Real value of units

AA gun, agreed.

Tactical, I see where you are going, but I don’t think it’s too bad the way it is.

Cruiser, I say make it cost 10.

Carrier, I am actually fine with it the way it is.

Battleship, 18 would be enough.

Naval Base/Air Base, they change the flow of the game a lot already. Don’t need them to be cheaper.

Minor IC, since the only UK and Japan will ever need to build them in a regular game, I don’t see the need to increase the production.

Major IC, the only power this can possibly help is Germany, but they really won’t need it.

AA gun, the price needs to be 5 so India can use all its cash the round before Japan takes calcutta. But if it can fire on 4 planes instead of three it would be better.

Tactical should gain support from cruisers.

Cruiser should cost 12, but is supportable by battleships.

Carrier works good already.

Battleship should have a new ability. Flaggship: Support cruisers like artillery support inf and increase both their attack and defence by one.

Transport Escape ability: If there is no surface combat ships present in a round of combat transport ships may attept an escape. At the end of combat sequence, each defending transports who is not destroyed may choose to roll a die, scoring an escape on 3 or less. The tranny is then be moved to any adjacent seazone and is removed from combat.

If all adjent seazones is occupied by any sea or air units its impossible for trannies to escape.

Airbase can produce one air unit if undamaged.

Navalbase can produce one sea unit when undamaged.

And another edit: Fighters intercept at 2 or less :)

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.