Real value of units

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.

On a side note, I find the biggest possible utility for fighters is anti-surface warship units mostly for Germany.

Exactly, but I would go farther. That is there only real use. For Germany specifically, fighters are to expensive to give up on infantry with artillery, and armor with mechs to reinforce the lost infantry in the front.

For Germany, holding territory is a lot more important and as such, fighters are only bought to threaten coastal forces and still can be used as needed for ground combat. But the point is that they are to rarely bought for Germany and Russia compared to how the forces of those days were made up. Fighters should comprise at least 10% of a modern force like Germany, Bliztkrieg anyone? At least. The forces start off near that, because they are given to you. After that the percentage of the forces that make up the air force just gets smaller and smaller.

There unrealistic cost is why they started out Japan with so many, because there couldn’t be much of the historic type battles because they cost too much.

With my idea of reducing the cost of all Navy’s, you would have to respond in kind by reducing the cost of fighters. But not to much to replace armor. $8 is a good figure.

I hope to see more people support the idea of much cheaper navy’s for any future 3rd edition.

It’s not their only utility, they also add significant punch for that last push on Moscow and have utility in trading territories (which cost the Russians more than it costs the Germans.)

Though, I have to say Strategic Bombers are significantly better than fighters as is.  For 2 IPC you get +2 movement which pushes the allied fleets further out and still gives you threat deep into Russia (let’s not talk about how nice it is to permanently ping that major complex in Russia at 0 production with a mere 4 or 5 strategics around.)

Re cruiser: True, the are never bought because bad value for money.
15 Destroyer easily kill 10 cruiser for the same money and they cannot even detect submarines.
I think 11, more likely 10 would be an appropriate price for them.

Battleship: I think they are a bit underestimated and the only reason why not bought that often because often one simply needs more flexibility and blocking capabilities and this prefers DDs any time.

However they are way less ineffective in terms of value for money than Cruisers.
When fleets get very large, 20 DD + 4 Battleships do 51/1/48 vs 30 DD
40 BS + 8 DD already score 55% vs 60 DD.

this is not very relevant as fleets usually do not get that big and still, more hitpoints = more flexibility. But considering the healing capability I think I would frequently buy battleships if they’d cost 18. Especially in a defensive position with e.g. Japan facing a KJF, this would make annihilation battles a bit less attractive. However this would also depend on the price of a carrier, I think 16 is appropriate.

aa gun for 4 is also a valid idea. They are usually never bought unless facing a decisive battle, usually on India or Egypt.
However, in this case already the price of 5 is good value for money.
When facing an attack with overwhelming amount of air, 1 AA gun improves the odds of the battle better than 1.2 Inf when 3 shots would be guaranteed.

But still, I think 4 would be also a good idea, maybe one would buy them a bit more often then.

Regarding the rest, I think any change in prices would influence the dynamics of the whole game without any need.
And also AA for 4 would usually prefer the Allies.

Changing prices for TT would be an unnecessary change in a currently nicely balanced game.

I think JDOW has a point, the Destroyer is purchased more often because it’s cheap fodder - not because it is superior.

As for me, I buy cruisers, but then, it’s because I want the shore bombardments for Normandy/Germany/S. France usually, it’s not about fodder, it’s about 2 cruisers = punch 6 so 1 hit usually vs 1 battleship which has punch =4 which means 33% of the time you are going to miss.  (By that point I should have a half dozen loaded carriers anyway, and destroyers.)

It’s not better or worse destroyer vs cruiser, it’s utility and function as well as time in the game.  If we reduced the cruiser in price to 10 then there would be no need at all to ever purchase battleships - unless we just make it that a battleship hits once a round every round it’s undamaged and attacks at 4 for each round it is damaged but alive.

Destroyers are bought for the fodder and that makes them superior. 3 destroyers vs. 2 cruisers is the same price. 3 destroyers will always win by far. Getting a one time bombardment is rarely worth it, although there may be a case for it.

But the point is, the destroyer is not suppose to be or was ever the work horse of the Navy’s at the time. Only shields against subs. So for the purpose of naval power, the way it is now, you would never, or should never buy destroyers or battleships. Ever. It is never worth it.

It is true that changing the prices would alter the game balance. Exactly how, I am not sure, but if it was ever done for a new edition, the proper adjustment would have to be made. But they need to be made. The way it is now is not very historical or realistic. Navy’s are still way to expensive and require to much of you resources.

See, in my mind they are incomparable units.

Cruisers hit more often than destroyers.  So if you have the money for two cruisers or three destroyers, and you already have 100 submarines and 200 destroyers in your fleet, why not get the cruisers for the increased punch?  It’s like buying tanks.  Sure, 3 artillery is better than 2 armor, does not mean you don’t buy armor!

Also, I use cruisers a lot for shore bombardments.  Transport + Cruiser + 2 Infantry means I generally take an island from one defender.  As the Americans I can almost always afford a couple cruisers for behind the scenes.  (not to mention, the odds of a fighter coming out and trying to hit your cruiser by Japan is far less than the same fighter attacking a destroyer.  17% higher odds of losing the fighter!)

What I am saying is, they are different units and you have to look at more than just cost and punch!  There’s cost, punch, ability, what you already have on the board, etc.  Now Battleships, for instance, could be compared to cruisers as they are virtually identical units in as much as they are used the same way, they have the same abilities, it’s just harder to sink a battleship.  In that regard, I would say the cruisers are by far superior to the battleships (you can buy more, the off shore punch differential is negligible, and you can split them up.)