G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[CWO Marc]

There are lots of interesting subjects in Black Elk’s latest post – too many for me to comment on all at once, so I’ll focus just on a couple of them.

There’s a strong advantage to restricting ourselves, at least in principle, to just the boxed materials, (or some new riff on the box materials), because everyone has access to them. It’s generally easier to tweak an existing unit or existing mechanic than it is to create an entirely new one. So those would probably be the best places to start. <<

I agree fully.  The G40/2 map (perhaps with a few roundel modifications) and the unit categories supplied in the box as sculpts and markers are a good baseline because everyone can be assumed to have them on hand – so a redesign built around those elements is a good idea.  This basic redesign can always be expanded later in more radical ways, for instance to include new unit types or new player powers, but for starters I think it’s very sensible to focus on a basic redesign.

I really like this idea, or at least the general direction of the idea. I think something like this is possible. […] Does anyone else feel that the game might benefit, from some form of randomization to starting income? Randomization within certain limits, of course, but some way to alter those values slightly as a way to create more dynamism in the opening round? <<

I’m not as rushed as I was last afternoon, so I’ll take a shot at developing more fully the very general concept I sketched out yesterday.

In the very abstract example I gave previously, I alluded to the fact that each player power’s starting position is defined by a number of variables.  Some of these variables are purely quantifiable: for example, the number of units of each type a power has on the board, how many IPCs it has in the bank, what its starting IPC income is based on territories held, and so forth.  The turn order specified in the rules is arguably another “purely quantitative” factor.  Some other variables, on the other hand, have “values” that can’t be quantified directly because they involve factors that are qualitative or positional or political in nature.  Examples of these include: where the power’s units are positioned on the game map; what special OOB rules (if any) either give the power a special allowance or place it under special restrictions; what national objectives or national advantages a power has (or might have); and how easy it is for each side to achieve its defined winning conditions.  That last one is a whole subject in and of itself, and as I’ve argued before it’s a fundamental feature of the game that has to be considered at every step of a redesign process; the only thing I’ll say about it now, as far as the quantification issue goes, is just to point out that the OOB rules are built around a huge difference between the Axis and Allied sides.  In pursuing their victory conditions, the Allies are given the challenge of capturing three enemy capitals that more or less equate to capturing most or all of three enemy countries.  (Japan is the most extreme case: by capturing Tokyo, you’re in fact capturing the totality of Japan’s home islands.)  The Axis, buy contrast, has a whole gaggle of Allied “victory cities” to choose from – many of which aren’t even capitals.

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand: let’s assume that we have some sort of system for quantifying these different variables, or at least for expressing their importance. The next step would be to calculate how much all of these factors “add up to” for each of the player powers under the OOB rules.  This will give us a rough idea of how “balanced” the OOB game’s starting setups are, in a very general sense.  The next step would then be to decide by how much we would want these different values to potentially vary under a semi-randomized redesigned setup system.

To explain this, I’ll use a more concrete example than I had time to write yesterday – but an example that will still be purely for illustrative purposes.  It’s not an actual proposal, and it will only focus on one element (unit types) in order to keep the example simple.  The same principle could be applied to the numeric variables I’ve mentioned (IPCs being an obvious candidate) and perhaps be adapted in some way for application to other variables .  The example I’ll use will be France, since it has only a few units at its disposal at the start of the game.

Leaving aside ICs and bases, and ignoring the consideration of where these units are placed on the map, France starts out the game with:

15 Infantry
0 Mechanized Infantry
1 Tanks
3 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
2 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
2 Cruisers
2 Destroyers
0 Submarines
0 Naval Transports

Now let’s assume that we want to replace this starting setup, which uses precise and unvarying numbers, with a setup that offers range brackets.  Using some purely arbitrary figures (which are just meant to illustrate the concept I’m talking about), let’s give France this new setup table:

13-18 Infantry
0-1 Mechanized Infantry
1-2 Tanks
1-4 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
1-3 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0-1 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
1-3 Cruisers
1-4 Destroyers
0-1 Submarines
0 Naval Transports

There are several possible ways these brackets could be used.  Here are the options I’ve been able to think of, though of course there may be more:

1. The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, and there are no limits on the total unit value (TUV) to which these choices can add up.  Obviously this option won’t work because the player will simply choose the highest number in each category.

2. The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, but the TUV of his choices can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup.  On the plus side, this option would require more thought and involve more compromises than option 1.  On the minus side, this option may eventually neutralize the goal of making the game more variable: players will probably figure out the optimal choices and stick with them from that point forward.

3. The figures are determined by random dice rolls, without any restrictions on the TUV (except of course the built-in restriction that the figures in each category have to stay within a bracketed range).  This could result in individual powers (in this case France) starting out a game with a significantly stronger or significantly weaker opening position than in the OOB setup.

4. The figures are determined by random dice rolls, but the TUV resulting from these random rolls can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup.  This is probably the best option for generating variety from game to game without produding wildly stronger or wildly weaker opening positions.  To make it work, we’d need a mechanism to control the TUV.  I can think of a couple of possibilities for this:

a) Once the random rolls have generated a semi-randomized setup, the player calculates how much unit value has to be subtracted to bring the TUV down to the required level, then chooses himself which units to delete.  The subtractions would not be allowed to bring any category outside its bracketed value.

b) The unit deletions are accomplished randomly by successive dice rolls (combined with some sort of results table) until the required TUV is reached.  Rolls that would bring any particular category outside of its specified bracket would be disregarded.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […]  Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.

Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions.  Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side.  When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.”  And no, I’m not kidding.  This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game).  A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.

[Trenacker]

I’m of the opinion that balance is less important than the possibility of being able to do “interesting things.” That kind of approach is, of course, much more viable in a game involving numerous players that will likely end in a negotiated victory for one side rather than in a game of “standard” format with just two players.

The Lend-Lease mechanic is viable even without changes to the map.

A small deck of about 52 cards would allow for an elegant introduction of both random events (e.g., harsh European winter, neutral accession to a particular alliance bloc) and specific strategies that players may choose to deploy for a cost (e.g., activation of a national advantage, deployment of a special unit type).

I think the inclusion of minor nations, particularly the British Far East Command, the Dutch East Indies, and maybe even a Portuguese Empire, would also be a great way to spice up the game.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Fantastic! Can’t wait to see the charts.

They’re now ready and posted over here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

They ended up being structured very differently than I had originally expected, but I think they work better this way.

[Black_Elk]

Awesome notes Marc! I’m reading them intermittently on my breaks at work. Tons of useful info in there which I’d like to make good use of.

Also like the leader idea that Narvik posted above.

I tend to agree with tenacker, I enjoy the ability to do interesting things as well, which seems a bit easier to qualify than overall balance (given that the later is so dependent on the results of the round 1 combats.)

Will be back for more soon as I get a real day off! Haha
Catch you in a few

[LHoffman]

My global (no pun) perspective on G40 and its operational mechanics can be generally defined as political constraint and strategic flexibility. Unless you don’t mind screw-ball scenarios like the the UK joining the Axis or a land war in South America, there needs to be some level of political constraint imposed upon Powers which allows them to operate beyond the “One, two, three… fight!” script, but not deviate to the point of historic implausibility. That is my view anyway… otherwise, as Marc said, you have a game which uses the rough 1940s geo-political premise, but is decidedly not about the Second World War.

When we played as younger kids, we would make jokes about coup d’etats and deposing Hitler and ridiculousness like that… Seems like some people are looking for that kind of flexibility, where you can just totally ignore history and create your own rules. I suppose that is fine if it is what you are into, but it defeats the premise of the game to me.

A Tri-Team Game:   Somebody talked about this and it really intrigued me. I have never heard this suggested before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. USA-UK (and UK Empire holdings + pro-Allies) vs. Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy) vs. Soviet Union (+ pro Allies?)

This truly could work. It would more accurately represent how the war was fought and the political/geographic motivations for each side. A more distinct winner could be crowned based on the accomplishing of specified objectives. Heck, you might even be able to (or maybe should) split the Axis into Germany-Italy and Japan. They would still be allies, with benefit to cooperation, but have individual victory conditions that may or may not be co-dependent. China is another problem, since you have both pro-USA-UK forces and pro-USSR forces, but that could be worked out. US-UK and USSR would still be nominal allies as well, but the interplay between them would more accurately reflect the real-life suspicion and ambitions between the Free Market Economies and the Communists.

I don’t envision an “8-ball” style clean-cut win like Black_Elk is looking for, but it would change how you view victory in the game.

I thought someone posted a link about this Tri-Team idea being discussed in the past… if so I would really like to investigate it further.

@Cmdr:

Minor Industrial Complexes: � Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only. � Major complexes can build whatever. (Does not apply to the United States (E. USA, C. USA or W. USA prior to being at war.) �  � IDEA: � These are stripped down, WWI style factories and dry docks. � Game relevance: � Limit major builds to major complexes and thus limit the usefulness of dropping minor complexes everywhere. �  � ADDON: � Perhaps with the limits, dropping the price to 10 IPC for a minor complex? �

Change the American NO (Alaska) o “Island Hoping”: � Allied forces control Hawaii, Midway, Carolines, Marshals and Paulau islands (Philippines are already an NO and there’s already way too many NOs regarding the Dutch East Indies…) � The idea here is to reward the United States (and her Allies) for liberating the S. Pacific from the Japanese overlords, instead of just skipping them entirely. � This is a “chain” of islands as well, so it would represent creating a supply line into the S. Pacific for the United States (aka the reason we did it…needed to put fuel, ammo and medical facilities SOMEWHERE!!!)

Submarine interdiction: � Transports moving through a sea zone containing submarines or through sea zones adjacent to enemy submarines may be attacked by said submarines (yes even if escorted by surface ships - but those surface ships get to defend against the submarines.) � Submarines are moved into the sea zone in question and attack while transports (and escorts) defend. �

My hope is this will encourage more Axis submarines in the Atlantic since they can choose to attack or not attack just like you can choose to scramble or not scramble. � If you add this to the above suggested NO for England revolving around no Submarines in the Atlantic then you have a two fold reason to put out a submarine or two a round. � Maybe even split the 10 IPC NO for America in half and make half of it be “no Axis submarines in the Atlantic” so you have a 3 fold reason to put out submarines. � (AKA: Less troops going after Moscow again…cause you are putting out Submarines…) �

I like these as well.

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […]  Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.

Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions.  Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side.  When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.”  And no, I’m not kidding.  This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game).  A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.

I don’t particularly like this, as you may have guessed. Too much flexibility.

[Jennifer]

Totally unrelated to my other comments, but I just thought of this:

What if every nation just HAD war bonds?  I mean, it really doesn’t make sense as a “technology” anyway (what, you have to do a national search for the best artist or something?) However, it would add a lot of flexibility and dynamics to the game!

I am thinking major powers only:  Germany, Russia, Japan, United States, England and Italy  (3 Axis, 3 Allies) otherwise it wouldn’t be fair.

[barney]

I would put ANZAC in there as well. It would make them more fun to play same as it does for Italy.

[Black_Elk]

For the tri-team game, (which has been attempted a few different times in previous editions although I’m not sure about global), the challenge is always how to make it viable for a normal head to head match up. So basically you can’t do a full FFA for the Allied player (the person playing the UK/US and Soviet block together at the same time) or they can throw the game by sacrificing one block to the other. Essentially what you need is a politcal category beyond the normal Hostile or Friendly dynamic, but which is more specifically defined than just neutral. Also typically the Soviet Union is way underpowered to stand alone without Western aid, so you need to accommodated them there as well. I think it could work, though I haven’t seen a fully articulated ruleset yet. Special rules for how to deal with co-located units, not allowing it in originally controlled territories for example. This could work for Japan as well if you want to split the Axis block in two. Special endgame rules would also be interesting allowing the two Allied blocks to treat each other as hostile after the Axis are destroyed.

I really do prefer a war bonds type scheme along the lines Jennifer just mentioned. I think it allows a lot of gameplay variability and it’s also easier to justify historically than some other bonuses.

Every nation tried to raise money from their civilian population or to make up costs via loans or rationing or forced labor etc.

The amount of money a nation could raise in a given timeframe was of course not always predictable, 1d6 rolled each round for each Major nation would reflect this and also be fun for purchasing options. Its seems well grounded, at least the historical rationale seems just as likely as any of the normal objective bonuses that are awarded OOB.

I think you could structure the balance such that every player nation behaves the same way, and they all get to make the income bonus roll. I dislike exceptions to general rules. If the Russians or Japanese roll every round, might as well allow Anzac to the same.

Maybe we can use a name more generic/expansive than war bonds, that might include other aspects. Something that includes War Bonds, foreign aid, rationing, workforce expansions and the like all under one umbrella term. Maybe War Chest?

I think it should be universal, just built into the normal procession of game phases. Roll 1d6 with the result awarded in extra ipcs.

[Argothair]

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

[Chris_Henry]

I agree with Jennifer and Black_Elk, a war bonds idea is a fun way to get more units on the table (who doesn’t want more units?!). Call it Lend Lease for the smaller powers, war bonds, whatever, but I agree that a simple 1d6 is a fun way to add a bit to it. Maybe this can be increased to 2d6 at some “desperate” part of the game? Like when a home territory is taken, Southern Germany for example, the Germans can role a 2d6 to show they are stripping the country bare of resources in a last ditch effort. Or maybe each nation is allowed a 2d6 just three times a game at their discretion.

@Argothair:

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

I also agree with Argothair, which goes along with what I was saying a few days ago. You can brainstorm all day, but at some point the groundwork needs to be laid with what you definitively want done and tweak from there. That could rule out a bunch of suggestions on here and get more to the point of what you really want input on.

[Black_Elk]

My thought initially was that we’d take suggestions for maybe a month, just to get a feel for what sort of big picture ideas people are interested in exploring. Then another month of fine tuning those once we know what they are. So you know, try to get a beta going by Thanksgiving, in traditional tripleA fashion, with plans to have the troops home by Christmas haha.
:-D

I’d like to make sure whatever mechanics we settle on can be handled by the tripleA engine, since it’s a more effective way to play test than face to face. This takes a little longer on the front end, but saves a lot of time and energy on the back end. It’s also fairly easy to tweak things  in tripleA once you have the basic framework in place.

Until then, storm away!
Back in a few.

[LHoffman]

Sounds good to me. I think this thread is putting a number of good and reasonable ideas out there that I would personally incorporate into my games. I don’t play TripleA, but more power to those of you who are and can figure out if some of this stuff will work or not.

[Black_Elk]

Well also just to clarify, I would like to create a mod which works first and foremost on the physical board, in face to face play.

In some respects this is more demanding than a simple tripleA mod would be. In tripleA it is very simple to change map elements or graphics (things such as starting territory ownership color, IPC values, even the shape/connections of the map itself.) But I’m not interested in a mod that only works in TripleA. Basically it has to serve the dual functions of being easy to adapt on the physical map, and easy to port into tripleA.

There are some rules or mechanics that would work in a face to face game on the physical board but which would be more challenging to do in TripleA. This would be things like entirely new unit abilities or mechanics, complex rules or “one time” events. If something similar already exists in Global (or one of the previous A&A games) then that is usually easier to work with.

Just as an example of what I mean, right now in TripleA, it’s very easy to give each player War Bonds. That’s because it already exists as a technology, so all you have to do is give each player this tech to begin with.

In case anyone is curious, that would give…

+3 up to +18 ipcs per round for Axis (the average is + 9 per round)
+9 up to +54 ipcs per round for Allies (the average is +27 per round)

Honestly, that might be enough right there to balance the OOB game by sides in a way that’s a lot more interesting than just a simple large bid for pre-placement units. Allies have the most potential for extra money, but Axis also get something out of the deal. And unlike a large bid, this boost to the Allies has to be evenly distributed between all the Allies (not just piled on to one) the total amount is necessarily limited since no one can get more than +6 in a given turn. And of course, unlike the usual bid, this War Bonds bonus is just to income, so units still have to enter play through the normal purchasing/production mechanics.

Given all that I think the amounts might actually be pretty close to what is needed for the OOB game to feel more balanced. The bulk of the money under such a scheme is going to go to the smaller powers, but this also seems like it might be a good thing. +6 ipcs to Germany or Japan or USA or Russia might be a drop in the bucket, but +6 ipcs to Italy, Anzac, UK/UK Pacific, or China would make those factions a lot more entertaining to play.

Simply by activating the war bonds tech for everyone, this rule would allow some randomizing of purchase options from the 2nd round on, while still preserving the normal starting income levels of each power. Which may be helpful in designing the balance of the opener.

From a testing standpoint, all you need to do is launch the OOB game, click “edit mode > add technology” and give everyone war bonds.

Here is a savegame attached below, with the War Bonds change already in effect. It took me all of 30 seconds…

If you wanted to have War Bonds effect starting income in the first round (instead of the second) this requires an XML edit, but is also achievable. Anyway, things like that are what I mean by seeing which ideas are easy to implement and which aren’t, once we’ve kicked them around.
:-D

G40 War Bonds for Everyone.tsvg

[Jennifer]

I’m good with it in the second round.

A little more concerned with the difference in income for allies vs axis.  That might be scaled down a bit if you limit the technology until a nation is “at war.”

[Black_Elk]

Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…

What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?

The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.

Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?

I may be in the minority, but I’m not a particular fan of the way it works OOB, especially for Carrier decks.

The game’s other repair system is related to bombing and facilities, with a direct cost in IPCs. Ships by contrast repair for free, but they need to be at an operational naval base (which costs 15 ipcs to build.) I’m just curious if we might be able to create a better or more forgiving system for Carriers? Unlike battleships, which don’t lose their special ability to bombard, the usefulness of the carrier is totally shot if it is damaged mid battle. This might be novel from a historical perspective, but in terms of the gameplay it’s pretty rough.

One possible solution would be to allow 1 fighter to land/take off from a damaged  (rather than the current system where it’s either 2 fighters if operational or 0 fighters if damaged.) The rationale here might be that the single unit sculpt represents a carrier task force which might include more than 1 actual carrier. So, as sometimes happened in the war, if the deck of one carrier was damaged, airborne fighters might be able to land on a the deck of a sister ship.
I think there were what like 3 or 4 carriers operating in the Pacific for the start date? And these are represented by a single sculpt. Japan likewise had more carriers than just the 3 they have as part of the OOB set up chart. So it would make some sense right? These sculpts are clearly representing larger carrier groups.

I just think it would be nice if at least 1 fighter could land on a damaged deck, because the carrier unit has no defense value by itself. Fleets are already so vulnerable to land based aircraft and the carrier is the only way to meet the land based air threat, by putting defensive 4s the water via fighters. Seems a shame that a 36 ipcs investment can be undone so easily, when the game just doesn’t provide many alternative options for fleet defense at a cost within reason vs land based aircraft.

[The Hessian]

Hey Folks,

my thoughts concerning the capital ships, or the way they are represented in our games are the classic ones: Only our BB (C20, A4, D4, M2) can sustain 2 hits and they are immediately repaired after combat. CV (C14, A1, D2, M2) are sunk after the 1st hit.
I don’t like the game mechanic of moving BBs to the next NB for repair and than back to fighting.
Since (correct me if I’m wrong) WW2 carriers are not as well armored as BBs they get no 2nd hit in our games.

But that’s just the way we feel comfortable with it…

[LHoffman]

@The:

Since (correct me if I’m wrong) WW2 carriers are not as well armored as BBs they get no 2nd hit in our games.

Carriers were not as well armored as battleships, but many carriers took a great amount of (repeated) punishment before sinking… and many times they were saved to fight on. Minor repairs could be made at sea to get the ship combat ready, but after a major attack you had to get the ship back to drydock.

The repair mechanic is one that I really haven’t thought too much about. In terms of damage taking I have come up with this system as something I am working from:

• Light Carrier:   A0   D1   M2   1 hit, holds 1 fighter/tac   $10

• Fleet Carrier:   A1   D2   M2   2 hits, holds 2 fighters/tac   $15  (Yorktown, Essex, Ark Royal, Shokaku, Kaga, Soryu, Graf Zeppelin, Illustrious, Aquila, etc…)

• Heavy Carrier: A2   D3   M2   2 hits, holds 3 fighters/tac   $20  (Midway, Shinano, etc…)

• Early War BB/Battlecruiser/Heavy Cruiser:   A4   D3   M2   $12   1 hit, Can bombard on 4   (Graf Spee, Alaska, Nagato, Fuso, Nevada, Hood, etc…)

• Battleship:   A4   D4   M2   2 hits, Can bombard on 4   $18   (Iowa, Bismarck, King George V, Dunkerque, Vittorio Veneto, North Carolina, Kongo, etc…)

• Heavy Battleship:   A5   D5   M2   3 hits, Can bombard on 5   $24   (Yamato, Montana, etc…)

Seeing a heavy battleship will strike fear into everyone. They are badass and expensive.

EDIT:   I would love some input on these cost figures since I have never playtested a change like this. My goal is not to assign a arithmetic IPC increase from light to heavy, but to determine a sweet-spot for cost by balancing a number of factors. The factors that play into this for me are:   historical percentage of naval units by type, past costs in Axis&Allies, adjustment for the capabilities of the unit relative to other units, projected ability for a given Power to afford said unit, etc…

[The Hessian]

Good point LHoffman,
(though it won’t change the way we handle our carriers  :wink:)

What IPC-cost per ship do you have in mind?
Standard price +/- 2IPCs for light/early or heavy version?