Some units just don’t get purchased very often because they’re a little too expensive for their abilities (such as AA guns and cruisers, and to a lesser degree, battleships and tactical bombers). On the other hand, some units are accused of being too good or “broken” due to their wide range of uses and influence (such as strategic bombers and mechanized infantry).
My proposition is this: alter the IPC cost to make better balance but don’t do anything else. If you were to tweak only the price, what would you do? Here’s my take:
No change:
Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8
My changes:
AA Guns: 4
Cruisers: 11
Battleships: 19
Up for debate:
Tactical Bombers: 10 (11)
Strategic Bombers: 13 (12)
Aircraft Carriers: 15 (16)
I think infantry, artillery, tanks, submarines, transports, destroyers, and fighters are all very good units that should not be touched. Mechanized infantry are only “overpowered” because of the Global 1940 map and setup’s inherent problems in my opinion.
AA guns need a boost. Most people would rather change their entire mechanism, but I think most of us wouldn’t mind buying them for a 1 IPC discount, and at the same time, they’re still not too effective. I don’t see why anyone should object to this.
Cruisers are overshadowed by battleships and the other special naval units. Again, many players have tried countless ways to change cruisers into something more affordable, but in order to keep it simple but also keep battleships relevant, a single IPC discount should work for most people.
Tactical bombers are actually quite good already. I can understand why many would argue that 11 IPCs isn’t that bad, but I do think they are slightly overpriced due to their limitations. I’d honestly rather boost them by a small rule change, but the purpose of this thread is to only change prices. 11 or 10— take your pick.
Strategic bombers at 13? Yikes. I can already hear the players who love bombing the heck out of factories screaming at me. But seriously, these far-reaching aircraft are pretty darn good and effective at eliminating production. I just wanted to throw this out there since I think the power of strategic bombing is pretty heavily abused.
Aircraft carriers are already a great purchase. So why do I want to discount them? Well, since I’m suggesting reductions in price, to the big gun ships, I want to make sure that the effectiveness of aircraft carriers is preserved. This is World War II after all, and I’d hate to see the false idea of battleships being superior to aircraft become a thing. It’s just another idea I want to add since…
Battleships need a discount since cruisers are getting one. I think the perfect value would be 19 IPCs, but I could see others arguing for 18 or even leaving them at 20. 19 might sound like an odd number, but if cruisers are 11, I think battleships should be 19.
So now that I’ve seriously thought about it all, here’s a revised price chart that I think most players will like. Changes are in bold:
Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Tactical Bombers: 11
Strategic Bombers: 12
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8
Cruisers: 11
Aircraft Carriers: 16
Battleships: 19
Please share your thoughts, especially on those that I changed and whether aircraft carriers should be 15 or not. Remember, no unit characteristic changes, only price changes.
The CV needs to stay at 14, Im ok with the other changes
@Imperious-Leader I’m referring to Global 1940 aircraft carriers that are capital ships which take two hits to sink and cost 16 IPCs.
For use in 1942.2… so hit CV…16 IPC…it will make it too strong, but if planes need to retreat if the CV takes one hit, or fly to another location …perhaps
I don’t think the 1942.2 prices are off except maybe AAA guns at 4IPC. Changes i would look at are neutral armies and IPC values, adding the Global unit types, and technology
@Imperious-Leader I was only thinking about 1940, but I’m curious now about 1942. Do you like cruisers at 12 and battleships at 20 for 1942?
I think this game is perfect. The thought on the map sea zones and areas is magic! Its a shorter game however i did win a 27 rounder once
This is a great idea, and there’s nothing drastic here. I recently thought about naval and air bases and their status as niche builds (AB in Hainan/Gibraltar, NB in Midway) and if they should cost 12 to have consistency among the small facilities. What do you think?
@General-Veers I like the idea of reducing the facilities cost as well. But I have been wondering if perhaps airbases should cost more than naval bases. I feel like the scramble potential of airbases is more powerful than the repairing abilities of naval bases (while the move extension seems obviously on equal terms). I think a 12 or 13 IPC naval base sounds good, but I’d personally want air bases to be more, maybe about 14 IPCs. One of the reasons why I think airbases need a higher cost is their relevance to aircraft carriers. Why build a carrier for 16 when you can scramble 3 fighters for 15 (or as you and I propose 12/13).
I’d love to see more facility building, as this is something that’s very rare in my group’s games. It would be hard to find the perfect cost, but I think your 12 IPCs is a good place to begin testing, perhaps going as low as 11 for sea bases and as high as 14 for air bases. I’d like to try it.
AA Guns - I think the price is fine at 5. I still buy them but rarely more due to their limited usefulness than their price. i.e., if they cost only 3 I wouldn’t buy more than I do today. At the end of the day, as written, they are more of a deterrent than an actual combat unit. Want to make them “feel” like they are worth 5? Give them the option of AA fire or a defense value of 2 in each combat. Flak 88s certainly killed enough Matildas in North Africa.
Cruisers - Yeah, as written, there is certainly an argument for reducing them to 11 (though I wouldn’t touch the Battleship cost). They really need something a little more to make them worth 12, whether its the ability to bombard facilities on islands or even an R&D option to create Anti-Aircraft Cruisers that can act as an AA gun rather than using their 3 defense value.
Tactical Bombers - I think they are perfectly priced at 11. Their ability to attack at a 4 both on land and at sea is powerful, arguably more so than the fighter’s ability to defend at a 4. I think perhaps it is only the relative cost of the strategic bombers that make them seem a poor buy.
Strategic Bombers - I would pay 13 for these; I may even pay 14.
@andy-palmer Really love your idea of AA gun option against planes Or regular Defense fire, I’m adding that to my current house rules- for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!
@nolimit said in Global 1940 2nd Edition Standard Units but with Altered Costs:
{snip} for Cruisers I give the option of upgrading them to capital warships at a cost of 5 Ipcs off a coastal Factory in placing unit phase, they would take an extra hit!!!
How do you tell the capital ship Cruisers from the regular Cruisers?
-Midnight_Reaper
@midnight_reaper You could either put a National marker under it or use your own customized to scale Cruiser in place of the regular cruiser.
I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.
