Thank you.
Does the Game need cost changes for naval units?
-
I like the rules in the box. Mr. Anderrson you seem to be suggesting a simulation far more detailed than the one Axis and Allies was created to be. I think too that the prices are in line and balanced with the other prices in the game. Also if rules were changed to allow defense to build up faster than the attack (which your own math shows not to be the case) wouldn’t we just be spending the afternoon not losing instead of trying to win?
-
I like the rules in the box. Mr. Anderrson you seem to be suggesting a simulation far more detailed than the one Axis and Allies was created to be. I think too that the prices are in line and balanced with the other prices in the game. Also if rules were changed to allow defense to build up faster than the attack (which your own math shows not to be the case) wouldn’t we just be spending the afternoon not losing instead of trying to win?
No, no, no my friend! I sugest a game that should be easier to play and with fewer rules and units as well, but it is not the issue here. Ones again, the Q is if one thinks that the price for naval units in line with the pricing scheme of the game overall. And you have clearly made your opinion on that. But tell me then, do you play with a bid for the Allies?
Secondly the backbone in the design of the game was to make it easier to build up defense faster then attack. For a land based battle this is surely the case, a stack of just INF is the best way to spend your money (if just considering one battle were mobility is not an issue)! This should also be the case for navy, I think! I dont say navy should be more important, just that I found it too expensive in comparation with air units that in turn seems to expensive in comparation with land. That is the reason why we see many more land based battles than naval battles.
-
No, you see land battles because that is where the money is…
If SZ3 were worth income, instead of simply being a drain on income to try to build ships to control it, then folks would be more inclined to build navy.
But since ocean territory is worthless, except in so far as using it to move land units through on their way somewhere else…
-
We do not play with a bid for Allies. We have not yet found it to be necessary. While we (me and my primary opponent) are not novices we are still finding our legs with the revised game. We are not convinced that anyone’s victory (even for both sides) has been due to anything other than bad decisions or the way the dice fall.
I have noticed for my own part a constant wish for more navy when I am the Allies and gratitude they don’t have it when the Axis which leads me to think as stated and noted that the game is appropriately balanced. -
I’ll have to agree with switch that a change in naval costs, will look a bit to good for the Allied economy.
It might straighten things a bit out with a few more ships, especially subs for the germans but I think It would need more changes than that to straighten it out.But I would velcome any changes that could lead to a bit more naval play in the game, and I’ll be glad to test and review the changes in a game if you have any ideas on how to make the more balanced, while doing the changes.
With all this being said, I maybe should point out that I think the game is balanced with a bid of 4-6 (50% placement).
-Daniel Malus
-
This discussion seems be about Axis navies in general, however it is clear the real request is for an Augmentation to the Germany Navy. So far there has been no dialogue regarding the Japanese Navy and their inferior setup, so I must assume this is limited to the German Navy and their lack of ability to deal with the Allied offensive.
This game is not about a fair fight between the German Navy and the Allies. The game is elsewhere. The German Navy is designed to introduce a variable that may (or may not) cause the Allies to start their offensive in an orthodox or unorthodox manner.
A counter argument could be, “The British in Africa are screwed and deserve a change to fight…just like in Australia!”
Consider the German Navy for what it is, a randomly cast die that has the potential to down a fighter or two, or a few Naval Vessals depending on how the Allies decide deal with them.
Changing the price of shipping is not going to solve the problem, you will only find 5 Battleships off your doorstep with a lone transport dropping 1 Infantry per turn.
Start dealing with the Allies pounding on your door and I promise you will become a better player.
-
I say the game is balanced as it is, but it can be better. Why having units nobody buys or at least are not worth buying???
Buy a fully loaded AC for defense and maybe a DD if your enemies got protected (from air) subs. If your enemy goes for navy then complement with just subs! Never buy a BB or a DD (with the exception I just mentioned).
-
You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…
I recall one recently with 5 UK BB’s, 4 of them purchsed during the game. I recall Germany in the same game buying subs…
I recall a game I played a few months ago with an entire US flotilla… multiple BB’s, AC’s, FIGs, DSTs and SUBs that was marauding around Japan’s likewise steroided fleet.But the simple fact is that the game, for both the Axis and the Allies, comes down to Europe, specifically control of Berlin and Moscow. Moscow is landlocked, and Germany is generally to heavilly defended for direct assault. That leaves Navies with their roll of ferrying troops from UK and US to threaten Germany and to reinforce Russia.
NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES! The exception being once Japan’s protective fleet is toast and the US can attack Japan directly (which generally occurs long after Germany has fallen)
And making Navy cheaper only helps the Allies, unless you want to give Germany the equivalent of Japan’s starting navy… Even then, it will only take 3-4 rounds for the Allies to kill THAT fleet, and then Germany and Berlin is TOAST due to cheaper Allied transports.
Go ahead, play test it a few times. You will quickly see what I mean.
-
I think it’s fine the way it is.
-
Wow,
I really think the only thing that is off with the game as far as navies are concerned is the Japanese fleet, I mean really only two transports to start the game, and I can’t remember the last time I got to start my turn as japan with more than one. While I hate to agree with switch, The little fleet germany gets to start with is more than enough… Adding one extra piece is too much, and if it wasn’t people would let the axis go for a bid of 8… and the German player would add a transport / sub to the fleet depending what they wanted to do to the British or Russian player ( I personally like the extra trans in the med… The Caucasus falls fast…)
Secondly, dropping the price of any naval units would eventually bode well for the allies… but could be horrible for Britain on turn two assuming germany just felt froggy on turn one, and decided to load up with tons of transports and subs and then link the med and Baltic fleets on ohhh pick any coast of Britain … then the game is a two turn waste of time … I mean It takes longer to set up the board.
and as far as units no one ever buys… well that just isn’t true, I love buying destroyers to procect my british fleet one a turn for a bit while america covers me with carriers… then industrial tech combined bombardment… Its just fun, but again its never won the game for me… just ticked off the germans mighty fierce.
-
@ncscswitch:
You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…
**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**Â …
Go ahead, play test it a few times. You will quickly see what I mean.
Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!
Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink†IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).
Suggested Topics
