Real value of units

Lets not hate the game we love ;)

@eddiem4145:

You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better.

I was talking about your experience in the second edition. I’ve not played A&A before the 2nd edition, so I have no idea about the changes that have been made earlier. And frankly, they don’t matter. You don’t make a balance change now, just because it has been done before. That’s not rational.

Ok, so the cost of Navy has been reduced again and again since the beginning of A&A. It sounds like it has been reduced to that level, where it finally belongs. With your argument, it could mean that if we reduce the navy cost, someone else could come and say “reduce it even more! it has been done earlier and made the game better.”

@eddiem4145:

If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game.

I will check that out when I get home and list the stats. It is a simple computation of math.

I should explain that point a bit more. UK-1 would need to buy all-inf in every game (yes I know, I’ve said it before. But it cannot be highlighted enough), not even depending on what G1 buys. It might be possible to hold London (although I really think a determined sealion would still be successful) but at what costs? UK will be quite out of the game for quite a while. Italy is having an easy life now in the MED, because UK couldn’t afford anything there (egypt MIC not incoming before UK-3 probably) and because navy costs have been reduced.
Maintaining a hold at Gibraltar would be very, very easy for the Axis, eventually sailing around to conquer mainland africa and brazil even before USA enters the war.

So it’s not only the act of conquering London. It’s the threat that comes with it and that trails a lot of other problems for UK.

@eddiem4145:

Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual. Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.

What benefits one benefits the other. The more dramatic the change, the more potential problems of the current situation. It depends how dramatic the change. I have heard many say they simply start with both the US and Japan with Improved Shipyards tech. That by the way makes transports $6.

You are not even trying to answer my points. I clearly showed, that it does NOT benefit UK-pac and anzac in the same way, that it benefits Japan. Japan starts with a huge fleet. Any UK-pac attempt of starting to build a fleet can be shut down very easily if Japan wants to. So it basically never happens. UK-pac will not benefit from lower navy costs at all.
Anzac is building navy, yes. But they have only one minor, so that will turn out to be a problem very fast. Additionally, if Japan places the fleet at Philip or even Caroline in J1 and J2, it is always risky to build ships at all, since (like with UK-pac), Japan can just crush it easily.
Also consider this: Right now, Japan only needs to spend 16 IPC for a carrier to strengthen the fleet, while the allies need to spend 36-38 to get the same (depending if you want fighters or tacs on it). This is 225% of the Japanese IPC cost. But if you reduce carrier cost, that will shift too! Say 14 IPC, then the allies would need to spend 34 -> 242% of what Japan spent. Or 12 IPC carrier? Then it’s 266% of Japans cost.

Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.

@eddiem4145:

I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place.

It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.

I’ve said it before - this is no reason whatsoever. It has been done because the cost might have been too high. That doesn’t justify future cost reduces. Following this argument chain would eventually lead to 1-ipc transporters, because “it has been done over and over”.

@eddiem4145:

The action in Pacific is not forced by NO.
Uh, that is why they exist. Of all your comments, this makes me think that an inexperienced player is calling me an inexperienced player.

Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.

I will apologize for this. I assumed that those arguing pro or against this point of view have some historical experience with the basic concept of the PACIFIC PROBLEM with axis and allies. The Pacific problem has to do with action in the Pacific once the US gets into the War. In Global it is assumed the DEI, would have been already taken. So up and until the DEI are taken, the Pacific problem does not exist. Also, Global alleviates this quite a bit by the creation of ANZAC. Global is still new and without the NO’s, specifically the 6VC rule, the Pacific would see minimal action, once Japan took the DEI, if both sides played to their greatest strengths.

I disagree with you here. I’m not sure what you define as the “pacific problem”. I think the problem is that Japan can reach Victory conditions very fast, forcing US to spend heavy and especially early there. This eliminates choices.
Without the NO, Japan would have 5 IPC less. Wow. That’s not really a big deal. It would mean Japan earns 65 instead of 70 with DEI (and of course the majority of China mainland and Philip and so on). Do you really think this would change the whole situation in the pac? To the point where it “would see minimal action”?

Removing the NO would not lead to that. And changing the victory condition to “3 out of sydney, calcutta, honolulu and LA” would only enable the US to choose if they want to go for Germany first (at the moment KGF is just absolutely not viable).
Both changes would hurt Japan a little, but Japan would still snowball very hard, if US does not press them in the pacific. They will overcome Anzac+China+UK-pac easily if usa makes “minimal action”.

Yes, that other NO (Guam, wake, midway and so on) is weird. It definitely is. But since it’s never achieved, and not even pursued it’s not doing any harm either. It could be removed and no one would notice.

@eddiem4145:

The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.

This is not the case both from a historical perspective and an economic one. The cost of mounting a Naval campaign compared to rewards attained in the Pacific leaves any offensive in the Pacific, specifically (again not talking about the DEI) the US against the Japanese or vice versa as an inefficient use of resources. The US historically spent less than 15% of their resources against Japan. Yet were still able to mount some sort of offensive. To build an offensive Navy to conduct the smallest of offensives in the Pacific by the US would take more than half of their resources.

I was talking about game balance here, not historic accuracy.
You have great experience with earlier versions and with the history. I’ll grant you that. And while it is important to have the game in line with the general history, game balance is eventually always the #1 priority. And from a game balance point of view, this version is in a very good spot already. There are some things need to be tweaked, but the relatively low amount of usual bids (almost never going higher than +15 for allies and averagely being at +9-12) prove that.

I’m not saying reducing the navy cost is impossible. It could work, but you’d need to change a whole lot of other things. Not just starting setup. It would simply not be 2nd edition anymore.

So without turning this into a journal, let attempt to address your point in a simple manner. I would appreciate you trying to understand my point.

I was talking about your experience in the second edition. I’ve not played A&A before the 2nd edition, so I have no idea about the changes that have been made earlier. And frankly, they don’t matter. You don’t make a balance change now, just because it has been done before. That’s not rational.

So my reasoning to change anything was never simply because it has been done before. If that were my reasoning, I would agree, it would be very irrational. So the fact that you came back with that argument to my point, I hope would explain to you why the energy it takes to make a point to you is just not worth it.

So I will address a few of your points that don’t require me to make the same argument over and over again or address silly tangents.

The fact that it has been consistently done with each new edition from the 80’s including all expansion packs and Axis and Allies alternatives throughout the decades was pointed out only to show you that I didn’t just dream up the idea that Navy’s are too expensive. If you think Naval costs are just right now, I wouldn’t consider you a fool for thinking so.

I think there is evidence that Navy’s as a whole are still to expensive but I would save my arguments for that, for someone a little more rational.

So it’s not only the act of conquering London. It’s the threat that comes with it and that trails a lot of other problems for UK.
All ready addressed this. Not interested in a, “yes it is, no its not” argument. Besides, I didn’t even totally disagree with you.

Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.

Well, its just the opposite. I can see based on what your wrote, why you came to that conclusion, but look, I am an economics and finance guy. I can see the logic you followed but its wrong. If the cost of each naval unit doubled, then the nation with the biggest navy to start, has the advantage of that change. If the cost of all naval units if cut in half, it helps that start with the smallest Navy.

I disagree with you here. I’m not sure what you define as the “pacific problem”. I think the problem is that Japan can reach Victory conditions very fast, forcing US to spend heavy and especially early there. This eliminates choices.

Without the NO, Japan would have 5 IPC less. Wow. That’s not really a big deal. It would mean Japan earns 65 instead of 70 with DEI (and of course the majority of China mainland and Philip and so on). Do you really think this would change the whole situation in the pac? To the point where it “would see minimal action”?

So the Pacific Problem is this; After a new edition would come out, that made it easier or less economically inefficient for the US of Japan to go at it in the Pacific, after a few years, in tournaments and home games, the Pacific would slowly again see very minimal action because it was inefficient for either side to go on the offensive in the Pacific and only play defensively there. Since this brought a level of play not consistent with history, the complaint would resurface. You could disagree without being irrational, that with this new set up, that would not happen. Let me partially agree. The way this game is now set up, it guarantees the Pacific would not be a “wasteland” once the DEI were taken.

But, without the NO’s and especially the 6VC, there have been many on this post who have argued it would send the game back to the Pacific being a wasteland. I have been open to those arguments and see how that would still be the case. I don’t want to turn this into a book so I won’t go into why I think it would here.

But understand, that is exactly why the NO’s and the 6VC was introduced. That is why they exist.

I’ve said it before - this is no reason whatsoever. It has been done because the cost might have been too high. That doesn’t justify future cost reduces. Following this argument chain would eventually lead to 1-ipc transporters, because “it has been done over and over”.

So this king of comeback reminded me why I wasn’t going to spend to much time responding to you. My arguments regarding the reasons to reduce Naval units have at the very least, been given some credit by others, even those who disagree. But again, those were with people who were capable of having rational discussions.

To all others reading these Post,

It is obvious to me that the new Global, Pac and Europe put Xeno games and World at War out of business. So before people think I am hating the game, understand that axis and allies is the greatest game I have ever played and I love the new changes. It is so great, I stopped playing World at War and couldn’t find anyone to play it.

But the 6VC rule was such a disappointment, as I recently downloaded Triple AAA, I was hard to find people to play without it. At that point I was inundated with the argument that without it, there is no action in the Pacific and the Allies get the advantage. Then came the post “The Aberration of the defenseless transports” and I thought I could get people to support the idea of an even more cheaper Naval units for future editions.

But as Toblerone pointed out, I think I came to strong with the idea.

But I more than love the game.

@eddiem4145:

You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better. So as experienced as you sound, and of course more experience than me, you must have played the first edition for years. Of which case I would expect more sense from somebody in their 50’s. I am in my 40’s and purchased the 2nd edition when it came out.

It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.

Naval costs have been reduced time and again, since 1980, as you say.

Lets look into it,

Carriers went from 16 to 14 back to 16 (in G40 only). But the attack value decreased with the cost decrease. So little to no change there.
Transports went from 8 to 7. A one time change of one IPC.
Early destroyers are essentially cruisers now. That is attack/defense of 3/3. Both cost 12 IPC. No change there.
The new Destroyers (at 8 IPC A/D 2/2) did not exist until spring42. And have not changed since.
Submarines originally cost 8 IPC (with A/D of 2/2 same of new destroyer which also costs 8.), now cost 6. A one time change of 2 IPCs. But it also saw its defense value reduced by 1. So again very little change here.

So if you look into it, the value of naval units, with the exception of battleships, have not changed at all. In addition, even the major change to Battleships was a one time thing, and you suggest many changes.

Another argument invalid. With the exception of the battleship, naval cost has actually not changed much at all.

And even if what you say is true, it is illogical. Tanks were increased to 6, does that mean they should be further increased? Bombers were decreased from 15 to 12 (2nd biggest change after the BBs), following your logic it would make sense to further reduce them.

@eddiem4145:

To all others reading these Post,

It is obvious to me that the new Global, Pac and Europe put Xeno games and World at War out of business. So before people think I am hating the game, understand that axis and allies is the greatest game I have ever played and I love the new changes. It is so great, I stopped playing World at War and couldn’t find anyone to play it.

But the 6VC rule was such a disappointment, as I recently downloaded Triple AAA, I was hard to find people to play without it. At that point I was inundated with the argument that without it, there is no action in the Pacific and the Allies get the advantage. Then came the post “The Aberration of the defenseless transports” and I thought I could get people to support the idea of an even more cheaper Naval units for future editions.

But as Toblerone pointed out, I think I came to strong with the idea.

But I more than love the game.

OR…maybe you should accept that you are in the minority. At the end of the day it is ones opinion vs another. With both sides offering up arguments to support their ideas.

Maybe the problem is you are on here arrogantly stating that your idea is simply better and anyone against it must be daft. (a touch of sarcasm here to drive home the point, i hope you realize), but as i said, they are all opinions.

The biggest hurdle you face trying to get others too ‘see’ your side of the fence, is the fact that the current system works very well, and is very balanced, fun and popular. Your side of the fence has simply never been put to the test,
maybe, instead of ranting on here. Create a system yourself, and balance the game around it, test it, release it to the public for more testing, provide after action reports, etc… And then we all will have a much better picture your idea. And then we can really begin the argument for official changes in future versions

@eddiem4145:

Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.

Well, its just the opposite. I can see based on what your wrote, why you came to that conclusion, but look, I am an economics and finance guy. I can see the logic you followed but its wrong. If the cost of each naval unit doubled, then the nation with the biggest navy to start, has the advantage of that change. If the cost of all naval units if cut in half, it helps that start with the smallest Navy.

Okay yeah, you convinced me here. I was not giving that statement much thought and it was clearly wrong.
What stays true, however, is that UK will not build fleet, neither with London, nor with Calcutta. Simply because they have to defend the Mainland first against an Axis invasion and fleet isn’t helping there. So the fact remains, that reduced navy costs, especially transports, will still hugely benefit the axis early on.

@eddiem4145:

So the Pacific Problem is this; After a new edition would come out, that made it easier or less economically inefficient for the US of Japan to go at it in the Pacific, after a few years, in tournaments and home games, the Pacific would slowly again see very minimal action because it was inefficient for either side to go on the offensive in the Pacific and only play defensively there. Since this brought a level of play not consistent with history, the complaint would resurface. You could disagree without being irrational, that with this new set up, that would not happen. Let me partially agree. The way this game is now set up, it guarantees the Pacific would not be a “wasteland” once the DEI were taken.

But, without the NO’s and especially the 6VC, there have been many on this post who have argued it would send the game back to the Pacific being a wasteland. I have been open to those arguments and see how that would still be the case. I don’t want to turn this into a book so I won’t go into why I think it would here.

But understand, that is exactly why the NO’s and the 6VC was introduced. That is why they exist.

Hm, I read this part 4 times now and have to admit I still don’t understand it. English is not my mother tongue so it’s probably my fault if I don’t understand it. However, especially that first sentence is a real mess.
Can we please split the two thing: NO and 6VC-rule?

The 6VC-rule is stupid, we all agree on this. In fact, I’ve not seen anyone on this site so far, who’s in favor of that rule.

The NO however (giving +5 for DEI to Japan) is not a problem. It only encourages both sides a bit more to fight for the DEI, albeit they’d do so even without the NO. 5 IPC more or less won’t change the whole Pacific flow. Please try to explain to me, how removing that NO will affect the general game plan for either side. Because I can’t see that happen.

Uncrustable,

So in the original AA, once the US lost China, which was automatic and quick on turn 2, the US had only $32 IPC. There choice in building a Navy for the Pacific was, a one hit battleship and one transport for a total of $32 IPC’s, there entire income for one turn. The US could not even afford to buy 1 Carrier, one Transport, and one plane. UK’s income was at $30 and immediately lost significant territory on turn 1. The Germans were at $32 and that included all of Italy’s income. Japans income with the Philippines, all the DEI, Burma and China was less than $34

Today, the income on the board of all the nations is more than doubled. Battleships are now $20 and are two hit battleships instead of one, (yes, in the past one submarine could sink a Battleship), we have lower cost units like Destroyers, Cruisers, Cheaper AC’s which are now 2 hit Carriers instead of just one hit, Planes $10 instead of $12, and slightly cheaper Transports, and Subs.

And now with the newest edition, we have Improved Shipyards as a tech making everything else cheaper.

So the cost to actually build a Navy is significantly cheaper from the perspective of getting something on the board you can use without spending all of your income. These changes came slowly, not at once.

There are many ways to make Navy’s cheaper. Buy lowering there costs, coming up with lower cost units, and raising the income value of the Nations. Doing a little of all three put together is a significant change. From an economics point of view, if I have $10 and I want to buy $10 worth of stuff, whether you reduce the cost of the stuff of increase the amount of dollars I have, the effect is the same. The cost of what I want to buy has been reduced.

So we went from the US having to use 100% of its income to buy a one hit battleship that attacks at 4 and defends at 4, and one transport,

To being able to spend only 50% of it income and being able to buy a destroyer, a cruiser, a sub, and two transports with improved shipyards. The price of naval units have come down drastically.

And even if what you say is true, it is illogical. Tanks were increased to 6, does that mean they should be further increased? Bombers were decreased from 15 to 12 (2nd biggest change after the BBs), following your logic it would make sense to further reduce them.

I never reasoned that you should reduced the cost of naval units because they have been decreased. If fact I made that point to Mr. Roboto and declined further arguments regarding this since he was not able to address my points as opposed to re-categorizing my arguments as something silly.

OR…maybe you should accept that you are in the minority. At the end of the day it is ones opinion vs another.
That is obvious to me. Think I was acknowledging that by referencing Toblerone’s last response to me.

Maybe the problem is you are on here arrogantly stating that your idea is simply better and anyone against it must be daft. (a touch of sarcasm here to drive home the point, i hope you realize), but as i said, they are all opinions.
Early one, I became concerned I may have come across that way, but I then started responding to someone else doing that to me. So se la vie. I will make a better attempt to not come on so strong.

The biggest hurdle you face trying to get others too ‘see’ your side of the fence, is the fact that the current system works very well, and is very balanced, fun and popular. Your side of the fence has simply never been put to the test, maybe, instead of ranting on here. Create a system yourself, and balance the game around it, test it, release it to the public for more testing, provide after action reports, etc…

I have. I have played years with naval cost structures similar to the new Improved Shipyards tech cost. I at some point began to argue a more dramatic reduced cost that I have not yet thoroughly tested. But as I am finding out, everyone plays with the 6VC rule on triple A. I believe, just an opinion, if people did not play with that rule, they would be more receptive to the idea of lowering the cost of Naval units even more. Just my opinion, because without the 6VC rule, though I don’t think the Pacific would be a wasteland, I think naval action would greatly diminish due to the resources required to mount a Naval campaign, although it is much better now.

Mr. Roboto,

What stays true, however, …So the fact remains, that reduced navy costs, especially transports, will still hugely benefit the axis early on.

I am writing this politely. This is the 2nd time I have said I addressed this already, so I will be more specific again. I don’t disagree with that point. I FEEL that the benefit would be offset sufficiently by the US coming in with cheaper transports but I could be wrong. It depends on how much cheaper you make them. If you make them as cheap as I suggested, I did say, acknowledging you may be right, that such a change might have to come only with a new edition where the necessary rebalancing would have to occur. If I made that point to someone else and not you then I apologize.

Hm, I read this part 4 times now and have to admit I still don’t understand it.
So putting it simply, US and Japan, once players became proficient at the game with each new edition, realized that it was not economically efficient to go on the offensive in the Pacific. This was always a common complaint with each edition. I brought up the Pacific NO’s and the 6VC rule to point out there purpose as evidence that Naval units are still to expensive. As without them, in my humble opinion, you would see Naval action in the Pacific greatly diminish.

Now separating them as you wish, the 6 VC rule forces Naval Action the most in the Pacific between the US and Japan. Like you I hate the rule. And I have responded to others who have argued that without it, the Pacific again become a wasteland by arguing that reducing all Naval cost further would make that rule not necessary. That was other people’s argument. Then I read the posts on “The aberration of defenseless transports” and responded to those arguments that reducing transports along with all Naval units was the answer.

Now the other Pacific NO’s. I don’t like them, but it is pure preference. I have my reasons but I don’t want to start a new argument but I understand why people like them. I would make them different but again don’t want to start a new argument. Overall I love the game, the changes to the 2nd edition like improved shipyards that made Naval Units even cheaper, ect…

@eddiem4145:

If fact I made that point to Mr. Roboto and declined further arguments regarding this since he was not able to address my points as opposed to re-categorizing my arguments as something silly.

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.

I then proceed to give multiple examples of how reduced Navy cost would affect the game in a bad way (benefiting axis only, while they are having the edge already):
-sealion way too strong
-containing+conquering India too strong
-removing the need to build factories in shantung/kwangtung etc, giving japan more advantages
-containing anzac too strong
-unit limitation in sydney, since there is only one minor
-conquering egypt too strong
-conquering gib, followed by a landing in mainland africa before US even enters the war

You were not able to remove even one of these arguments so far.

You only say that the action in the pacific at the moment is only forced by the DEI NO and the 6VC. So you want to remove them, which would reduce the action to a minimum. then you want to lower naval cost to bring the action back to where it was before
Not only are you trying to achieve what is happening already, your assessment of the NO is just wrong. 5 bonus IPC are not the driving factor in the pacific.

On a side note: You mentioned Improved Shipyards a couple of times already to further validate your proposal. Let me just tell you that this optional tech is actually not a reduce in navy cost. To get that tech, you’d have to spend averagely 180 IPC. (5 IPC per die. 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 and another 1/6 chance of getting shipyards). It would require a very, very long game to make that investment worth it. Now I know this calculation is not really optimal. If a player decides to tech (which is a bad decision, from a mathematical point of view), the air+naval table usually has more than 1 useful tech, so if you get the “wrong” tech it’s not wasted most times. But still -> the introduction of the shipyard tech was in no way meant because the general navy cost would be too high.

@eddiem4145:

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.

@eddiem4145:

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.

@eddiem4145:

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-Samoa

In 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

@eddiem4145:

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,  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.