Real value of units

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.

@Der:

@simon33:

You can look at it like that. I’m looking at it from the point of view of what makes the game more fun. If I take your baking a cake analogy, do you read the recipe before shopping for ingredients? The current turn order is basically, buy some ingredients, read the recipe (combat movement), bake cake (conduct combat). You have to prognosticate what will be in the recipe to know what you need to buy.

No combat movement would be moving all of your ingredients to stove. ;)

I think my analogy is every bit as valid as yours.

The point is that the need to prognosticate the likely outcome of the board at the end of your combats is unnecessary, time consuming and reduces the fun. Whether the current rule makes sense or not isn’t really relevant.

The point about forgetting to purchase isn’t really valid with a Triple-A game because it prompts you. You can say that a forgotten purchase is a zero purchase if you apply the rule strictly. In general I would expect so if a retrospective purchase gives an unfair advantage.

Face to face, I use a merged purchase+combat movement phase. Probably why we can play a game in a day.

Extremely well thought out, I wouldn’t play it to be honest, but I admire your creativity.

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?

Didn’t think of this happening. :| I guess you’d just have to have at least 1 defending unit fighting at any one time, regardless of the amount of paras.

Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.

I admit that realism is compromised here, but if elite infantry are allowed to fill all these roles, it will mean less unit types and therefore less compexity. Believe me when I say I’m still all for historical accuracy and realism, this is just my take on things.

everything should be updated now.

Here is a price list I came up with to use for casual face-to-face A&AR games. Basically it increases the price of land units and reduces the cost of naval units to make the overall purchases throughout each game more varied. It reduces stacking so the game plays quicker which is great if you want to finish a game in one evening.
What’s also great is that it changes the strategic options enough so you can’t really rely on following the standard strategies you find on the internet. There might be better options out there now, especially since it’s so cheap to build a navy.

Infantry: 5 ipc
Artillery: 6 ipc
Tank: 8 ipc
Fighter: 10 ipc
Bomber: 12 ipc

Submarine: 5 ipc
Destroyer: 8 ipc
Transport: 10 ipc
Aircraft Carrier: 14 ipc
Battleship: 16 ipc

AA-Gun      5 ipc
IC            10 ipc