval units least cost effective.
The game mechanic is, the Allies have to build an expensive fleet to counter the German and Japanese fleets, then expensive transports to transport cost-effective ground units into Europe, or to take isolated Japanese islands. This is what gives the Axis time to take Russia. The Allies have to build a navy, and an air force to support that navy, and all that takes time.
If air and naval units are suddenly chopped in cost, the Allies will smash the Axis fleets much faster. The Axis will not have a chance in hell; the Allies will be rammed down their throats. Giving destroyers a support shot and cutting its price is icing on the cake; the Axis can’t afford to build much new naval or air forces so won’t benefit from the destroyers, and the Allies can now bombard the crap out of W. Europe, Karelia, Japan’s islands, and soon, the Asian coast and Japan itself.
The Axis navies represent a considerable portion of their starting IPCs; the attack on the UK battleship and likely destroyer, and on Pearl Harbor slows the Allies down considerably. Do the math. After one turn, if the Germans build a single carrier in the Baltic, the Germans will often have a loaded carrier, two subs, transport, and destroyer in the Baltic, plus a sub, battleship, and transport in the Mediterranean. The Japanese will have two battleships, a destroyer, four transports (after a three transport build), and two loaded carriers. That’s 116 German IPC and 144 Japanese IPCs the Allies have to overcome, totaling 260 IPCs. The Axis spent 40 IPC on navy, so figure the Axis basically had 220 IPC without building.
On contrast, the Allies will have a USSR sub, 2 UK transports and a battleship, another UK sub, destroyer, carrier with a fighter, and two transports in the Indian/Pacific where they are cut off from reinforcement, and a US battleship, three transports, and two destroyers. That’s 120 IPC on the front, and 62 IPCs that are VERY inconveniently placed, possibly dead, depending on the UK and Japanese move.
Effectively, the Allies have to overcome a 100 IPC difference in naval and air cost to start moving ground troops into Europe or the Japanese islands. And believe me when I say it is not difficult, even with naval and air units as “pricy” as they are.
I think it is no accident that the Allies have far less navy and air force to begin with. I think it is quite deliberate. And I think some of the proposed changes will be very unbalancing.
–
If the Germans have naval interdiction (subs have economic attacks), then I think things could be interesting. The Japan player would have to get something special too.
