Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes

@Baron:

Thanks guys for your reply,
I think I really find the solution and it was under our noses.
The issue about 6 IPCs Subs is that it shouldn’t be the fodder of the sea, but 8 IPCs Destroyer.
Larry Harris fixed this issue by requiring that planes need Destroyer to hit Submarines, so not bringing into combat a Destroyer will prevent the defender to use submarines as fodder against a massive Air attack.

Your 8-8-8 was part of the solution Toblerone77.
Destroyer is still A2 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit, block Submarine’s no hostile SZ and Surprise Strike on 1:1 basis
Transport is A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit (I prefer chosen last for historical , but the Classic transport is OK, from a gameplay perspective)

The real change is to make Submarine absolutely not interesting unit as fodder.
Here is the trick, I think:
Submarine A3 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit, Submerge and Surprise strike, cannot hit plane and the rest as OOB.
Need 1 DD to block 1 Sub’s Surprise Strike.
Works the same as yours Der Kuenstler, with KNP escape always possible during regular combat phase, except 1 thing: planes can always hit submarines (DD not needed, but they can submerge before being attacked, if the Surprise Strike Phase is not blocked).

On offense, such Sub can be prefered over Destroyer A2 and even sometimes, Cruiser A3 and Fighter A3, simply because you will be able to directly hit Warships, even capital warships (the costlier units), with even a bonus by getting ride of enemy’s DDs and being able to retrieve Surprise Strike. So submarine would not be chose amongst the first fodders casualties.

At first glance Sub seems more powerful.
In fact, this Sub unit is weaker than the actual OOB Submarine with DK’s HR.
4 OOB Subs A2 D1 C6 = A8 D4 C24, 4 hits.
3 Subs A3 D1 C8 = A9 D3 C24, 3 hits.
4 Subs A2 OOB 57% vs 3 Subs A3 38% for 8 IPCs Subs, if both were attacking the others at her attack factor.

On offense, it is still a formidable weapon, but on defense and due to the similar cost with Destroyer, it will be a waste to sacrifice them as fodder since you can always Submerge (once the first regular attack has been done against them, in case when many DDs are attacking) to make a better use of them on the offense. Let them survive to fight another day!
Why would you keep them as fodder to pad your fleet on defense, since they are now vulnerable to plane but unable to hit them like DD can?

I think this new combat value and the same cost as Destroyer and the evasive Submerge will do the job by itself without the need to add a specific restriction on casualty picking as I suggested earlier.

The optimized choice of any owner’s will be clear. You can use Subs as fodder on defense, but it is at a huge tactical cost, since this more expensive Submarine is an offensive weapon, hitting as hard as a Cruiser on specific targets, such as BB, CV and Cruiser. That was the case OOB, but since it was the cheapest warships, it was clearly tantalizing to pick them as casualty.

What do you think of this?
Isn’t that simpler?
No special rule for plane.
No unlimited blocker capacity for DD, keeping 1:1 against Surprise strike and no hostile SZ only.
A Submerge capacity which is not block but only delayed until the regular combat phase, which still imply that Planes needs to bring X number of Destroyers to prevent X number of Subs from submerging during their Surprise Strike phase.

Do you see why it was mostly right under our nose? :wink:

I believe it is the better way to simplify every interactions.

Of course, the cost of Submarine is increase to 8 IPCs, this make any Naval investment still a bit costlier.
Of course, there is the OOB transport at 7 IPCs, but I rather prefer a transport acting like other units, as much as possible while still keeping OOB balance.

So here is the complete roster with the minimal changes to planes, Destroyers, Submarines and Transports:
Infantry A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery

Mechanized Infantry A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank

Artillery A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

Anti-Aircraft Artillery A0 D0 NCM1 Cost 5, 1 hit,
up to 3 @1 preemptive against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser

Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz or allow MechInf to blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.

Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 8
Surprise Strike (except when ASV is present),
Submerge (instead of rolling to hit a target),
No Hostile Sea Zone (except when ASV is present),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.

Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 8
Anti-Sub Vessel on 1 DD:1 Sub basis:
blocks Surprise Strike and No Hostile Sea Zone
but cannot cancel Sub Submerge (which will happen for defending Subs in regular combat phase after the attacker rolls, if a DD block the Sub’s Surprise strike).

Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, still taken as last casualty.

Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 11
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 12
Shore bombardment @3

Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 12
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 14, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 20, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4

Now, here is an alternate scale of cost for those which wanted more warships for their bucks, it keeps all the combat ratio between them very close to OOB :
Instead of having a bottom cost of 8 IPCs for Naval units, it is put at 6 IPCs:

Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 6
Surprise Strike (except when ASV is present),
Submerge (instead of rolling to hit a target),
No hostile sea-zone (except when ASV is present),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an ASV.

Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 6
Anti-Sub Vessel on 1 DD:1 Sub basis:
blocks _surprise strike_but cannot cancel Sub submerge (which will happen for defending Subs in regular combat phase after the attacker rolls, if a DD block the Sub’s Surprise strike).

Transport A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit,
Works as classics: casualty taken at the owner’s choice,

Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 9
Gets A4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or a Tank.
Cannot do interception mission on defense, TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 9
Shore bombardment @3

Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
SBR/TcBR Attack @1,
SBR/TcBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

1942 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 11, 1 hit
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 Cost 12, 2 hits
carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)

Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 15, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4

I really think this scale can be funnier (letting people buying more impressive sculpts than just tiny ground units) while still requiring the same 8 IPCs for transports investment, this make them costlier than the basic fodder unit at 6 IPCs.
This can let give up the “taken last rule” and let to the player’s hands all the decision on casualty.
The combat values of each units will speak for itself to help the player minimize the effect of losses and maximize the potential combat values it can preserves. The cost and combat values most of the time will be enough incentive, so the “unit general behaviour” (motives for buying it, offensive or defensive combat function, Non-Combat Move and usual casualties order) works in the way intended for this kind of unit.

@Narvik:

In the current A&A Global game, the units are misused in a gamey way. Subs are used as fodder in naval battles, and this is historical not correct since subs were the most expensive and time consuming ships to build. But even worse, to kill a group of 5 subs, you can send in one destroyer with 10 Bombers, and you only lose your destroyer. Or you can send in one destroyer with 5 Battleships, and they absorb all the hits. Now this are all tactics that an experienced player can use against a beginner just for fun, but it feels wrong.

Among the tons of house rules to fix this issue, I favor to let destroyers be the only units to hit subs. This is almost historical correct. The game start in 1940, and planes did not sink subs before 1945. It will also get rid of a lot of special rules, like the sneak attack etc. So, if you play on the current Global map, and want to target the convoy zone outside UK, you just send in 2 German subs. Now, if there are a UK fleet there, they cant roll against subs. Only destroyers can. And one destroyer roll one dice, and maybe sink one of the subs. Now if there are 3 UK destroyers there, they roll 3 dice. That is a simple rule, and I cant understand why its not an OOB rule.

But then we got the problem that a convoy zone adjacent to UK is very easy to protect. UK just place a lot of destroyers there, protected by scrambling fighters and a fleet. And this is just like in the real world. German subs almost never sank ships in port. But the Global map don’t have convoy zones out in the ocean, only adjacent to land, where they are easy to protect. So IMHO that is a flaw. Making the A&A Europe 1999 map superior, when it comes to commerce raiding.

Is that true about Submarine being costlier to built than Destroyers?
If that’s true, so placing OOB 1942/G40 Subs at 6 IPCs vs 8 IPCs for DDs or in Revised: Subs at 8 IPCs vs 12 IPCs for DDs was for game balance purpose.
So it can also be acceptable, from a nearer historical truth perspective, to put Submarines at the same cost as Destroyer, for instance 8 IPCs.

@Der:

@Baron:

My first impressions are that 1 DD:1 Sub combined with Subs surprise strike makes Destroyer weaker than Subs.

On opening moves, German’s two Atlantic Subs were very successful because 1 single preemptive hit was enough to sunk the destroyer without any retaliation. This left a weak Transport defending @1 against two Subs.

The USA’s DD+planes easily get rid of 1 Atlantic Subs in the first round (the other sub submerge) but, again, the surviving DD was no match against the 2 remaining U-boats (1 which was able to submerge in the previous battle and the other coming from the previous assault on UK’s Battleship.) The destroyer was again sunk by a preemptive strike.

So, attacking Subs were already deadlier on the same IPCs basis than Destroyer.
But, in any numerical advantage over DDs, it is even more deadlier if DDs cannot retaliate.
And compared to Subs against Subs, in which all defendings Subs still keep their roll @1, it seems very strange and quite unhistorical: Subs can retaliate while Destroyers can’t.

To Der Kuenstler,
I’m wondering if you get a similar issue with your Subs on the 1:1 DD’s blocking capacity?
And, if not, why?
Is it because of your Classic transports, used as first casualties, thus letting DDs retaliate?
Or because in your play-test all Subs were going Convoy raiding instead of chasing DDs and TPs?
Or maybe, you didn’t see this as an issue?

In my house rules if one sub attacks one DD, the DD still takes away all of the sub’s special abilities - it does not get a free shot - it fights as regular. If 2 subs attack one DD, the DD takes away the special abilities of one of the subs, so only one sub gets a first shot attack.

The way to keep subs under control with the 1:1 rule is not to let them outnumber your DDs. The US and Britain can both buy DDs vs Germans subs so this shouldn’t be a problem for them. Also, the DD’s should be aggressive and go attack every sub they can see with plane backup - that way the subs are vulnerable defending @ 1 and likely to get killed before they can escape.

One historical accuracy issue which can rise about the 1 Sub :1 Destroyer blocker rule is that it allows for First Shot Strike against Destroyers which once picked up as casualty (which should occur since it is a fodder unit made to protect the capital warships) never get a chance to retaliate. Does this happen very often? Too often?
It is clear that this cannot happen with OOB Destroyer.

For now, I can just say that rising the cost of Submarine to 8 IPCs (along with an attack factor of 3) makes things more even on the number produces for the IPCs invested.
With Subs at 6 IPCs, this imply that a 24 IPCs investment is assuring a one shot surprise strike against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs.
Thus making this 1:1 blocker, not exactly an even match.
With both units at 8 IPCs, it is only a matter of strategic IPCs investment choice, both units will be on an even ground.
3 Subs at 8 IPCs against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs. Buying Submarines have no immediate advantage over buying Destroyers.
To me, this is an additional reason which make more acceptable this dual changes from OOB:
1- Submarines A3 D1 Cost 8 IPCs
2- Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8 IPCs, only able to block Sub on 1:1 basis.

@Zombie69:

If you make destroyers work against subs only on a 1:1 basis, you’ll have to increase sub cost to 8 IPCs or they’ll be grossely overpowered. It’s already tough defending against subs when you need to spend 8 IPCs for every 6 IPCs spent by your opponent. If every sub that isn’t matched also gets to make a first strike, then it gets ridiculously overpowered for the guy buying subs. Either that, or bring their attack down to 1 (but I don’t think that would be enough).

Thanks for your fast answer, as interesting as usual.
I like it. :-)

So, this time, historical facts can be on the same side as the game change I would try to promote.
Giving the same cost for both Destroyers and Submarines, to solve many issues.

I’m really glad that historical accuracy doesn’t plainly contradict this idea.  :lol:

@Der:

@Baron:

For now, I can just say that rising the cost of Submarine to 8 IPCs (along with an attack factor of 3) makes things more even on the number produces for the IPCs invested.
With Subs at 6 IPCs, this imply that a 24 IPCs investment is assuring a one shot surprise strike against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs.
Thus making this 1:1 blocker, not exactly an even match.
With both units at 8 IPCs, it is only a matter of strategic IPCs investment choice, both units will be on an even ground.
3 Subs at 8 IPCs against 3 Destroyers at 8 IPCs. Buying Submarines have no immediate advantage over buying Destroyers.
To me, this is an additional reason which make more acceptable this dual changes from OOB:
1- Submarines A3 D1 Cost 8 IPCs
2- Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8 IPCs, only able to block Sub on 1:1 basis.

You are right - the subs @ 6 IPC are cheap and dangerous. But then isn’t that what they were in Battle of the Atlantic also? Subs were really the only things Germany could put in the water that worried Winston Churchill and the huge Royal Navy. If you make them “equal” to DDs, then I’m afraid we’re back to seeing them a non-factor again in games. If the RN assumes an aggressive posture, they can send packs of DDs backed by planes and other surface vessels to kill these subs before they have a chance to use their Surprise Strike on them. A DD with 2 fighters backing it will likely sink any sub, which can only return fire @ 1.

I suppose a guy could buy enough subs to wipe the ocean clean, but what would that accomplish? It would have to be done at the expense of losing ground on land. Every sub you buy is one less tank for the push on Moscow, or 2 less infantry to defend land somewhere.

I really appreciate your answer Der Kuenstler.
It helps me see deeper what is the problem about Submarines.
OOB Subs are dangerous on paper but too easily countered by some good containment tactics with Destroyers blockers and a bunch of aircrafts.
When Allies players manage to create a situation in which Axis Submarines are cornered and limited to a defensive stance, they are easily annihilated, too easily annihilated.

The main issue is about Submarine survivability.
Since, on many occasions, they work by themselves, they cannot count on other units for protection.
So, what does matter is to increase their own means of survival to be able to make, at least, a single offensive strike before being sunk.
In your thread Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…, you provided this means by reducing Destroyer capacity in two manners:
1- The 1:1 basis for blocking Submarine by Destroyer clearly increase this survivability.
2- That a Destroyer cannot block Sub’s Submerge is another one which can be combine with the first and really helps making the Submarine the elusive unit it should be.

But some players may feel that it is giving too much to an already dangerous units which, in addition, can be easily used as an optimized fodder when combined to a surface vessel warships fleet.
@MrRoboto:

@Uncrustable:

I will disagree with subs being the best fodder unit on defense. Destroyers are better on defense, and they can hit and take hits from aircraft.

I could show you a complicated formula to prove my point, but let me just tell you:

On sea the best possible defense you can have is 5 subs per each full carrier (+2 fighter). Of course you need at least one destroyer to negate first strike from the enemy submarines. Nothing else beats this combo in defense. In offense the best combo is pure submarine :-)
This combo obviously has one big problem: Air-only attacks. You don’t have cannon-fodder here.
That’s why the ideal defensive fleet is: Full carriers (with fighters), as much destroyer as needed to defend against air-only (approx 2 per carrier). rest submarines (5 subs per carrier). Since submarines are the best in offense too, this combo is something like the dream team.

@MrRoboto:

Submarine: Actually the submarine is the strongest sea unit right now. Nothing is even nearly as good at attacking, as the subs.
But what really surprises most: Submarine are the strongest in defense too, if compared with carrier+fighter. Submarines are the cannon fodder at sea. The best possible defense combination at sea is:
5 submarines per each carrier+2fighter.

This trumps every other combination, IPC-wise. Since submarines are ALSO the best attacking unit, your fleet should basically always look like this:

Enough destroyers to have all the blockers you need
Enough destroyer to kill off convoying submarines.
Enough destroyers to support your carriers against an air-only attack (submarines can’t help here).
0-2 Battleships to absorb hits when attacking smaller fleets (if your carriers can’t be damaged)
5 submarines for every full carrier. More submarines, if you’re the aggressive power.

This means submarines at the moment are too strong. A possible solution would be to raise the cost AND damage. Maybe 8 IPC, but 3 on attack (needs to be calculated, haven’t done that yet). This would mean the sub loses its cannon-fodder status and becomes an attack-only unit, similar to bombers.

@MrRoboto:

The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

That’s why I feel more and more comfortable to reduce the Submarine combat effectiveness on offense (slightly) and defense (25% redux) by increasing the cost at 8 IPCs while giving an attack factor @3 and keeping the defense @1.
Just to let them have a better chance of survival against Destroyers and planes with the 1:1 basis limitation for Destroyer blocking Submarine’s Surprise strike and Stealth Movement only.

Don’t forget, on offense, such Submarine unit is not exactly “equal” to Destroyer on defense.
It is an Attack @3 (more or less with the First Strike, if they outnumbered DD units) against a Defense @2.
Probably giving around 75% against 20 %. It is still a powerful advantage even if both units are at the same cost.
Compared to 4 OOB Subs, which is very similar:
Overall %*: A. survives: 77.8% D. survives: 19.2% No one survives: 3.1%

3 regular attack @3 against 3 regular defense @2.
Overall %*: A. survives: 69.8% D. survives: 24.2% No one survives: 6%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aCru=3&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=3&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

3 First Strike @3 against 3 regular defense @2.
Overall %*:A. survives: 86.6% D. survives: 13.5% No one survives: 0%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=3&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

So, all in all, this Submarine A3 D1 Cost 8, matched with a new Destroyer A2 D2 Cost 8, blocking 1:1 Sub’s Stealth Movement and Surprise Strike only
is slightly weaker in combat compared to the OOB Sub at 6 IPCs but is getting a much higher odds of survival when attacked, due to the change on Destroyer abilities.
With this give and take, a costlier Submarine is still reasonable and well-balance (contrary to what I was afraid of, before you reassure me on how it is OK to have less retaliation capacity even for an ASV unit such as DD).

This main change about parity on cost creates, IMO, a change of perspective on which units worth to be picked as casualty.
That’s why I believe there is no more need to add planes pairing to Destroyer (a patch to limit subs fodder capacity and usefulness), hence providing us a more streamlined and simpler combat interactions.

@Der:

**I suppose a guy could buy enough subs to wipe the ocean clean, but what would that accomplish? It would have to be done at the expense of losing ground on land. Every sub you buy is one less tank for the push on Moscow, or 2 less infantry to defend land somewhere.    **

That is one of my line of questioning.
Maybe one of the reason Larry Harris drop down the subs price at the same cost than Tank was to promote a more historical incentive for a German Atlantic Subs Battle.

Rising the Submarines’ cost to 8 IPCs can forfeit this strategic intent. 2 IPCs higher than Tank and just 2 IPCs below the versatile Fighter.
But maybe this increase survivability can be in itself a better incentive to invest in the Kriegsmarine than the lower cost of 6 IPCs.

Nonetheless, this matter for German’s Navy appeal, makes me provides the other cost structure in which both Submarines and Destroyers are at the same affordable 6 IPCs, while others Naval and Air units are put at a proportionate scale. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1371539#msg1371539
For example the 9 IPCs cruiser compared to 6 IPCs DD is not better than 12 IPCs Cruiser compared to 8 IPCs DDs.
The ratio is the same: two third (3/2).
The only exception which stay at the same cost was the Transport A0 D1, 1 hit, keeping it at 8 IPCs.
Maybe this can still keep the pace of projecting power and ground units, for UK but mostly USA.
And it doesn’t change the cost needed to move ground units from Continental Europe toward UK in a Sea Lion Operation or Africa.

But it is clear that it is a very different ratio of price between land and sea.
Instead of rough double land cost ratio:
Land cost X 2 = Naval cost
1 Artillery A2 D2 cost 4 IPCs = Destroyer A2 D2 cost 8 IPCs
1 Tank A3 D3 Cost 6 IPCs = Cruiser A3 D3 cost 12 IPCs

It would become x1.5 land cost ratio:
Land cost X 1.5 = Naval cost
1 Artillery A2 D2 cost 4 IPCs = Destroyer A2 D2 cost 6 IPCs
1 Tank A3 D3 Cost 6 IPCs = Cruiser A3 D3 cost 9 IPCs

I found someone likely minded on cheaper boat:
@eddiem4145:

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 no 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.

@eddiem4145:

Reading all these replies is frustrating. Doesn’t anyone realize the cost of building such fleets. It has been and continues to be the biggest problem with axis and allies. Navy’s cost to much and are completely unrealistic. The land forces you have to give up to build even the most modest of fleets is ridiculous. The first one to do it only is saved by the foolish reaction of you opponent doing the same thing.

Though not as big as a problem as in the past, it is still a problem and instead of the solution being dramatically reducing the cost of navy’s, Larry came up with ridiculous unrealistic National Objectives (I don’t disagree with them all) to try and force inefficient naval battles in the Pacific. Inefficient because what you spend on Navy’s forces you to give up so much in what could be achieved in Land battles. This goes especially for Japan. The reason all the other versions resulted in Japan going all out against Russia is because it was the only smart thing to do.

But know, essentially all Japan has to do is capture Hawaii and the entire war is won??? So Germany could be collapsing, Italy could be wiped out and ooops, Japan got Hawaii, game over!!! Stupid!!!

Drastically reducing the cost of Navy’s was the right answer and though they were reduced slightly, they weren’t reduced nearly enough.

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

Lets just do it already.

@eddiem4145:

Toblerone,

For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.

In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.

Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.

To the contrary, Mr Roboto is clearly advocating against a cost reduction for transport:
@MrRoboto:

Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.
If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game. And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.

Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual.
Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.

I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place. The action in Pacific is not forced by NO. Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.

The relationship in cost between air force, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.

@Uncrustable:

Moving on…

The biggest problem with drastically reducing the cost of naval units, is you then have to drastically reduce the cost of air units, or face a boat heavy game with little air being produced (hurting Germany the most). Then once you lower air cost, now you must also lower the cost of all land units or see massive amounts of air to very little land purchases (esp from Germany).
Then you are back to square one, everything has the same relative cost, just cheaper. This creates a more hectic game, esp for F2F games, and would require more pieces, namely chips. And most people wouldn’t accept it.

Air is the Achilles heal to your cost proposals, because air operates over both land and sea, and must be balanced likewise.
From a relative standpoint, the cost of naval vs air vs land is perfect right now in my opinion.
And i have played well over 200 games of axis and allies, many of which competitively. Both revised and post revised rule sets.

I do however feel that just lowering the cost of transports themselves would not break the game entirely.

Lets look at the price system as it stands.
Land: Attack + Defense value = cost (Infantry at 1/2 cost 3, arty at 2/2 cost 4, arm at 3/3 cost 6)
Sea: Attack + Defense X2 = cost (Subs at 2/1 cost 6, dest at 2/2 cost 8, cruisers at 3/3 cost 12, BBs at 4/4 would cost 16…but 2 hits to sink increases its cost to 20)
Air: Attack + Defense + Range = cost (Fig 3 + 4 + 4 =11, Bmb 4 + 1 + 6 = 11…they are adjusted respectively to 10 and 12, with Tacbmb at 11 in G40)

Air is what brings it all together. Without air you have more flexibility in cost.

You could, in theory, simply house rule all units and facilities to 1/2 or 1/3 cost, without breaking the game. You would have to use decimals of course. This would give nations more options when it comes to purchases.

But still thinking about it:
@Uncrustable:

Reducing CAs to 10 and BBs to 18 seems to work.
DDs are even to slightly favored still vs both, and SS still beat both on offense, but lose on defense (as they should)

could also go with MrRoboto’s SS idea:
Subs cost 8, A3D1
Raising cost to 8 and attack to 3, leaving defense alone

@barney:

Hi Baron

Just to reply to your message I guess I don’t really have an opinion other than to say it’s worth a playtest.
That and as voiced earlier the higher price may make them less attractive to some.

I say give it a try :)

About this,
you seems pretty skilled about Triple A.
I have a few short questions (but with long answers) about the 1942.2 version of Triple A:

1- Is it hard to change the cost and combat value of 1 single unit, for instance submarine?

2- Is it possible, without too much effort, to delete the necessary pairing of plane with Destroyer to hit submarines?
… Letting plane acting as the naval units, without restriction on unsubmerged submarines?

3- Is there a way to restrict the Destroyer blocker capacity to Surprise Strike and Hostile Sea Zone, so a Submarine would be able to submerge during the general combat phase?

4- Is it hard and complex to learn how to modify some aspects of a Triple A game?

Thanks for your reply.