League General Discussion Thread

surfer

@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.

gamerman01

@surfer
I love your post, FWIW

As 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.

Arthur Bomber Harris

@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.

gamerman01

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.

Amon-Sul

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.

farmboy

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.

gamerman01

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 🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲

gamerman01

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.

farmboy

@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.

Martin

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

gamerman01

We had that rule for many years, but it has been abolished effective January 1, 2024.

No limit.

Martin

Great - thank you very much for your quick help!

I am glad I was not completely mistaken :-)

Amon-Sul

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

@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.

other boosting (instead of lowering the cost and increasing the number of planes u can hit) of aa guns could be

moving at 2 moves (like mechanized aa gun - maybe with a cost of 6 )
shooting at planes that fly over the territory regardless if they are attacking it (especially in CM)

but i think that even if they stay on 5 IPC , its ok since u guys brought some good reasons for it

and my opponent in the last game, told me after the game finished, that until that game of ours, he didnt realized the importance of aa guns (he more or less thought they are of small benefit) -

P.S.i moved all the aa guns from UK and USA to Europe, bided 3 aa guns with UK Pacific, brought those from India forward, and bought several with UK in the Middle East

Amon-Sul

ANZAC aa guns were doing trouble to Japan too in the islands

so, they can be tricky, i agree

what abut transports? we dont mention them? need any correction ?

pacifiersboard

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

I’m not opposed to the changes proposed around
[…]

agreed! Nice reading here. Another two cents: Eponymous balancing has been aiming to between X and L more than between the units (costs) - independent of bidding ?
Between gameplay and historicity I am favoring the former. I like playing a strategic boardgame and only accept the (world) war theme…
(dunno if I made a point, but have arrived at the office))

Amon-Sul

just one more comment about aa guns

It seems to me that the greater level of the player, the greater use of aa guns

Best players tend to avoid risky battles (not just big ones, but small ones too) and achieve victory over strategic dominance, and thus avoiding the dice related cases in which luck can prevail on the opponent`s side.

That said , in games among very good players (and i think that the general level of play on this forum is really big and growing) aa gun cost of 5 IPC isn`t that much expensive i would agree.

As for the side thing, since the allies use aa guns more , a change it that perspective would lean more to their side - but since they are bidding already maybe it wouldnt be such a bad idea, like the negative impact (on the allies) of making fighters expensive and tacs cheaper about which Farmboy has spoken

Amon-Sul

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in League General Discussion Thread:

of practical proposal, I would have cruisers cost 10 and battleships c

Just one note on this great post.

I think we all agree that its normal that we buy more subs and dds then cruisers and bats.

But is normal that my opponent and I play 18 rounds and we buy 0 cruisers and 0 battleships.

I think it isnt.

And that just happened in my latest game.

crockett36

@Amon-Sul

For my two cents as a person who is a grinder, not a champion, but a play tester and an allies advocate, I say don’t mess with the unit costs. normalize tech. I completely agree about aa guns. Love them. They fail me sooooo many times, but once in a while… Tech would do the same thing. It would make the game more interesting, more historical. Every one of those tech options AND MORE were in the war by 45. And the enemy never alerted you of the change either. Completely shocking and horrific, but immersive!

I am talking to people who care about the W. I like to win, but care about fixing and flavoring the game more. And passing it on to future generations. It is a good hobby. Good for the soul. character. So I believe that the game that this group plays ought to be as close to OOB as possible with the bid and encouraging tech. I think that you brilliant gentlemen can, by including tech–a real gap in Larry’s masterpiece that needs to be filled.–take this game to new heights, new metas.

Larry didn’t know what a meta was. I think I piqued his interest, describing the tendency to go with a kjf these days. And the larger bids.

crockett36

https://youtu.be/1tM86tvidZ0

crockett36

@crockett36 I didn’t ask, but I made this public. just about aa guns.

League General Discussion Thread

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L24 OOB Culann (X) vs. Martin (L+40)

L24 BM Stucifer (X) vs Surfer (L+20)

L24 PtV Stucifer (Allies) vs. Nikola1975 (Axis +9)

L24 OOB Gamerman01 (Axis) vs FlyingBadger (Allies+51) #1

L24 OOB Gamerman (X) v Stucifer (L+51) with Tech!

L24 BM4 Fasthard (X) vs Amon-Sul (L+24) Game 4

L24 BM4 Playoff Finals Adam514 (Axis) vs farmboy (Allies+22)

OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map

47

17.2k

39.7k

1.7m