Okay guys, let’s get to the real point here. You can say with your new cost structure that it’s better because you get X hits with Y IPCs or that it somehow adds something that you think the game is missing. While you all may make good arguments, it’s really just a bunch of filler nonsense.
What you REALLY want is bigger naval battles with more pieces on the board. That is the only real reason for lowering unit costs – to get more on the board. Granted, it also depends on a person’s personal strategy. For example, perhaps Germany, even with the lower ship costs, decides to NOT buy ships but keep buying land and air to fight Russia. Yet UK and US take advantage of the lower prices and build more ships. So the Allies will have an even greater naval advantage than they would before in the Atlantic. However, if Germany was employing such a strategy of land and air buys, then they have pretty much ceded control of the Atlantic to the Allies anyway
Furthermore, don’t you think lowering the costs of ships could actually hurt some people’s strategies? Perhaps not a veteran player but someone with a more novice or even medium level of experience. The lower prices on ships may entice them to buy more ships when they really need other types of units and they end up critically short on air power or ground units. OR is that what some of you are looking for? Your opponent, enchanted by the lower ship prices, buys too many ships and YOU end up overwhelming his neglected ground forces. For shame! For shame!
One other question: Do any of you play with tech?
I ask this because with the exception of the Cruiser at 10 IPCs, those prices are the same as if you get Improved Shipyards.
So, if you DO play with tech, and you DO get Improved Shipyards, do you lower the prices even further? With your new price structure, here is what you would get with Improved Shipyards:
Submarine = 4 IPCS
Transport = 5 IPCs
Destroyer = 6 IPCs
Cruiser = 7 IPCs
Aircraft Carrier = 11 IPCs
Battleship = 14 IPCs
If you wanted to get more ships on the board, that would surely do it.
I would concede that, yes. The goal is to get more naval units on the board, for larger more epic battles and a more engaging naval game :-D
It could certainly alter strategies, but that is a given with any HR. I would argue that the novice player would also benefit more from having cheaper ships. Often new players want to buy them anyway, and this provides better unit replacement on units destroyed, which is often helpful for less studied players to still achieve a fulfilling game experience, despite getting lots of ships blown out of the water haha.
Playing with improved shipyards tech activated immediately for all players is an idea I have played around with before. This would basically just establish something similar from the outset. The difficulty with Shipyards is probably the cruiser cost as you suggested, but I still feel that this would provide an improved gaming experience for many players.
Right now the cost structure OOB for naval units is rather prohibitive, when compared to ground and air, I think this would bring the ships in line with the ground game. The Allies benefit because they need a navy to cross the Atlantic regardless (so they have to buy ships anyway, no matter what they cost) but I don’t think the advantage would necessarily be totally one sided. Axis too would benefit from having more Naval options. The Germans and Italians, who tend to get blasted from the air, could wage somewhat more effective naval gambits. Japan would of course benefit disproportionately on the Axis side, but that may help to encourage more Pacific expenditure, which isn’t a bad thing in A&A games. Who knows, there might even be some instances here where the Italians can get back into the naval game, or maybe even the Russians in some cases. For sure it would make a minor power like Anzac more entertaining to play. I just don’t see any real downside to it, from a gameplay perspective. I think it favors the fun, especially for new people.
I don’t think the point about a decent unit at a cost of 5 ipcs is inconsequential. It is a way to encourage spending the remainder of 2 ipcs (over the cost of inf) on a naval unit. Surely you’ve experienced this in game? Many players I know have complained about a lack of a strong combat unit at cost of 5 ipcs, the aaaguns will never assume the role of the old cheap tank at 5, but the sub could! That’s why I make the case for 5 ipc subs.
Well, like you said, Japan would really benefit on the Axis side. I am wondering if this would make a KJF more difficult, or about the same since US and ANZAC ships would also be cheaper.
So even if you play with tech, in this case you would simply put every nations’ marker on Improved Shipyards at the beginning so that would be a tech they could no longer go after? Interesting idea. At the very least, that would keep a country like Russia from getting one less “useless” tech (since they rarely if ever buy ships).
Yeah I think for ease of use, it might be desirable to just give “Auto-Tech” improved shipyards to everyone standard. As you pointed out earlier, the values here are very nearly the same…
Unit IPC cost
Battleship 17
Aircraft Carrier 13
Cruiser 9
Destroyer 7
Transport 6
Submarine 5
ps. Also by using the autotech method suggested by Knp, not only do you get the benefit of a more focused tech tree (if you want to play with all the other techs too), but it’s also a lot easier to implement FtF and in TripleA! Excellent call dude, that’s a much easier way to go about it. This has the benefit of plugging in OOB cost values for the tech that are already written in the rulebook. It just gives them to everyone from the outset! So simple!
I actually have not yet hit the Improved Shipyard tech in any of my games. Perhaps because of the way the G40 tech rules make rolling tech a bit of a gamble for the cost, over say the reusable tokens of aa50. Perhaps because few people I play with like to roll for tech anyway, so I haven’t seen it in action. It’s buried in the back of the Europe manual Global section, and not even part of the independent theater games. I didn’t even realize the numbers aligned so well. That’s fantastic! It even makes the cruisers and carriers cheaper than the originally posted suggestions. In my view that would be a net positive.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing with Japan, that hopefully the reduced cost for all players would allow USA to match them (especially if Anzac could get a few more ships into the fight.) This might alter the Anzac naval strat from one that favors Anzac fighters on US carriers, to one where Anzac builds more ships of their own. Especially cheap subs and destroyers, but perhaps also cruisers, or even a carrier deck or battleship, if they manage to get their income up high enough to pull it off haha. Would be cool to see how it shakes out.
I will definitely explore this option in my next game! Thanks again for the input man, and pointing out the tech angle :-D
You can try this in tripleA very easily. All you have to do is launch the normal G40 game.
Click “Enable Edit Mode”
Click “Add technology”
add “Improved Shipyards” to all player/nations before the game begins.
Presto! Cheaper ships for all :-D
Also, I see the logic of trying to pair the values of certain units 2:1, but these numbers above are also already in the game manual. They reflect an OOB option, that actually seems to provide a pretty desirable affect on the naval game, by having some key warships slightly cheaper than the smaller ones they might be paired against. So a carrier at 13 is slightly cheaper than 2 destroyers at 14. But a battleship is slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than the destroyer/cruiser combo, which encourages cruiser buys. Here 3 subs are nearer the cost of 2 destroyers, which would encourage wolf packing. 2 cruisers are slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than a single battleship. Overall I think this cost structure favors the cruiser pretty nicely. The destroyer is still effective as a hunter killer or as a fodder unit, but less overpowered relative to the sub. Meanwhile the transport is less expensive relative to the TUV it transports, and the cost seems to better reflect the fact that they are defenseless as noted by enoughsaid.
Just looking at some of the options, the Carrier + Destroyer combo = 20 ipcs for a pretty clean buy. Cruiser + Transport combo at 15 ipcs also pretty clean. 3 sub combo at 15 ipcs, fairly clean as well.
Overall I think this cost structure is probably ideal, and does a lot of what I’d like to see for the naval game generally, providing more flexible naval purchase options at a reduced cost.
Yeah I think for ease of use, it might be desirable to just give “Auto-Tech” improved shipyards to everyone standard. As you pointed out earlier, the values here are very nearly the same…
Unit IPC cost
Battleship 17
Aircraft Carrier 13
Cruiser 9
Destroyer 7
Transport 6
Submarine 5
This naval cost structure is proportionate and would allow to buy them with less impact and sacrifice on ground units buy. For example, you can buy a cruiser almost at the price of a destroyer; or buy a destroyer and an artillery instead of an infantry.
Considering that Infantry, Mech Inf, Artillery and Tank are at their right price, their is the issue on all this 4 types of air-related units:
AAA, Fighter, Tactical Bomber and Strategic Bomber.
What is a more adequate price for this 4 units with the Improved Shipyard tech as Naval cost?
For example, Cruiser A3 D3 is near Fg combat value, does this means that Fg should be put at 9 IPCs? So, TcB +1 IPC (10 IPCs) and StB +2 IPCs (11 IPCs).
I’m also wondering what could happen if Fg and TcB are change to A2 D2 7? or 8 IPCs as what I suggested earlier in my thread?
Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs
FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.Combined Arms Bonus, Fighter as a close-escorting aircraft for Dive or Torpedo Bombers:
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with, if TcB is able to attack Ground or Naval units or defend against them.Fighter as part of Carrier Air Patrol or of an extended Air Defense System:
Receive +1 Defense if paired 1:1 with an Aircraft Carrier unit or paired 1:1 with an AAA unit.
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)
1 scrambled Fighter from an operational Air Base received +1 Defense.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338630#msg1338630
So, on what criterias could we determined a balance planes cost structure based on Advanced Shipyard?
Well I’m not entirely sure you’d need to, since aircraft still have a much stronger movement advantage over ships (and can land on land), but if you wanted to lower the cost of all Air related units, in a way similar to Advanced Shipyards, I would just go with the “costs 1 ipc less” model, for everyone.
That’s fairly tidy. Puts the fighter at 9, tac at 10, strat at 11, aaagun at 4. This would also cement the submarines position as the sole unit at a cost of 5 ipcs, further encouraging their purchase. I don’t have a major issue with this, provided it was applied evenly. It might be fun. The anti air unit especially, would probably benefit from being a little less pricey. Might be fun to explore. Guess you could call it Advanced Airfields rules, or something similar, if such was your desire :-D
I thought the AA gun was counted among ground units. I know it’s used for defense against aircraft, but in the book it’s listed under the ground units section.
Yeah I think it is, for the fodder aspect and the fact that it moves on the ground haha ;) though baron mentioned it in his list of units.
Right now I’m not sure I see a pressing need to change anything with aircraft. That stuff isn’t mentioned in the OOB game manual either. In my experience people by plenty of air already. Their movement ability gives them the edge and accounts for their cost in my view. But if you did want to do something to them 1 ipc less just seems easiest.
I thought the AA gun was counted among ground units. I know it’s used for defense against aircraft, but in the book it’s listed under the ground units section.
I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Also, if aircrafts prices are lower, then it is needed to get a lower price for AAA unit.
Yeah I think it is, for the fodder aspect and the fact that it moves on the ground haha ;) though baron mentioned it in his list of units.
Right now I’m not sure I see a pressing need to change anything with aircraft. That stuff isn’t mentioned in the OOB game manual either. In my experience people by plenty of air already. Their movement ability gives them the edge and accounts for their cost in my view. But if you did want to do something to them 1 ipc less just seems easiest.
Thanks for the answer.
1 IPC redux makes sense because warship units at 12 or above were reduced by 3 IPCs while 8 IPCs and under were reduced by 1 IPC.
Since aircraft is a very useful unit on both Naval and land battle, a reduction, if needed, shouldn’t be higher than 1 IPC.
On the other side, OOB planes cost is 10, 11 and 12 IPCs. Is just between the high Capitals ships cost from 20 to 12, reduced by 3 IPCs and the smaller ships starting at 8 IPCs, reduced by 1 IPC.
So, the average between minus 3 IPCs and minus 1 IPC is a 2 IPCs cost redux.
This make Fighter at 10-2= 8 IPCs / Tactical Bomber at 11-2= 9 IPCs / Strategic Bomber at 12-2= 10 IPCs.
This could also be the “Advanced Airfield HR cost”, similar and in the same proportion than Advanced Shipyard.
Do you think their cost was based upon ground units or more based to balance Carrier operations?
Or was it based on a Battlecalc treshold?
or A lot of intuitive thinking and play-tests only?
Ground basis: combat value points (7 for Fg) + number of move minus 1 (4 move -1) = 10 IPCs
Same as Inf: 3+ 1 minus 1 = 3 IPCs
Or Carrier A 0 D2 Cost 16, 2 hits + 2 Fgs A6 D8 Cost 20 = A6 D10 4 hits Cost 36.
16 A/D points x 2 IPCs/ hit + 4 IPC for an additional hit = 36 IPCs
So a full carrier (36) is around - 10 % (-3 IPCs) with Improved Shipyard,
this means a 10 IPCs Fg should be reduced by 1 IPC.
This would put a Carrier at 13+18 = 31 IPCs
The Combo Cruiser (9 IPCs) + Destroyer (7 IPCs) = 16 IPCs is cheaper and as dangerous as 1 Battleship (17 IPC)
Clearly the winner in Advanced Shipyard.
@Baron:
I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units. They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft. The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.
@CWO:
@Baron:
I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units. They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft. The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.
Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!
@CWO:
@Baron:
I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units. They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft. The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.
Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!
The Table Tactics Hover Tank or the FA Hover tank would do nicely :-D
Scene from the Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator:
Benzino Napaloni: “Haven’t you heard of our new amphibious tanks that can roll on land, swim in the water and fly throught the air?”
Minister of Propaganda Garbitsch: “Oh, those. They’ve been made obsolete by our new flying battleships.”
@CWO:
@Baron:
I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units. They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft. The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.
I was aware that physically, an AAA is a ground unit and his categorized as such but as a game unit, his specialized role is the most related to aircrafts.
That’s why I said:
“their is the issue on all this 4 types of air-related units:
AAA, Fighter, Tactical Bomber and Strategic Bomber.”
In a game perspective, all units, except Subs, can attack planes but, only AAA can only attack aircrafts and nothing else.
So, the balanced price of the AAA units seems to depends on the cost values of his specific targets.
I rather say that it is this last assumption which needs to be scrutinize, is it true or false from a game perspective?
Since AAA have no other kind of target, if planes have a double average cost, such as 20 IPCs then AAA cost should follow at 10 IPCs.
If planes’ cost is halved at 6 IPCs, AAA cost should be halved at 3 IPCs.
Agree or disagree?
If you lowered the cost of aircraft, I would understand the logic of reducing the cost of aaaguns.
But I think I’m struggling to understand why the reduction in cost for ships requires a reduction in cost for aircraft?
If the only issue is cruiser to fighter parity, then I don’t follow. The fighters cost at 10 is justified by its movement and the fact that it can attack/defend on land. No one seems to have a problem purchasing tons of aircraft in this game, it’s the ships that need the cost reduction in my view. The air is already very potent
If you lowered the cost of aircraft, I would understand the logic of reducing the cost of aaaguns.
But I think I’m struggling to understand why the reduction in cost for ships requires a reduction in cost for aircraft?
If the only issue is cruiser to fighter parity, then I don’t follow. The fighters cost at 10 is justified by its movement and the fact that it can attack/defend on land.No one seems to have a problem purchasing tons of aircraft in this game, it’s the ships that need the cost reduction in my view. The air is already very potent
All Naval units are lowered by either 3 IPCs or 1 IPC.
Their prices were originally from 6 IPCs to 20 IPCs.
All planes are also between this price range (10-11-12) but it is not the case for ground units since the upper units is Tank at 6 IPCs.
Planes works in both Naval and Land battle.
Your answer is based upon the number of purchase to determine if a fix is needed or not.
You say: since planes are popular they don’t need any change in cost.
Maybe it is the only factor we can find to know by intuition if aircrafts are at their due place in cost structure.
I was just asking if anyone have other criteria to say if it is OK or not.
Of course, BB and Cruiser weren’t not popular but we can find the underlying cause with BattleCalc and comparison.
It seems that planes escape that way of evaluation because a Calc can never judge the flying capacity advantage and simply consider that against grounds, aircraft combat value is similar to a ground unit, and against Naval it is similar to Naval units, with an exception: Subs.
Is there some way to see why an StB could be at a too low cost for 12 IPCs in OOB and should be put at 15 IPCs (as many claims), but can be at it is right place in Advanced Shipyard cost?
Or as you say on Cruiser A3 D3 for 6 Points being overpriced at 12 IPCs, but it was keeping the Naval cost ratio 1 combat point for 2 IPCs, or .5 point/IPC.
Is Advanced Shipyard based upon a 6 pts : 9 IPCs, or around 2 pts for 3 IPCs (.67) basis for 1 hit unit, instead? So Subs at 3:5 (.6), DD at 4:7 (.57).
Fg is at 7 pts : 10 IPCs (.7)
Compared to the most similar combat value: TcB A3-4 D3 at 11 IPCs, we can say TcB was probably near his right place.
But say that Fg were not and should have returned, at least, to their original Classic figure at 12 IPCs for A3 D4 M4.
Because his combat values were better and it was a much more versatile and can sometimes have a greater range (4 spaces, 2 back and forth).
Maybe we can also suppose that the trade off between cheapest planes (ex. Germans Fgs) against all Naval units (UK’s DDs protecting TPs) is determined by the minus 2 IPCs against planes. So loosing 1 unit on both side, is always in favor of the Naval.
Willing to keep this balance, so reducing DDs to 7 IPCs could imply that Fighter should not be 3 IPCs higher and must stay at 2 IPCs difference.
Just trying to figure it out a way to know where a balance cost for plane should be put.
Or how knowingly agree that somehow planes are now at a better cost structure inside Advanced Shipyard.
Baron Munchhausen,
I don’t think your calculator is counting carriers as a capital ship.
Let me put the BB vs carrier group battle this way:Attacker: 2 x 4 pips, 2 hits before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 8. Total hits: 4
Defender: 2 x 4 pips + 1 x 2 pips, 1 hit before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 10. Total hits: 4
Even if they both hit twice first found, then it’s an even fight with two 4’s against each other.
The defending carrier group will be the winner the majority of the time in this battle.On the submarines,
Offensive punch comparison between destroyer and submarine at original values was 3 IPC/pip (submarine) and 4 IPC/pip (destroyer), a gap of 33%.
If you reduce subs to 5 and destroyers to 7, it becomes 2.5 IPC/pip and 3.5 IPC/pip, a gap of 40%. It makes the submarines even stronger in comparison. This still might be deemed appropriate, but it’s not the direction I was aiming to go.I’d love to test these and report back quickly, but I have no idea when my next game will be. I get to play a game once every two or three months, so you’ll have to get back to me with how your playtesting works!
To slightly expand the topic: Do you think reducing Tactical Bombers to a cost of 10 IPCs would be an appropriate accompaniment to this change? At the moment I really can’t decide, so I’m probably against it. It’s just an idea bouncing around in the head. But maybe it would be proper?
Sorry, I blindly input numbers in the Forum’s AABattlecalc, which consider Carrier as 1 hit (Spring 1942 value).
For the other question, I’m struggling with it, Black_Elk helping me.
Still no compelling reason one way or another.
Keeping Fg at 10, TcB put at 10 and STB stay at 12 IPCs?
Probably doesn’t impact the game, just make TcB buy more often to create some matching pair with Fg.
If thinking that a more historical game imply a mix of all planes, then I say put TcB at 10 IPCs.
How much would a one hit carrier change the pacific?
The reason I ask is because it’s so hard to get an edge offensively. Two attack points against four defense points is stalemate city.
I know this isn’t a revelation just curious what people think.
