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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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
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, Â 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.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
I wonder if you would have time to look over G40 enhancement project (by no means complete)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.0
Both air and naval units are reworked, including battleships transports and cruisers…,
Enhance naval units. a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment return fire at -1(with 1 being lowest)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Same bombardment rules as cruiser.
c) Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 14 IPCs.
d) Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move.
No transport may move 4 spaces under any circumstances
e) Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver, and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Have you read this thread and have an opinion on what is proposed?
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619
Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.
I really like the idea of the transports getting a change to evade. Not sure how realistic that is, but I will definitely be giving it some thought.
People, have we agreed that battleship and cruiser cost too much for what they offer and that their price or/and abilities should be changed?
Battleship - leave alone
Cruiser - add AA Guns, no other change
Perfect. Just my opinion there.
Carrier - increase to 18 IPC if you (as in all of you who think this way) think it makes the battleship to expensive. Or take the 2 hit ability off it?
