Real value of units

AA Gun IMO, the price should be 4 or 5 but can fire at four aircrafts.

Tactical Could a tactical be allowed to bomb an ennemy IC? It would be lethal for London… maybe not a good idea.

Cruiser Could be supportable by BB like ER proposed but also could be used as AA on 1-3 planes, all for 12$.

Carrier It would be great if they could have an attack value of 1 like in the old versions.

Battleships The support ability to increase a Cruiser attack by one like artillery is great. Not sure about defense.

Transport Escape ability. Not sure about this. Subs had radar and surface speed higher than shipping vessels in WW2.

Airbase Having the ability to produce one plane could add some spices to the game, especially in the Pacific.

Harbor I love the idea that they can produce naval units. Could benefit UK Europe and Japan maybe too much.

The support ability proposed by ErwinRommel (and also AA for cruisers) really should make it’s way into the game. By adding this, it would give more options to US and Japan instead of only buying fleets dozens of subs and destroyers.

@Amon-Sul:

I have to make a comment about the value of units. From what i have played now i think that some units are too expensive, not too much but enough that they are so rarely bought that it does not help making a very fun and diversed game as it could be.

AA gun 4 IPC / 5 IPC with extra abilities

AA gun is rarely bought. It could either cost 4 IPC or 5 but then it should attack at 4 air units not 3.

AA guns can fire every round at aircraft, rolling two dice @ 1.  Attacker can declare in any combat round if aircraft will be targeting AA guns or ground units, but all aircraft hits must be used only against AA guns when AA guns are the declared target.  Any additional hits by aircraft that combat round are lost.

Its a better solution to the rule than we currently have, makes AA guns a viable defender against aircraft, and doesn’t really pervert the strategies to take London, Calcutta or Moscow which seem to be the only places AA guns really show up in combat.

We’ve played a dozen or so games and these units are never or very rarely purchased, sorted by least purchased first. I think all of these need a minor boost. Note, we do not play with techs.

• AAA [never; not even once]

• Cruisers [almost never]

• Mechanized infantry [rarely]

• Tanks [rarely]

• Subs [rarely]

U guys are funny but in a good way  :-P

AA Gun I agree should be cheaper or hit 4 (hitting 4 would make Japan’s and Germany’s lives more difficult)

Tactical Is fine, attacking power is more important the defending power IMHO.

Cruiser Agree, drop price to 10/11 or make it supportable or make it so bombardment casualties can’t fire back.

Carrier Is fine I think, I shudder at the thought of giving God’s own airforce (Japan) landing pads with two hits and an attack value, would be too great of an Axis buff.

Battleships I don’t know, the ability to enter battles without taking casualties is very good, I could se only doing the bombardment thing.

Airbase Already VERY powerful when used right.

Harbor Already VERY powerful when used right.

And lets not boost Tanks, Mech and Subs shall we shudder :)

@P-Unit:

We’ve played a dozen or so games and these units are never or very rarely purchased, sorted by least purchased first. I think all of these need a minor boost. Note, we do not play with techs.

• AAA [never; not even once]

• Cruisers [almost never]

• Mechanized infantry [rarely]

• Tanks [rarely]

• Subs [rarely]

I find it interesting the different playing styles of different people. In our games, we tend to buy lots of tanks and mechs for almost every country. The US and Germany tend to buy quite a few subs, especially for convoy raiding.

@P-Unit:

We’ve played a dozen or so games and these units are never or very rarely purchased, sorted by least purchased first. I think all of these need a minor boost. Note, we do not play with techs.

• AAA [never; not even once]

• Cruisers [almost never]

• Mechanized infantry [rarely]

• Tanks [rarely]

• Subs [rarely]

No tanks or no mechs would make for a very slow game!

I think much depends on the nation you play.

Clearly you’re never buying anything but Inf and maybe Art as China ;)

Germany can basically buy nothing but Armor and Mech for the entire game.

UK can probably get away with never buying Armor, ever.

US can get away with never buying Mech, ever.

France can get away with never buying anything!

@atease:

No tanks or no mechs would make for a very slow game!

It does. We have a couple of players that buy a LOT of infantry, almost exclusively. The exception is when they are Japan. With Japan they “only” purchase about 40% infantry.

@Spendo02:

I think much depends on the nation you play.

This is very true. The following buys are typical in our games:
Germany = tanks, mechs, fighters, bombers and subs
Russia = Offensive: tanks and mechs with occasional plane. Defensive: Infantry, infantry, infantry
Japan = A little bit of everything. With ICs on mainland it’s tanks & mechs. For transports it’s infantry & artillery. Plus warships and air power.
USA = Often the same as Japan at first, then mostly bombers and subs. Also most likely to develop tech because they have the money.
China = Infantry and occasional artillery.
UK Europe = Transports to get stuff from S Africa to Egypt, possibly an IC for Egypt or Persia, and fighters.
UK India = tanks & mechs plus occasional fighter.
Italy = Transports to try and get army to Africa and planes.
ANZAC = Same as Italy usually, although some games they buy masses of subs.
France = Whatever Germany is buying because Germany OWNS them.

I always found using transports to go between South Africa and Egypt was a waste of time, given that mechs/tanks get there in two turns.

I’d point out that tactical bombers are great purchases for Germany as is.  For +1 IPC you gain +17% accuracy for that final assault on Russia.  Since Germany’s going to already have a stack of tanks for the hit, each of those tactical bombers are going to be utilized to maximum effect.  If we drop the price to 10 IPC we’re just going to exacerbate that problem.

To test your cost theories, try playing a few games where everyone has Improved Shipyards, it should give you a better idea on how that will effect the game.  Not perfect since it doesn’t also decrease TB costs, but I think the TB is fine as is.

is someone suggesting a tach should cost no more than a ftr?

@atease:

I always found using transports to go between South Africa and Egypt was a waste of time, given that mechs/tanks get there in two turns.

That’s true, but a UK player on a budget may not be able to spend that kind of money every turn or most turns.  Another big advantage of the TT shuck is that you can drop off these units into places bordering the Persian Gulf instead during emergencies, which you can’t do with landlocked buys.

@Amon-Sul:

@Jen

We are speaking about a no tech game.

You may have missed the point.  The suggestion is to try a game with the techs that reduce unit costs so that you can simulate the results of these infrequently purchased units being cheaper.

Thanks, Eggman.

Yes, Amon, I was recommending trying a game where everyone had Improved Shipyards just to see how that effected the game.  I feel it is a good starting point because it’s a rule already.  Also, it’s a good starting point because you can apply it in TripleA without too much effort.

Of course, it isn’t perfect, but it was an idea of where you could start and then work around from there.

and yes, Boldfresh, the recommendation was to have tactical bombers cost the same as fighters and I said it isn’t a good idea in my opinion since Germany would royally abuse it, IMHO.

Major ICs NEED to be expensive. I realize they are extremely rarely purchased. One reason for that is the very strict placement limitations – Must be your own original territory and worth 3 IPCs or more.
So, as for the cost of 30 IPCs. There are only 3 nations that could purchase a Major IC with their starting income: USA, Russia and Germany. The USA can’t place any because outside of their three main territories E USA, C USA and W USA, which already have Major ICs (or will as soon as they are at war), no other territories are expensive enough to handle a Major IC. Russia doesn’t have any original territories outside of Russia itself worth 3 or more IPCs.
So, that just leaves Germany with 5 original territories that are capable: Norway, Holland/Belgium, Greater Southern Germany, Hungary/Slovakia and Romania. If we lowered the cost of Major ICs too much, could you imagine Germany with 7 Major ICs? On the other hand, why would they need that many and how much could they really afford to place at them?

The ability to plop down 10 units at once in one place is pretty powerful. If Major ICs were any cheaper, it might make those countries too strong. This would only help out the Axis powers by the way. Besides Germany, the only other countries that would have the capabilities of purchasing a Major IC are Japan (Korea), Italy (S Italy and that would simply be an upgrade) and France (S France, also an upgrade). Although France is an Ally, this would not be a benefit to them no matter how low you made the cost because they usually get taken out Round 1 and even after being liberated are never in any position to purchase an IC.

By the way, the only games I have seen a Major IC purchased was by Germany when they decide to forgo Sealion and head right into Barbarossa. They plop a Major on Romania to build a strong southern army and take the Ukraine, Caucasus and Stalingrad fairly quickly.

@Amon-Sul:

Improved shipyard seems interesting but it is not standard league rule Jen, how many players play that way?

I would if given the option, I think ships are too expensive across the board.  Not because of the price, but more because of the ratio of price between land and sea.  It is far too easy to get diced in the ocean, and not only get bent on position, but also in cash.