Good way of thinking so far I would say :-)
As with the Allied fleets: Even after G1 UK holds a a small but nice fleet on the board… the problem is: it’s scattered: India, Australia, maybe one ship in Med, Canadian coast. Try to unite them in the Atlantic meeting somewhere west of South Africa. In the meantime the US will have built up a strong naval force (Pacific fleet coming to the Atlantic plus US1 and US2 purchases: I do mostly 2 carriers+ 2 Figs to load them, 2 destroyers, bit by bit up to 8 transports) to support the UK fleet. UK should build up a strong Fighter force to hold India, and when the fleet comes up to the European coast it can start bringing troops from UK heartland to Europe on maybe 3 transports, later 4.
Maybe it’s just TripleA that’s unbalanced… I’ve never seen so many horrible rolls for one side followed by excellent rolls on the other. As is usual, I’m sure that I only remember the bad rolls however I rolled at least 12 1 inf, 1 fig vs 1 inf and the computer hit 90% of the time and I missed 70%. I thought the odds were 1/3 and 7/12. It sure makes it difficult, even against a computer, to win when you lose so many small battles. Not to mention that Russia simply can’t afford to lose that many infantry without any sort of reward.
I understand that it’s possible for 1 fig, 1 bom, 1 des to lose to 1 cru; however, this happened while Russia got 0 hits on 2 rolls with everything except 1 fig in West Russia. I don’t even want to discuss Baltic.
By the time I lost, I was laughing at it because it was so unreasonable.
I still think that it is very hard to win with Allies. Especially if the rolls go horribly.
CK
P.S. even through all of this, I managed to hold West Russia for at least 10 turns. I got stupid with Britain and bought a navy instead of 2 fig, 1/2 inf, 2/1 art for India. America had the Philippines and all of Japan’s navy was gone. I should have gone for a KJF instead of a KGF due to the starting rolls. Britain had East Indies and Borneo to offset Germany in Africa. I kept trading France when I should have been landing those 8/10 units in Morocco and pushing towards Caucasus. I guess you just can’t fix dumb… ;-)
The dice on Triplea distribution perform consistent very closely to mathematical ideals. An explanation of the algorithm can be found here: http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/OnlineDice
In fact, Triplea dice are even better than real dice which suffer from differences in weight distribution, judging dice on uneven surfaces, and human error.
I attribute people’s perceptions of “unfair dice” to two factors:
A poor understanding of statistics: It’s not particularly surprising to have significant deviations from expected value with such small samples (e.g. 1 fig, 1 inf vs 1 inf). If you run the simulation 10,000 times and I’m confident that the distribution will be centered around the expected value.
Selective human perception: We as humans remember the 3 standard deviation outcomes because they’re unusual. I had a game where one defending transport sank a battleship and survived. You bet that I remember this event; it was a 0.3% probability (3z) event from expected value. Yet, I don’t remember the thousands of events where the outcome was about expectations
Thanks, I understand statistics pretty well. Given the total rolls involved, I’m sure they balanced out to average. After all, if I hit the 1/16 bad roll and the other guy hits the 1/16 good roll, then they average out. It just doesn’t feel that way. A simple example is rolling 4 dice hoping for 1/2/3. 1/16 you get 0, 4/16 you get 1, 6/16 you get 2, 4/16 you get 3 and 1/16 you get 4. If you play by the low luck rules, this roll always yields 2 however, I prefer the randomness of the rolls. Some people will feel that they should get 2 50% of the time. Like flipping a coin 4 times. I prefer to take the chance of missing completely as an initial indicator of when to battle.
Just like in bowling where you can throw a great ball and get a solid 8 pin and the next guy throws it dead down the middle and they all fall down. Them’s the breaks… They even out; they just don’t always even out the way you want them to.
I’m still having trouble adjusting when a large battle goes terribly wrong for the Allies. ;-) I’m sure the random number generator is just fine. My perception is skewed.
Once the Allies get diced, the game is gone. Try having everything hit on West Russia and get 1 hit on offense and 3 hits in defense. The next turn takes it out however, the reply is 3 hits again. Lose the Baltic battle, which happens more than 75% of the time in my games and the Allies are screwed.
Anything is possible in Dice.
But yeah, short answer, the game is unbalanced in favor of Axis.
I’d put it down to several reasons….
Map design and Production spread: To be specific, the indefensible Russian starting position on the Karelia factory, and the fact that the British must spend additional money (relative to previous editions) to protect the India factory. Fewer shuck-shuck paths for the Allies to exploit in general. Another space between the W. US to East Indies Pacific transit for USA. While Japan has a much easier route to Moscow from sz62 transport via Szech/Kaz, and US cannot build viable production in China to stall them since all territories here are worth 1 ipc now.
Updated unit costs/abilities: mainly the more expensive tank at 6, the defenseless transport at 7, and the cheaper bomber at only 12 ipcs. Most of these alterations work in favor of Axis.
The starting unit balance: both on the Eastern front and with Germany’s ability to destroy Allied starting ships in the Atlantic, seems to favor Axis. Also, the situation around Egypt is very precarious for both sides. The potential swing there is pretty large, and its easily jacked up by bid units. I see most people bid in this area when allowed to an open bid.
Possible solutions: I prefer a set bid of some sort for this board, like an extra Russian fighter at Moscow, or an extra US Atlantic destroyer. I say set, because otherwise the Allied player is more likely to spend the money on UK units to lock Axis off Egypt, or break a naval battle, or just put a ton of Russian ground in the East, which can kind of bust the opening in the opposite direction. Or alternatively you could try a slightly larger bid but only to income (without any extra units getting put on the board.)
Or another route is to use some kind of house rule to bring the game more in reach of Allied victory. Again I like rules that increase Allied income, or increase income overall, as a way to balance. Or instead of income you can try to tweak with the production, like allowing Allies to place an additional factory somewhere.
Thanks for the information. I bought two of these thinking it would be more fun than the first 1942 game. I played it a couple of times and found out that the Allies had a big advantage. My friend, whom I have played all of the Axis and Allies games with, played with his son during the Christmas break and told me that this game was so imbalanced that the Allies had no chance at all. I had read about how it was easy to counter the all tank build, etc. The one thing that I have found from playing the game is that one Ukraine is stacked, Russia is in big trouble. I kept thinking that Britain and America could put some pressure on Japan and yet it is very difficult to do so because Germany and Japan will decimate the British navy. Even if you try to put pressure on Japan, they can simply buy bombers, fighters and inf/art to pressure Russia.
yeah, American can build carriers and transports to land units on Europe. the problem is that by that time, Germany and Japan are both monsters. With the income the Axis have, they can sacrifice their air force to destroy the navy and have it all built back by the time the Allies have recovered.
Or am I missing something?
Updated unit costs/abilities: mainly the more expensive tank at 6, the defenseless transport at 7, and the cheaper bomber at only 12 ipcs. Most of these alterations work in favor of Axis.
Oddly, I only find that the transport at 7 is in favor of Axis.
Tank at 5 IPCs will create a German “blitzdozer” on Russia.
While Bomber at lower cost can provides US and UK a bit more Fast Flying units toward the front line, in 1 or 2 rounds.
One option to see how it changes the balance, is simply to turn Transport into Classic ones at 8 IPCs, Defending @1, and worth 1 hit.
You can also choose to keep it as the Last Casualty Chosen. (I prefer this one.)
It simplify things a bit, and Allies will need less escorting Warships.
I think the problem is one of position. True, the Allies make more money than the Axis - but there should be an asterisk on that. The USA starts out totally out of position and usually cannot use their income in a meaningful way until several rounds go by. So it is really just the UK and Russia doing the fighting against all the Axis. One solution is a lend-lease rule like I posted elsewhere that would enable the Allies to get IPCs quickly where they are needed, before the Axis forces get out of hand.
My rationale on the tank cost hurting Allies has to do more with Russia. In AA50 for example, it was a lot more viable for Russia to create an offensive armor stack. For use in deadzoning, or to provide more reach on counterattack options. Germany and Japan will build tanks no matter what they cost, because the movement advantage is so strong blitzing towards the center. Axis would probably buy Armor even at a cost of 7 or 8 haha, just because of the way the map is designed, the fact that they need to reach the center as quickly as possible. But Russia doesn’t have that same incentive. They don’t really need to “race” anywhere as part of their natural movements (other than maybe Karelia or perhaps India) so I find that its a lot harder for Russia to justify buying tanks on this board. A similar problem affects UK in India, where the tanks are just a bit too expensive to justify, and most players opt for inf/art combo. The bomber its true can also be used effectively by the Allies, I just think it favors Japan with the reach, and as an easy way to pound Russia into the ground for a relatively cheap Axis investment. Again the distance from Moscow to the coastal regions of China often means that Japan can launch their bombers to Moscow or Caucasus and still have 3 spaces left to move afterwards, usually to Europe where they can put extra defensive pips on a German stack and threaten weakly defended Allied transports around Europe or the Med at the same time they threaten sbr on the Russian capital.
Der Kuenstlers comment about Allies being out of position is on point. I lot of people I’ve gamed with in 42.2 make the gripe that USA is too slow to get into the fight, and that they have a hard time impacting the game before the fate of Moscow is decided. Both Atlantic shucks are gone. Africa, UK both take one more round now, since you have to launch the transports 2 moves and then alternate them rather than shucking, which means you have to buy more transports overall, and since they don’t defend on their own, it means you have to by more warships too! All this combines to stall the USA’s Atlantic crossings. The Pacific isn’t much better. The inability to drop a China factory to support the British India factory, means that anything the USA does here has to come across the ocean, again via defenseless transports. The British have a somewhat stronger position in the Pacific, relative to previous boards, and that can be a boon, but the balance around India is often so precarious that its very hard for them to branch out much. The idea of using USA to bank roll the two weaker Allies is novel, and I think it has some definite promise.
For a KJF or Pacific oriented game, my main advice would be not to take Borneo with UK. This has screwed me in the endgame as Allies more times than I care to recount. Often times in a KJF full press, you will have the opportunity to snatch up the rich islands with UK (on account of the turn order), East Indies is a fairly easy grab, and it may be very tempting to take Borneo in subsequent rounds with UK just to deny the income to Japan (and beef up the British purse in the process) but in the long term you will hose USA’s pacific game by doing this. USA desperately needs to control one of the two 4 ipc islands for production purposes (either East Indies, or Borneo), to have any real chance of setting up on the mainland or Tokyo itself in the endgame. This isn’t just to handle Japan though, its also to deal with a German controlled Moscow/Eurasia and to cover the launch points onto India and Africa. If you give both islands to UK, its asking for problems down the road, as Japan may be too preoccupied to attempt retaking them, and then USA is locked off the production by their British Allies (who themselves usually don’t have the cash to buy production, or exploit it even if they did.) Other than the Borneo to USA thing my only other advice for a Pac game is to be as aggressive as you possibly can with UK and Russia early on. Unlike Classic or Revised, its a lot harder for Allies to just count on the inevitability of victory due to the US economy.
TripleAI is not very effective, so you will definitely find that playing against Human opponents is even more challenging. I’ve seen a few Russian openings that I like, but I’m still undecided whether I prefer the Northern Stack Karelia/Archangel focus, or the Southern stack Ukraine/Caucasus focus. Southern seems much more intuitive, but I’ve seen the Northern stack work quite well too. It depends on what sort of fighter transit for Russian defense you are trying to set up.
Also, its important to remember that a lot of players, and many tripleA players especially, do not play dice but rather play Low Luck. Its not always immediately obvious when you hear people talking about balance issues, which playstyle they prefer. I like dice games myself, and in dice there are always chances for recovery, provided you are willing to play things out. LL is different. In an LL game, the bids and opening purchases become much more critical, as the underdog will have less chance at recovery once the game starts to slip away from them.
Thanks to all for this great analysis. Very interesting as I have not analyzed the game to that extent nor played any of the Global varieties. When I first got the game and set it up, it really hit me as a KJF game. Britain and America both start with a fairly large navy in the Pacific. The problem is that Japan has a larger navy and before an America/Britain punch can be applied, the British navy is pretty much gone. The Axis are able to apply that 1-2 punch to the Allies where it is much more difficult to set up that 1-2-3 punch against the Axis.
I figure out the odds however I don’t like low luck; if I want to play a game of chess, then I’ll do that. Like most people, I get worse than average rolls ;-) At least I remember them that way.
Interesting on saving one of the large IPC islands for America. It seems to me that forcing Japan, which must use transports to move units to the Asian coast, to spend money on navy would be the most effective way of winning as the Allies. Germany has no need to spend a dime on the navy and simply needs to protect it’s capital and take territory away from Russia.
Hard AI is a definite improvement, over previous editions of tripleA if you’re using TripleA_1_8_0_5
The Allied opening under AI control is pretty fun times. You can learn from the machine :-D
But it does some things you can definitely exploit. For example, the Hard AI seems to enjoy purchasing battleships. Whatever the reasons for this, (and it does have a certain charm I’ll admit, and can sometimes lead to some nice scores for the AI) but it’s important to recall that no seasoned human player is going to be spending the majority of their cash on this unit. Buy carriers and dd instead. Also Hard AI was (I believe) designed to play on the Revised game map. 1942.2 and all games since AA50, have used defenseless transports. So the TripleAI will often send their transports forward to be sacrificed unecessarily. Now this doesn’t do you much good against a veteran human, but if you just want to beat up on the computer, start trying tricks like that. Because who knows, before too long the AI might just go HAL style on us, or become self aware like Skynet, and then we will all pay dearly for those defenseless transports we sunk with our bombers LOL.
Keep at it dude, and pick up some games in the lobby if you can. Fastest way to get the edge is to watch how other people do things, and when you get rocked, you adapt or try something you saw that the enemy did, against your next opponent.
I think on all the new boards, it really pays to maginify your bomber buys. A pair of them might not crush super hard, but get 4 or 5 together hitting in the same spot, over long distances and you might start to see more opportunities develop. Keeping your air together, and keeping your fleets safe from the enemy’s air. I feel like that’s half the game now, ever since the bomber cost was reduced, and transports were given a defense value of 0.
I agree with what Baron said. I think bringing back the classic transport at 8 IPC’s and 1 defense, but is only able to be taken as a hit last would be a much needed improvement over the current 7 dollar non defense transport. The problem with the defenseless transport is huge, and I don’t think people realize that it is, in a way, game breaking because of how Germany can take advantage of this buy buying planes.
Yeah, I’ve seen the Hard AI leave a bomber within range of a fighter and transports left unguarded however most of the time, the takes my fighter in a direction that I don’t want to go. So, the transport might seem like an easy target however it keeps the fighter from performing a defensive action.
Realistically, I think the game needs to be played with 12 sided dice because, let’s face it, the infantry are so overpowered for the cost. In fact, the artillery simply make them an even better unit with the increased firepower. I haven’t even tried playing the Axis yet because, well I don’t want to feel really stupid getting beat by the computer. ;-) Removing the transport ability to fight back is really a stab at the Allies because only they need to have a lot of them to do anything.
I think I will look at the game as the Axis really must attack because if they don’t, they are toast. The trick is to get them to attack where you want them to without giving too much up. Now that I’ve looked at the map again and reread your small novel, SZ5 almost seems unfair… Once the Allies are there, it really is going to be hard for the Axis to stop them especially if they have a large bomber force in America and use the fighters that Britain has been building each turn. I can see 3 US and 1 UK carrier with a bunch of transports and infantry being a huge headache. I just need to prevent loss by victory city.
And I really don’t like taking advantage of AI glitches or logic mistakes. The computer can’t learn so once you take advantage of it, it’s like taking candy from a baby. And I have bad teeth already.
The submarines seem like a unit that could be very useful however, like most people, I seem to never get the 1/3 chance when I need it. Again, this seems like another attempt to balance the game in favor of the Axis because the Allies typically don’t need a naval stealth unit.
And I never really thought much about SZ61; I always considered that japan would go the old route instead of through America. It’s closer and if Germany has Caucasus, really pressures Russia.
I agree with what Baron said. I think bringing back the classic transport at 8 IPC’s and 1 defense, but is only able to be taken as a hit last would be a much needed improvement over the current 7 dollar non defense transport. The problem with the defenseless transport is huge, and I don’t think people realize that it is, in a way, game breaking because of how Germany can take advantage of this buy buying planes.
Cool! :-)
Glad to see someone else share this conclusion.
Black Elk is providing us another reason to give some combat value to transport.
@Black_Elk:
Also Hard AI was (I believe) designed to play on the Revised game map. 1942.2 and all games since AA50, have used defenseless transports. So the TripleAI will often send their transports forward to be sacrificed unnecessarily.
I think on all the new boards, it really pays to magnify your bomber buys. A pair of them might not crush super hard, but get 4 or 5 together hitting in the same spot, over long distances and you might start to see more opportunities develop. Keeping your air together, and keeping your fleets safe from the enemy’s air. I feel like that’s half the game now, ever since the bomber cost was reduced, and transports were given a defense value of 0.
My whole thread On simplifying things was only about dealing with units to interact in a similar manner as the other unit, less exception as possible.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853
But it is also true that any “zero value” unit creates some kind of unbalancing effects.
1 single Strategic bomber can wipe out a whole lot of transports, according to rule, an infinite number, in a single shot.
Let’s just suppose that Germany (wrongly) invested in a Sea Lion campaign.
First turn, some warships and planes on carriers, second and third turns: many transports.
Suppose that UK run a full blast attack and achieve to sacrifice all his units in a daring attack against this German’s fleet.
USA, with a few bombers, can finish off the remnants warships and sink down all transports.
In a 1 or 2 shots, this can represent a loss of 35 IPCs (5 TPs) and more of transports at no cost for the US player.
(Almost a whole turn of German’s investment, in a single shot.)
Of course, it was always possible before in Classic times, but there was a risk and it takes a few rolls to reach that level.
Each unit can only destroy 1 unit per roll of dice/ 1 per round.
So the maximum lost was 24 IPCs with 2 hits / or 18 IPCs for 1 Carrier.
Maybe we shall call this the “Defenseless Transport conundrum”. IDK.
In fact, this conundrum deals more damage to Allies than Axis player.
To solve this issue in a way to keep the overall powerlessness of transport against all other naval and air units of the second edition rules,
I’m sure that Transport cost can be increase while the other can be lowered.
The new Transport D1, 1 hit combat effectiveness per IPC could be very low compared to other naval units.
Actually, the OOB transport can be calculated as 1 TP at 7 IPC + 1 DD = A2 D2 C15, 1 hit.
Meaning it has a 7.5 IPCs / Def point.
Just imagine a transport at 10 IPCs while a DD A2 D2 (and HR Sub A3 D1) is put at 6 IPCs, a Cruiser at 9 IPCs, etc. following the cost of advanced Shipyard except for transport.
This could gives something like:
Such subterfuge will still gives money to buy transports but the ratio IPCs/def point will be 10 IPCs/1 Def point.
While Destroyer would be at 6/2 = 3 IPCs/1 Def point.
(HR Sub at 6 IPCs/ Def point)
Cruiser get 9 IPCs/3 Def pts= 3 IPCs/ 1 Def point
Fighter 8 IPCs /4 Def pt = 2 IPCs/Def pt.
Carrier get 12 IPCs/ 2 Def pts= 6 IPCs/ 1 Def point
Full Carrier gets (A7 D10 C28) = 28 IPCs/ 10 Def points = 2.8 IPCs/Def point
Battleship 15 IPCs / 4 Def pt = 3.75 IPCs/ Def point but BB has a second hit.
Bomber Attack 4 at 10 IPCs = 2.5 IPCs/ attack point.
And, on for the same cost of 10 IPCs, Bomber can have a 4 times better opportunity per IPC to sink a 10 IPCs transport.
Carrier at 12 IPCs could remain in a much better defensive stance than a simple transport at 10 IPCs.
On the opposite, an OOB 1942.2 14 IPCs Carrier (7 iPCs/pt) would be almost a same match than an 8 IPCs TPs (8 IPCs/ hit), for instance.
So the overall defense value of such HR Transport will be very weak and at a prohibitive price.
But, at least, it would be killed at a limited ratio of 1 hit per attacking unit.
If you keep the “Taken last” casualty rule, it will also make this unit still weaker than a regular Defense at 1.
Simply because, in any desperate fight, the owner will sacrifice his weaker units (even if they are more expensive) to preserve a few additional rounds for his stronger units.
He knows he will lost all his units but, done that way, it will be more expensive to his enemy’s units.
About the historical issue on “Taken last” vs “owner choose”, read these first posts in this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108069#msg1108069
Still didn’t beat the Hard AI; I built a large navy and was very poorly moving pieces around when Japan started messing with USA and forcing a turn of units in defense. Russia fell, got retaken by Russia and then fell two turns later. I am not very effective at being able to place the units properly. Germany became a monster, Britain started losing income and darn, darn, darny, darn. I lost again. At one point I had four bombers doing raids, lost three in one turn and the fourth on the next. Did dumb things with the ten fighters I had sitting in Russia, hit two huge naval forces and got two hits out of ten, lost four and got one out of six and lost the rest. I had to retreat to India and couldn’t get them home. The AI then built Battleships and destroyers with the large amount of money it had as Germany. At that point, the IPC balance was in favor of the Axis and it won the economic victory by taking India.
Need to study it a bit more as I believe that if I had the units positioned properly, it would have made a difference. As it was, Britain and America still did basically nothing. India had a large force and when I tried to pressure Japan, it just got smoked.
Just having a hard time getting pressure soon enough.
Grrrr…
To Baron, total agreement :-D You know my views haha
To Craykirk Check the tripleA boards and last page of this thread, pg 31
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/AI-Development-Discussion-tp7585227.html
I posted several games against Axis HardAI yesterday using the latest Jar, with different Allied approaches at no bid that all resulted in Allied victory… Some Allied strategies were more optimal than others, some were intentionally weak or one dimensional to see what the AI would do. Either way, its still possible to play out an Allied win, even from a terrible opening by the Russians or brutal dicing, provided you stick to the basics.
It is much easier to hammer Japan than Germany I have found against AI, since once they are stalled the Japanese go into their ridiculous naval loop sending units to panama to camp. Cracking Germany is more challenging, because the HardAI is pretty good at pushing stacks and defending Berlin. In KJF the trick is to hammer Japan mercilessly and eject them either from the mainland or the money islands, or both. In KGF the trick is to mass your forces rather than expending them in attacks. The way you win is by positioning defensive infantry stacks, or by making it “too expensive” for the HardAI to risk an attack against them. It seems counter intuitive, but they way you wage war against G, is not by destroying their units per se, but by forcing those units to remain in Berlin while you patiently stack up a large enough force to defeat them. Check out the KGF games I saved if you’re curious. You can see, even facing down monster Axis opposition, that the UK and Russia don’t need all that much money to be operational, you just have to use it wisely and not expend existing units in fruitless attacks. Instead for G to make the attacks at poor odds, until USA is in a position to defeat Berlin.
You should consider strat bombing. HardAI will not retaliate, so its an easy way to gain the edge on production. Sure there is some risk involved, but a couple mighty blows to the Berlin or Tokyo factory can easily swing the situation back to Allied favor, even after catastrophic reverses early on.
To Baron, total agreement :-D You know my views haha
Hello Black_Elk,
By your view, you meant what you told in this topic?
Or is there another thread and post which is more fully explaining it?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1287813#msg1287813
Besides, take a look at my whole pictures (full roster) of my next to be F2F board game which includes 5 features:
1 Fighter at 6 IPCs (hit plane first, mostly similar to 1914 planes) + 3-planes-Carrier
At 7 IPCs, Submarines A3 D1 C7 and Destroyer A2 D2 C7 blocking Surprise Strike as OOB, but 1:1 for Submerge (1 round only) and Stealth Move
At 8 IPCs, Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
No special rules for casualty of planes against submarines.
Reduced cost based of warships mainly on Advanced Shipyard.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545
Do you see some major flaw in it?
Well specifically your mention of the current defenseless transport having fallen put of alignment other naval units and aircraft for the cost. It is, as you rightly point out a major disadvantage to have infinite transport sunk by a single unit in a single round of combat. Ultimately this favors Axis in 42.2 overall, because Allies have yo buy more of them, and Germany especially can counter with just Air builds alone. In Classic there was a certain threshold beyond which Allies could mass transports and rely on them to defend themselves (albeit at a much lower hit ratio at 1, than other naval units) but it was the fact that the had to be taken as separate casualties expending enemy hits and increasing the number of combat rounds. What is needed is something in between, like what you suggest. I like the roster values you propose, for newer maps or maps that aren’t already set in stone for their units. It would be interesting to see what AI would do with them, if more expensive but Def 1 all autokill, or if taken las, or with other schemes. Probably anything would work better than 0, infinite kills haha
Well specifically your mention of the current defenseless transport having fallen put of alignment other naval units and aircraft for the cost. It is, as you rightly point out a major disadvantage to have infinite transport sunk by a single unit in a single round of combat. Ultimately this favors Axis in 42.2 overall, because Allies have yo buy more of them, and Germany especially can counter with just Air builds alone. In Classic there was a certain threshold beyond which Allies could mass transports and rely on them to defend themselves (albeit at a much lower hit ratio at 1, than other naval units) but it was the fact that the had to be taken as separate casualties expending enemy hits and increasing the number of combat rounds. What is needed is something in between, like what you suggest. I like the roster values you propose, for newer maps or maps that aren’t already set in stone for their units. It would be interesting to see what AI would do with them, if more expensive but Def 1 all autokill, or if taken last, or with other schemes. Probably anything would work better than 0, infinite kills haha
You clearly point out the issue of Classic transports: a threshold in which it becomes costlier to attack a whole herd of transports being together, the attacking planes at 12 IPCs and 15 IPCs were almost outmatched by such Transport at 8 IPCs. A single Full Carrier amongst them was enough to repel planes.
Making auto-destroy of 1 transport unit/ attacking combat unit can probably works also.
It will clearly show how powerful are combat units compared to transport.
It is still an additional way of treating Transport and it will be almost deterrent than OOB when launching a single Transport unit somewhere. Someone talk about in the Defenseless Transport thread for sure.
Knowing it will certainly be sink and get a slight chance of taking an enemy with it, is a consolation prize which cannot be enough.
I’m curious, is it possible to learn by ourselves how works TripleA and how it is possible to stretch the basic units and concepts?
Or is there any way to create a TripleA feature that can be more easily open to variations from OOB rule sets?
