Real value of units

To make cruiser and battleships preform better one can take back the old revised rule that units killed by naval bombardment does not fire back.

It would encourage action in the Pacific and you no longer need many of the National Objectives the Japanese has that force it to go all out in the Pacific and force the US to go all out in the Pacific. The victory city rule of 6 cities for Japan is what throws off the balance towards the axis. Japan only needs to conquer Hawaii once it takes China and India.

It forces the US to spend inefficiently putting the majority of its resources in the wrong area.

Besides, this post is about the real value of units. Well the game was always broken in the sense of a lack of action in the Pacific. That problem always stemmed from the massive cost of building a navy. Remember when Battleships cost $24 and one carrier and 2 planes cost the entire IPC’s of the US for one whole turn. Both the US and Japan realized those funds should be spend on the Asian and European mainland where you would get more of a return for what you spent. So they ended up ignoring each other. So the fix was to very slightly reduce the cost of a Navy and come up with unrealistic, illogical NO’s, some which lack any historical value to force action in the Pacific.

Heck, lets go further. Transports $2, Subs $3 (Attack at 2 defend at 1-Infantry are similar and only cost $3)
Cruisers $6 attack and defend on 3 like tanks so why not, ect…. ect… ect…Why should it cost so much more to build a Navy vs. an Army. You couldn’t reduce the cost of planes very much without altering the land warfare metrics, so why not let fighter pick their targets. If both sides have planes, each would pick the other sides planes. This would spawn some realistic air to air combat bringing more historic type battles.

In terms of objections that such cheap transports alter it to much for the allies, all you need is to offset it with more subs for the Germans, but then again, subs are cheaper for the Germans so it alterations would be minor if none at all.

Bottom line, Navy’s are still way to expensive. Lets fix it.

I dunno,

Wouldnt much cheaper ships make Germany’s job much harder? Usually every German ship bought means better chance for Moskou to survive and run amok.

The allies, ofc, do not suffer from this handicap.

On the other hand, if Germany would go for a Sea Lion I think it could perform much better than nowadays, maybe even too good…

And last but not least: Ships usually take MUCH more TIME to build both during WW2 and at present time. Carriers easily taking two years to construct.
I think the higher price for ships represent that fact, because if ships are so cheap, Nations would produce carriers and battleships at a rate that is totally out of historical context.

eddiem4145,

The changes you are proposing are so radical that perhaps it would make sense not to use this game as a base because you would need to redesign the entire setup as well as key game mechanics.

I don’t think you would have to change anything at all. In my game we have played with the US and Japan already having improved shipyards. This takes it one step further.

I don’t see why anything would have to change. The only thing might be the relationship between the US and Germany. The transports would be extremely cheap but so would subs. Germany is still going to focus the majority of its resources on Russia. You would also get more action in the Med too.

If transports cost 3 IPC, I would conduct Sea Lion in virtually every game where I played Axis.

If planes could choose their targets, Japan and Germany would be greatly empowered because they have an enormous starting air advantage as well as more money than their primary targets like Moscow and Calcutta.

Letting Germany target the Soviet air force first would reduce Soviet odds significantly since they’ll lose their best defenders in the first rounds while in return Germany will only lose a couple of its best attackers.

This would be be even more crazy in naval battles because the attacker could damage all of the enemy carriers then retreat simply to deny landing zones for the defender and force all of their planes to crash, or it could sink all destroyers and take massive advantage of sub surprise strikes.

You mean Sea Lion would be an option like in the real war!!! The only reason it wasn’t an option was because they lost the air war due to the British advancement in radar and strategic mistakes by Germany.

So yes, Sea Lion should be an option, but to think it would be an automatic is wrong. Britain still goes next. So Germany could have 4 transports instead of 2, well Britain goes next and could easily defend it with troops. Of course that would hurt them against Italy, but that is the point isn’t it. Gives Italy a chance. And if Germany went all out on transports, Britain could still defend against it. But if Germany won most of the time, don’t think surrendering a whole turn of IPC’s to take Britain doesn’t have its consequences against Russia.

But I stick with the idea Britain could easily defend against it, but again with consequences against Italy.

My ultimate point is this, ultimately, units might need to be adjusted and my points for change I think are unchallengeable in terms of a new edition.

But for the current game for house rules and trying to keep it simple, you would just not reduce the cost as much as I am suggesting to solve the balance of the game. Bottom line, after the first turn and the opportunity for Sea Lion is over, the US gains the advantage. But not by much because German subs are also cheaper.

As far as fighter picking their targets, I meant that only for the Pacific where it is more realistic. Since you can’t proportionally reduce the cost of fighters without having a major negative affect on land battles, in order to reduce naval cost the way I am suggesting, fighters would lose their importance in the Pacific since they would be over priced. So to keep their importance, you make them better, like letting them pick their targets.

You could modify how and to what extent, but since the naval units are now so much cheaper proportionally, it would work I think. You would just have to go into battle with your own contingent of fighters. Since fighters have that capability, you would always pick the enemies fighters first, and the side with fighter still standing would get the edge.

THINK ABOUT IT. That is how the battles were fought. A Navy without air cover was toast. Fighters were launched to take out the attackers air power before they reached the Navy. Of course navies has some anti-aircraft protection, so giving Capital Warships some sort of AA defense might be warranted but I don’t think necessary since the ships are so much cheaper.

This may make it more complicated without major testing so let me bring it back to my main point.
Navies are way to expensive. Reduce their cost.

I think you’re underestimating how much this will help the Axis in the early game (which is critical). I would be happy to test play your price structure in a game on the forum via tripleA to demonstrate.

I think reducing naval cost without other setup changes may be possible, just not so severely.

Your other idea still suffers from the fact that the Axis start with far more planes.

This is the price structure I have played with. And this is the price structure I have repeatedly pushed for.

Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10

In my last post for this subject I suggested going even further and reducing the cost even more, which I have not played with. Those costs as you could see were to cheap compared to fighters so as consequence I suggested letting fighters pick their targets in Naval battles since reducing fighters even more would pose great problems for land battles. Any changes to extreme would bring unforeseen negatives, but I would like to test it against a human being. This would be the most extreme cost structure.

Transports $3 (they are defensless)
Sub $4
Destroyers $5 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $6
Carriers $6
Battleships $9

Fighters $8 (Maybe on a roll of 1-2 they pick their target, at sea only, which would probably be more realistic after seeing a document in Battle 360, D-Day in the Pacific. Not sure how you would do this on Triple A though?)
Tac bombers $10 (target picking same as fighters)

I am not interesting in testing the “planes select targets at sea” idea since waiting for OOL in a non-live game would be tedious.

If you want to test the extreme price structure we could announce our Buy in a forum post and then edit the power’s IPC to the remainder before combat. Then we would add whatever the Buy was onto the board during mobilize using the edit function. This would also be more tedious than normal, but wouldn’t require any extra OOL delays.

If you’re game, take the Allies and choose a reasonable bid (since it is my argument that this will tilt balance towards Axis).

Are you able to just modify the cost of the units so you don’t have to go back and forth.

Unfortunately that isn’t a feature, so you’d have to mess with program files to change unit costs permanently.

Using the edit function to remove IPC and add units is easy though.

I just want to say that Japan is doomed, of Japan doesnt Build strong Navy because of all the convoy. With only China and India and some Russin territories, Japan will only earn something like 20-30, as much as anzac. That’ll lose pacific for you

@MrRoboto:

I just want to say that Japan is doomed, of Japan doesnt Build strong Navy because of all the convoy. With only China and India and some Russin territories, Japan will only earn something like 20-30, as much as anzac. That’ll lose pacific for you

Mr. Roboto are you talking about AAG40?
Because with only China and India and some Russian territories, Japan will earn at least 60 IPCs.
FYI I assumed if Japan controls Calcutta and China it has also taken without a doubt: Burma, Shan State, Malaya, French Indo, Hong Kong. Especially with China and India gone. And I bet Philipines can be taken as well for another 2 IPCs but since you didnt mention it I left it out.

And I bet that with India and China out of the equasion and the Russians fighting for their lives against Germany, Japan could have gotten those other 9 IPCs as well (West-India + 7 more Russian territories): 69 IPCs.
  And while we’re at it, with India gone, those 20 IPCs from the DEI + Borneo should be Japanese as well. I estimate the IJN at start of the game strong enough to achieve than ;-) : 89 IPCs.

But let’s keep it at 60 IPCs for only the mentioned territories.
I estimate the maximum convoy damage that can be done to Japan at 11 around and that’s only as long as the IJA and IJN are busy elsewhere, or 20 around very late in the game (like J12+) when the USA is so strong that the war is lost to Japan anyway.

@ItIsILeClerc:

@MrRoboto:

I just want to say that Japan is doomed, of Japan doesnt Build strong Navy because of all the convoy. With only China and India and some Russin territories, Japan will only earn something like 20-30, as much as anzac. That’ll lose pacific for you

Mr. Roboto are you talking about AAG40?
Because with only China and India and some Russian territories, Japan will earn at least 60 IPCs.
FYI I assumed if Japan controls Calcutta and China it has also taken without a doubt: Burma, Shan State, Malaya, French Indo, Hong Kong. Especially with China and India gone. And I bet Philipines can be taken as well for another 2 IPCs but since you didnt mention it I left it out.

And I bet that with India and China out of the equasion and the Russians fighting for their lives against Germany, Japan could have gotten those other 9 IPCs as well (West-India + 7 more Russian territories): 69 IPCs.
  And while we’re at it, with India gone, those 20 IPCs from the DEI + Borneo should be Japanese as well. I estimate the IJN at start of the game strong enough to achieve than ;-) : 89 IPCs.

But let’s keep it at 60 IPCs for only the mentioned territories.
I estimate the maximum convoy damage that can be done to Japan at 11 around and that’s only as long as the IJA and IJN are busy elsewhere, or 20 around very late in the game (like J12+) when the USA is so strong that the war is lost to Japan anyway.

I count 12 in China, 1 in Burma, 2 in West India, 1 in Iwo Jima, 5 from having India. Thats 21. With a couple of Russian territories and maybe a little luck with convoy, you get to 25-30.

If Japan doesn’t build navy, as was suggested earlier in this thread by someone, that’s what’s gonna happen from J6 or J7 on.

@MrRoboto:

@ItIsILeClerc:

@MrRoboto:

I just want to say that Japan is doomed, of Japan doesnt Build strong Navy because of all the convoy. With only China and India and some Russin territories, Japan will only earn something like 20-30, as much as anzac. That’ll lose pacific for you

Mr. Roboto are you talking about AAG40?
Because with only China and India and some Russian territories, Japan will earn at least 60 IPCs.
FYI I assumed if Japan controls Calcutta and China it has also taken without a doubt: Burma, Shan State, Malaya, French Indo, Hong Kong. Especially with China and India gone. And I bet Philipines can be taken as well for another 2 IPCs but since you didnt mention it I left it out.

And I bet that with India and China out of the equasion and the Russians fighting for their lives against Germany, Japan could have gotten those other 9 IPCs as well (West-India + 7 more Russian territories): 69 IPCs.
  And while we’re at it, with India gone, those 20 IPCs from the DEI + Borneo should be Japanese as well. I estimate the IJN at start of the game strong enough to achieve than ;-) : 89 IPCs.

But let’s keep it at 60 IPCs for only the mentioned territories.
I estimate the maximum convoy damage that can be done to Japan at 11 around and that’s only as long as the IJA and IJN are busy elsewhere, or 20 around very late in the game (like J12+) when the USA is so strong that the war is lost to Japan anyway.

I count 12 in China, 1 in Burma, 2 in West India, 1 in Iwo Jima, 5 from having India. Thats 21. With a couple of Russian territories and maybe a little luck with convoy, you get to 25-30.

If Japan doesn’t build navy, as was suggested earlier in this thread by someone, that’s what’s gonna happen from J6 or J7 on.

Arent you forgetting the 26 Japan starts with?
Maybe I am missing an important clue about what you mean but if you say ‘Japan earns’ I assume you mean as grand total  :?.

So, as grand total Japan will earn the 25-30 you mentioned, plus its initial 26 makes 51 to 56.
And I still wonder what happened in your calculation to  Shan State, Malaya (no Island), French Indo China and Hong Kong. All very easy to get for the Japanese -especially if they don’t build any navy early on. That’s another 9 IPCs for a total of 60 to 65. At least  8-).

Furthermore if the USA has such a big fleet J6/J7 already, I would argue the war in Europe looks pretty rosy for the Axis.
In my experience, if the USA wants to do something meaningful in Europe, it can come to roughly even naval forces with Japan J7 in the Pacific. By no means doomsday for Japan but from then on I agree that Japan has to start looking after its navy again otherwise the USA will go over that critical mass, spelling unavoidable doom for the Japanese: then they will be stuck in Asia forever!

I was referencing to the suggestion that Japan does not build any navy at all, but concentrates on taking China+India asap.
In this case, USA will have the bigger navy quite fast. It will defeat the existing Japanese Navy, which leaves Japan with the Airforce and some ground units.
That means that all coastal territories will generate no income at all, due to US and ANZAC submarines. This leaves the mentioned areas.

We can play a game if you want, where you won’t buy Japanese Navy and I will show you how I bring Japan down to 25-30 even with India+China, without losing Europe. Usually this heavy investment in the PAC leads to a fall of Moscow, but the Allies should be able to hold Egypt.
Anzac will earn something around 30 as well (10 original, 15 from DEI and 5 bonus), eventually capturing Malaya or FIC probably. That means that from US7 on, US can spend all ~80ish for the Atlantic. Securing Egypt first and then landing in Norway/Denmark/Normandy for the win.

That’s why I say the Axis are doomed, if Japan does not build any Navy. No dicing or hard mistakes of course…

Aaah, I see!
An allied Japan First grand strategy. Sorry I didnt figure that out by myself but some threads are so long I usually only read the last posts.

Playing a game sounds always fun (tho I have no experience with online A&A). But I cannot promise that I will not buy naval units with Japan as I usually do build ships for Japan and I don’t like wrestling with the promise I won’t use my right arm ;-).

I must admit I normally do not buy ships for Japan for as long as possible. I know the strength of the combined IJA + IJN, which is 39 units@100 Attack factors, or 27 units@63 defense factors followed by 12 units@43 attack factors. In both cases there are also 5 to 7 ‘free hits’ to consider (when a BB or CV is able to soak up a hit, or a sub defending at ‘1’ is taken as a loss).

Since the USA starts at not even a third of this might, Japan can focus its first turns on ‘Mainland Asia’ and/or the money Islands if the USA invests very heavily in the Pac. And I’d say Japan has no choice in the matter at all because it must bring its paltry income of 26 IPCs up to at least 60, in order to at least hold out. I once tried to contest the USA from the beginning but then India gets too strong. Together with China they 'll become a real danger to the Axis cause if unchecked. They must be isolated and castrated at least and, as I keep saying to myself, Japan can strike anywhere but not everywhere at the same time.

I must say, in my group, after our initial successes with the Axis we always loose if playing Axis and always win if playing Allies. Assuming player strength is equally divided and no bad dicing ofc… So I currently have little to no hope for the axis powers.
If you say a US near 100% focus on the pacific will work I think it will indeed. There are many roads leading to Rome (and to Berlin and Tokyo now we’re at it).

And yet I must remain sceptical about any all-in on 1 map strategies for the USA, because I believe that there must be weak spots for all of them. I truly hope the game is better designed than that. I already feel the Axis cause is doomed but if this can be achieved very easily because of the USA goes all in on 1 map then I feel playing the game as Axis is pointless.

The obvious counter versus USA all in on Europe is taking Sydney + Honolulu for the Axis win. And I am trying to find other methods as well but it is hard.
A Pac all in is something I personally have little to no experience with. I once thwarted one as Japan because the USA only bought submarines, which I was able to exploit. So that one doesnt really count. Even more so because Moscow fell too easily (too much Germans left after the battle). No doubt a real fleet build up + a better defense of Moscow is too much for the Axis to overcome, but I must believe Germany and Italy should be able to abuse this somehow.

I want to address some of your points.

First of all, the vast majority of the A&A community agrees, that the axis are stronger in G40. Most even think, they have a very big advantage.
Personally, I think they have an advantage, but it’s not bigger than a 12bid or so.

What I wanted to say is, that Japan HAS to build ships, in order not to be destroyed. The starting fleet will not suffice. And there are transports necessary as well. Of course there is more than just one viable strategy, but if you don’t want an all-out on Moscow+Egypt, with Japan only supporting Germany, you need to buy ships to secure and hold DEI+Philipp (or at least able to recapture them). This is where your money is!

It is possible, to invest 100% of the US income in the pacific, for the first 4-5 rounds, maybe even until US6, without losing the European theater. You need to adapt to mistakes and bad luck of course, but generally speaking, it is possible. With this heavy investment, the combined allied forces will remove Japan from the game, so you can spend the remaining turns all for Germany (Anzac could possibly build bombers every round, or fighters to defend Egypt).

The contrary, however, investing all in europe for the first 4-5 turns as USA, is not possible. Japan will snowball heavily since it can take out China and India one after another, even without big casualties. anzac/hawaii is next. A pacific win is very fast achieved if us doesn’t build in pac.

Yes, that a lot of people think the Axis have the advantage is clear to me ;-).

It depends on what that means, of course, ‘having the advantage’. If that means the allies will loose the game most of the time unless they play with a 12-ish bid, I simply have to disagree from personal experience.
Maybe I need to point out that we mainly use that LL-system because we were sick and tired of those turn 1 battles screwed by the dice so badly that the game was already lost or won right there.
None of us wants to continue a day long game (or even longer) that is already lost to the dice in turn1. The only reason we play with all the dice sometimes is to please some of the players who seem to play on luck and have no clue as to what it means to Axis victory if Germany looses a third (or more) of its luftwaffe in turn1 battles over the atlantic… :-o

I agree 100% with your point on Japan’s need to build ships.

About USA going all in Europe we can probably debate for hours without end  8-). I know it can work and I also know that Japan can exploit it to win in the Pac but its response is rather narrow and heavily prone to mistakes.

Edit: By the way, maybe we should move our discussion towards another thread, that “Axis advantage is bigger than you think” one, seems more fitting.