@mikawagunichi changed my buys in russia to reflect i mucked up the amount i needed to repair!
League General Discussion Thread
-
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
maybe you guys can correct it in bm4.2, and while you’re at it make the battleships cost 18 and cruisers 11 like in ptv, or better yet, 16 and 10. :)
So I’m hopeful for a BM4.2 also. Or!??
BM5.0 ??? -
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
maybe you guys can correct it in bm4.2, and while you’re at it make the battleships cost 18 and cruisers 11 like in ptv, or better yet, 16 and 10. :)
So I’m hopeful for a BM4.2 also. Or!??
BM5.0 ???yea… but maybe the nerd herd is ignoring our pleas/whining for an update here lol
-
for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:
- bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
- figs and tacs both at 10
- cruisers 11
- battleships 18
then the two games are more aligned which makes it easier for ppl to transition between them
-
@axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.
It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region. -
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:
- bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
- figs and tacs both at 10
- cruisers 11
- battleships 18
then the two games are more aligned which makes it easier for ppl to transition between them
agree with U
we need a fast BM upgrade, let say 4.2.
and for some future upgrade, we can prepare 5.0 with time and discussion of how 4.2 is doing in practice
-
@surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.
It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region.Very good post. I forgot them too.
People mass cheap fighters , and we definitely need more aa guns. Something must be done.
They need to be more effective (shooting 4 planes) or cheaper (3 IPC )
or both (shooting 4 planes and the cost of 4 IPC)Maybe keeping the same price, or raising to 6 IPC but each 1-2 is a hit ?
Or is it too radical ?
-
One thing I considered trying, was to lower cost to 4, still have 3 shots but only 1 shot counts, even if you get more than one hit.
Would give you a 50% chance of whackin a 9 or 10 dollar Ftr if 3 attacked but limit totally dicing someones Air Force.
But I have never actually tested it. I did test lowering to 4 and only get 2 shots. That seemed to work ok as there still a hp.
Anyway, just a couple thoughts :)
-
@surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.
It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV.
This one I can answer with certainty.
AA was set at 6 for G40, which I think was the same as AA50.
When Larry was asking players for input for G40 before finalizing it, I argued that AA should be cheaper. If I said anything lower than 5, it most likely would have been rejected as too big a change. I petitioned for 5, and Larry actually agreed with me. That is my lame claim to fame.AA merit is a big discussion, but I just have to counter you a little bit. Don’t compare TUV of AA with fighter. As we all know, the attacker does not know how many planes will be shot down at the beginning of the battle and never be able to roll a die. AA can be absolutely devastating. It’s hard to put a price on it.
Some will try to quantify by comparing average odds of TUV change between infantry and AA for defense. It’s not that simple, I’ll just stop there with that argument.
Finally, AA has the unique ability to screw up a hit and run. You can save the AA until last, so hit and run can REALLY go wrong and could even wreck the game in the case of a Germany vs. Russia battle. You just can’t quantify that. I buy AA at 5, and not that rarely. If it was 4 I would go crazy 🙃🙃 -
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:
- bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
- figs and tacs both at 10
- cruisers 11
- battleships 18
I wanna say again, fighters at 10 really are too cheap. Look at how much they’re purchased.
I agree with the spirit of #1, especially. 14 cost bomber means very few of them on the board. The range of 6-7 is a big part of A&A, so if the price is high enough that very few are bought… hey… you just nerfed A&A.
What about 4 attack on bombers but nerf them with 0 defense??! Sometimes bugs me that a bomber can defend. Anybody got real life examples to enlighten me?On that note. Ideas like reducing the devastating power of AA or significant reducing the number of bombers on the board to less than any previous version of A&A is kind of … nerfing… kinda feels like… a step towards low luck…?? You want predictability of battle results, go play chess. 😉
-
@gamerman01
Perhaps it nerfs certain units, but I think changing the values helps make the game into more of a rock paper scissors decision rather than always picking rock.Currently, optimal buys involve inf, ftrs, DD, CV. SS, mech, and tanks are good for offensive punch. I see small value in AA, and none for cruisers and BB–RELATIVE to the main units.
My point is that why have the other units? Or they are underpowered relative to cost. By changing value, you bring in more of a mix of units, which changes strategies. Add to that the differences in goals for the different countries, and IMHO you will have a richer game experience.
-
@surfer
I love your post, FWIWAs to “why have the other units”?
Here’s a thought. They are to start the game with, not to be replaced. During the war, it was found that carriers and fighters were MUCH more powerful than battleships and cruisers.
There are many cruisers and battleships at game start that are played with for potentially many rounds. Do not assume that everyone agrees with the premise that all units should be bought somewhat proportionately throughout the game.
In other words, the carriers progressively make the battleships obsolete. That’s kind of cool.
-
@gamerman01 if we want historical accuracy, we would have more battleships and cruisers still built in the game. Here are the splits for the US navy:
By the end of World War II the U.S. Navy was by far the largest and most powerful navy in the world with 7,601 ships, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.
Translating into axis and allies, we would have roughly similar spend/turn on battleship, cruisers, subs, and destroyers, and a bit disproportionally high spending on carriers.
In terms of practical proposal, I would have cruisers cost 10 and battleships cost 17. Willing to get feedback if these numbers are attractive.
-
Thank you very much,
As we all know, we like some historical accuracy in A&A but not too much. That line is decided by the game designer but we all like to speculate.
So with that interesting data, the destroyers should be 7 so we have more, that would be interesting,
The cruisers should be cheaper and/or have ASW capabilities,
and battleships cheaper than 20, so just like you said. -
as for bombers, i am playing a game against axis, the opponent bought bunch of bombers with Germany, even few with Japan. Maybe 1-2 with Italy too.
-
I’m just catching up on these posts so apologies if I missed anything.
I’m not opposed to the changes proposed around cruisers and Battleships and I’m curious about how the game plays with more of them on the board. Although I’m not sure what the price point is that makes them more common. Air has the advantage of being relevant to both land and sea whereas naval has very limited relevance to land, although I suppose that is also an argument to change the relative pricing of naval units relative to air. And at least with BM the marine unit mitigates that somewhat.
For air, while I’m also not opposed to trying something I am more hesitant about reversing the relative costs of figs and tacs/bombers. Figs are definitely the most common buy but, unlike naval purchases, I do see all 3 bought regularly. And I think because figs are the defensive unit and tacs and bombers are offensive there is some logic to the current relative costs . The axis need to play offensively (and in my experience they are consequently more likely to buy tacs and bombers) and the allies need to play defensively for much of the game (and so primarily buy figs until late game if they have managed to go on the offensive) So making offensive units more expensive does help mitigate against the axis advantages and changing it the other way might impact game balance to the benefit of the axis.
-
JUST FOR FUN
In my opinion AA is underestimated by many players
AA is a good deterrent to hit and run for at least 2 reasons:
- Don’t take it as a casualty, and when only AA is remaining the enemy cannot retreat
- With AA you can smash planes to the ground in a hit and run whereas infantry only cannot, because the attacker can take off only cheapest units and most likely lose no air
In addition, the unpredictability of taking out air before the first round attack can wreck an attack and if the attacker understands this, it is a deterrent.
I actually have that situation in a game right now - prospect of taking AA hits immediately threatens defense of fleet if fighters are lost.
I also lost a big game not long ago where one big factor was losing 2/3 Russian planes in the big stack attack vs. Germany. Without AA, it would be a much safer hit and run.
AA is subtle and nuanced. The battle calculator shows you the average, so that is very misleading when AA is involved.
It seems more of us want a less dicey game than a more dicey game. You make AA cost only 4 and games will be more dicey 🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲
-
And I know we’ve a lot of posts on the same topic and they are in the league discussion thread.
But it is about modifying the game like BM and PTV which represent a majority of league games played so if no protests I’m good with keeping all this here. Have a great day, guys.
I’d also like to explicitly state that I for one do not expect that this (fun) discussion will pressure any changes in BM or PTV whatsoever, but if those teams would like to tweak their creations, then super.
-
@gamerman01 I think I know the big game of which you speak! And I agree that AA is underrated.
I’ll add that in large battles, even with the battle calculator average, adding AA (as long as they would be able to roll a die) is comparable to buying figs in terms of its impact. And since so many smaller attacks involve small numbers of land units supported by several air, having one AA in the mix really complicates the choices for the attacker.
That single AA in Caroline Islands has probably won some games for Japan.
-
Hello,
Can you please remind me of the rules of how often you can play the same opponent in the same game version? If I remember it right, you had to complete a certain number of games in total during a year before you could play a 3rd and 4th game against the same opponent.
Thank you,
Martin -
We had that rule for many years, but it has been abolished effective January 1, 2024.
No limit.
Suggested Topics
