@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.
Improved shipyard seems interesting but it is not standard league rule Jen, how many players play that way?
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.
Improved shipyard seems interesting but it is not standard league rule Jen, how many players play that way?
Well the idea was to see how it effected warship production so as to give an idea of what costs could be adjusted to achieve the results you desired.
Tech is a standard league rule this year, it’s just most players opt out of using it. Or I guess you could say some players opt in to use it. (effect is the same either way you look at it.) And Imp Shipyards is a codified rule in the rulebook, so it’s not really a house rule either.
If someone was to arbitrarily adjust the cost of naval units, that would totally be a house rule.
As for me, when I play with friends we always play where each nation picks a technology to start with and there are no rolls for technology at all for the rest of the game. Been that way since forever (except in classic we said no one could pick heavy bombers, because that really was an “I win” button!) It adds a lot of dynamics to the game based on who chooses what. (We go in reverse turn order, btw. France goes first, Germany goes last. I think we got that idea from AARe and their National Advantages system, could be wrong, could have come from somewhere else.) I love tech, personally. In tech games I always throw at least 1 die a round into the mix with major countries. I just wish tech tokens had not been discarded!
Hey Jen,
When you and your friends play and choose techs, does everyone have to get a different tech or can techs be shared by more than one nation? If it is the latter, how do you keep everyone from choosing Heavy Bombers or Long Range Aircraft (still the two most powerful techs I think)?
I realize the choices could depend on people’s playing styles or the particular strategy they have in mind for that game. Super Submarines would be pretty good for Germany at the start, and if they kept buying more subs. Improved Shipyards would be great for Japan and USA, perhaps Britain too. Radar would be good for anyone planning a more defensive strategy (I don’t know how many times I have attacked with planes and just missed getting shot down because my opponent rolled a “2” but didn’t have Radar).
Still, HB and LRA are very powerful techs and could fit into just about any strategy. I would be surprised if in your games you didn’t have a big stack of control markers on one or the other.
Everyone has to choose a different tech and you cannot choose the same one two games in a row.
Oh and we invented a few technologies too. We have our own set of 6 technologies (instead of 12.) Some are combinations like Improved Industry also having War Bonds built in, some are unique like Improved Transportation (Mech can blitz with infantry as per tank rules, minor industrial complexes can move 1 territory, three infantry can be ncmed anywhere on the same continent as long as they do not pass through enemy controlled territory.)
Well that would make things a little more interesting.
Yeah, I remember your list combining the 12 techs into 6. In fact, I have them written down somewhere and put them to use in a couple of games. It sure makes rolling for tech more worthwhile because when you get one, it pays off much better.
Those new ones you came up with sound interesting. I’ve been wanting to come up with a new tech to replace Paratroopers. I don’t like that one as a tech and have plans to make Paratroopers an actual unit that anyone can purchase. We already have US and German airborne and will soon have Japanese too. So, I need to come up with something new to put on the chart.
That one you have about Minor ICs being able to move one territory. That would be especially good if you knew an attack was imminent and wanted to keep it out of enemy hands. I was wondering if the territory it moves to also has to be worth 2 IPCs or more, or do you just use that rule for original placement.
Minor ICs moving 1 territory has no restrictions on territory value. However, if the territory is not worth at least 2 IPC then the complex cannot produce units. Also, complexes that moved were prohibited from producing units the round that they moved. We discovered the need for that rule after we originally implemented it, those Pesky Russians would move their army with a complex and reinforce immediately on the front lines, made them a real B!TCH to clear out! lol.
We also gave each nation a version of special forces units that either cost next to nothing to produce for cheap fodder, or cost the same as mech infantry does but gave them a special ability in a specific type of engagement. I.e. Marines for the Americans would attack at 2 during any amphibious assault (attack at 3 if paired with an artillery) but only in the Pacific theater, or Japan having dug in defenders for a cost of 2 IPC each but with 0 attack, 1 defense and had to be placed on islands and only in the Pacific theater.
We also came up with silly rules like once we played that Africa neither counted for income, nor could be passed through or controlled (turned the entire continent neutral) just to see what would happen to battlefield tactics. Of course, that was back in Revised or Classic, don’t remember which exactly, just that we tried it (and mostly because one of the players got so drunk he passed out and flipped over the table.)
I should really type up my old group’s set of house rules. Since I won’t be driving back to Chicago routinely to play with them anymore.
The point that some units cost to much is obvious. I believe that is why the new set up for the 2nd edition added so many AA guns and bases, because on one would buy them.
The cost of a navy has always been to much since the first Axis and Allies. And though the cost has come down a bit, it is still ridiculously to high. For the us to buy on aircraft carrier with a full complement of planes and a couple of ships, it requires the vast majority of its income for one full turn. That is ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that in order to encourage the foolish expenditure of income for battles in the Pacific, they had to come up with unrealistic NO’s in the Pacific. Does anyone really think that Hawaii should be worth 7 IPC’s for the Japs but only 2 for the US. The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much less than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US.
Instead of making Hawaii worth 7IPC’s to Japan, its loss, even temporarily should result in a one time loss of IPC’s to the bank the US must surrender to equate to some sort of morale loss.
But the most obvious answer to encourage see battles should have been dramatically reducing the cost of Navies.
Transports $4 (since they are now defenseless with one AA roll) Subs $4, Destroyers $6 (they should be cost ineffective compared to cruisers but absolutely necessary to buy to counter act the subs), Cruisers $8, Carriers $10, Planes $8, Tacs $10, BattleShips $14, AA’s $3, Naval Bases and Air Bases $10.
Lets all rally around this concept and send a message to Larry when the inevitable 3rd edition comes out.
The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much less than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US. This should have said "The resources a nations can extract from its own territory is always much more than a conquering enemy can. It would be more realistic for Hawaii to be worth only half to the Japanese what it is worth the US.
If you think the cost of a carrier and a pair of planes is too much for the United States, imagine how bad it is for Japan! The US has no distractions or need to defend land, just help out a bit in Europe and crush Japan with their uber economy. Japan’s got to deal with Australia, India, Russia, China on the ground and Australia, India and the United States at sea.
I’d say drop the cost of carriers to 10 IPC, fighters to 8 IPC and tacticals to 10 IPC, remove the silly NO for not losing any of the 48 Continental US States (if you lose that, you’ve already lost the game, having it in is just pointless.) Replace it by making Hawaii 5 IPC, Midway 3 IPC, Guam 2 IPC and Wake 1 IPC (and make the NO for Japan to control 3 of those 4 island groups.)
Net effect on the US? None. They have the same income and, in fact, get it for a few extra rounds since Japan will probably NOT be taking all those territories in round 1. Even if you gave them a 50 IPC bid, I doubt they would take all 4 territories in round 1.
What it does do is give Japan an chance to take those IPC away from the US. Also by reducing the cost of carriers, etc, Japan’s got a better chance of replacing their carriers and thus putting more risk on the Allied fleets at sea. Likewise, Australia/India might actually be able to afford a carrier AND something else in a round.
Fighter/Tactical price reductions will help out all across the board.
These are just my opinion, untested, off the cuff.
Jennifer
Sounds like we are in agreement. Though instead of a NO for Japan for taking anything, it should be a one time loss, or every turn loss of IPC’s to the US that makes a real sting.
Also, what about reducing the cost of all the other naval ships?
improved shipyards would effectively reduce the price of ships plenty, I think. Except for carriers which I outlined.
I guess the US could take 1d6 dmg to Industrial Production Certificates per island group not under it’s control in place of Japan getting an NO for taking 3 of 4 islands. It’s no worse than getting SBRed - it’s actually slightly better.
Hi All,
This is my first post here, I’ve been browsing the forums for a bit and I’m enjoying the ideas presented. I purchased the 1940 Eur&Pac games and hope to play a game this wknd. I’ve been playing the 50th anny version for a few years now and I’ve been running into alot of the same “issues” that have been presented here.
I’ve always thought the game could use a little tuning, particularly in the naval department.
I don’t have much to complain about the cost of ships especially if you are playing with NO’s on, I just think the dynamics of how they work are a bit flawed. For instance, a pack of fighters taking out a battleship…wouldn’t happen in real life. Think about it, fighters don’t carry bombs, that would be the torpedo bombers or tactical bombers.
How about a rule stating fighters cannot harm surface warships (destroyers/cruisers/battleships/carriers)? I’m sure that would make you think twice about loading up your carriers with only fighters. Carriers normally contained a couple different types of planes, fighters for air to air combat, dive bombers and torpedo planes for striking capital ships. Makes sense to me to diversify what my carriers are carrying.
Another one thats been discussed here and has run through my head a time or two is the “escort” or “fleet” idea. WWII navies didn’t send normally send a single battleship or cruiser out to sea. These were accompanied by destroyers and subs that would escort the capital ships to and from there objective. How about a defensive bonus to battleships/cruisers if accompanied by 1 destroyer AND 1 sub? The battleship rolls 5 or less and the cruiser 4 or less when attacked. I also wouldn’t argue with allowing the 2 hit rule to cruisers as well. After all most “heavy cruisers” in WWII were “battlecruisers” or just a smaller tonage battleship that was easier to produce.
And lastly I dislike the 2 hit rule being used as a free hit essentially. I think if you’re carrier/battleship is hit (in addition to the carrier no longer being able to hold planes) it loses half it’s attack/defense value & the wounded ship can move only 1 space per turn. There need to be consquences for getting that ship hit, especially when they repair for free.
Just a few thoughts that are easily introduced into the game without complicating matters much.
I’d be interested to hear the thoughts on these.
It has been clarified in different places and times that the units themselves, do not represent only one, or a group of that unit. For instances, one infantry doesn’t just represent a unit of infantry, but a whole battalion, division, ect… So in an infantry division, you are going to have anti air craft assets, anti tank assets, ect…
I would assume in the original axis it was the same. A fighter included all the types of planes one might find in a fighter group. Now tactical bombers were recently added to the game for versatility, but I still don’t think fighters are suppose to be just that, fighters.
There a lot of tweaks we can introduce into the game but it would make it more complicated. So I think the easiest changes should be first.
The simplest and most accurate change should be lowering the costs of ships and fighters. Though Jenifer pointed out the improve shipyards help, it is close but not close enough. The main problem is that you have to roll for it and the current rules for rolling has you roll for a breakthrough at $5 per dice, (which is way to expensive), then you have to see what you get, so unless you start with improved shipyards for everyone, it would be a start.
The price of ships across the board just needs to be redone and lowered as I outlined.
Tansports $4 (remember they are now defenseless), Subs $5, Destroyers $6 (They should not be the economical buy, but absolutely necessary to counter subs), Crusiers $8 (This should be the workhorse of the sea) Battle ships $14, Carriers $10, Fighters $8, Tac Bombers $10.
And reduce Air Bases and Naval Bases
Fighters $8, Tac Bombers $10
You might as well remove the ability to buy tanks AND Tac Bombers. They will not get bought by good players with the supercheap fgt at only 8$.
Planes are fine as they are, no need to do anything about them.
The fact is the reason they changed the set up to include so many fighter is because they don’t get purchased as they should. Considering you can’t land where you just conquered means you always have to give up a move. That really leaves fighters with a range of 3. One more than Tanks and you are spending $2 extra dollars for one extra move which would not help you much directly in the front line.
Look, we all at times like to make exaggerated statement when presenting our point of view. But if you played a game with fighters costing $8, i’d like to see you really never purchase tanks. The fact that fighters can’t land on territories they just conquered means everything and they will always be an absolute purchase for specific situations.
Mechs cost only $1 more than normal infantry yet you get only one extra move, just like fighters to tanks. (remember, because fighters can’t land on territory they just took, they only have an effective move of 3 in land battles). But that extra move in proportion is twice that of infantry. Are you telling me you have never or will never buy regular infantry. I think not.
$8 fighters would make absolute sense. At $8 the field would still be far outnumbered with tanks and mechs compared to fighters.
I agree, the utility of the armor unit is in holding newly taken land. The utility of the fighter unit is in being able to retreat. As it is superior to retreat in most instances than to take and hold the territory, the cost of the fighter is slightly more than the cost of the armor.
Tactical bombers, on the other hand, can be paired with armor or fighters so should cost more still than the fighter. Then again, I don’t see why the tactical bomber shouldn’t defend at 4 just like the fighter in all instances and would suggest, if the prices are reduced as I mentioned (for your house rules if you so choose to use them) then you also house rule the tactical bomber to defend at 4 in all battles but attack at 3 except when paired with a fighter or armored unit.
On a side note, I find the biggest possible utility for fighters is anti-surface warship units mostly for Germany.
