Some units are overpriced

@Lucifer:

@Funcioneta:

No one build destroyers? Why? It prevents subs first strike, protects transports from lone fighters and only cost 12 IPCs … My most used UK1 is IC, destroyer and 1 inf. Can anyone explain me why no one build destroyers?

It doesnt pay off to buy DD’s, thats why hardly no one buys them…. :mrgreen:

thats what i am talkin about all the time

As Axis_roll said,the TacBomber may be considered like the artillery of the sky, a piece that may be used to boost the punch of the attacking unit.

I know that the cons to this proposal is the complication to the rule, and also the fact that we have not the plastic piece to model them.

And I know also that the fighter piece in A&A is used to model fighter, fighter-bomber, dive-bomber and so on…

But I like the idea!  :-D

I disagree with the idea that certain units are “overpriced”.

Although I think that unit costs could stand to be changed, a lot of what I see in this thread is “ya this thing aint no good so jack it up some lol”.  Perhaps not QUITE that, but essentially.

The mentality here is “If it isn’t ALWAYS good at its price, it’s not worth buying.”  And that’s quite wrong.  In different circumstances, players will want to make different unit purchases.  There are times and places for bombers, destroyers, carriers, battleships, transports, subs, AA guns, and so forth.

For example - if you have an assault rifle, it’s pretty useless against a tank.  But a missile launcher is pretty useless against a massed infantry charge.  So the idea is, you have to buy everything in the right proportions.  If the enemy has a lotta tanks and just a few infantry, get a lot of missile launchers and a few assault rifles.  If the enemy has a lotta infantry and just a few tanks, get a lot of assault rifles and a few missile launchers.

i am so wise, i should like have my own TV talk show and stuff.

The show could be called “Newpaintbrush and the Rubber Kitchen”

Pimp my units, pimp my bomber, pimp my battleship  :-D

If I had to change SBR/AA rules it would be thus:

You may have any number of AA Guns in a territory you want that has an IC.  (Limit 1 per territory if no IC is present.)
Each AA Gun gets to shoot at up to 5 Aircraft Each and they may over lap. (3 AA Guns can target one bomber if they want too.)
Bombers can only do 50% the damage shown on the die.  Heavy bombers re-instated.
Radar NA is now a tech in place of Super Submarines, which is, was and always will be a stupid tech.
Bombers now cost 10 IPC

THat leaves SBR in but makes it much more realistic with the majority of bombers attacking being shot down.

@Frood:

Re: the artillery idea, that actually reminds me of another idea I’ve had, which is to make artillery more like Ftrs - they actually stay back the territory they are in and can’t move into a newly captured territory. This would make them useful for swapping territory, which would really help Russia out (but therefore might unbalance the game?)

So they’re like fighters, in that you don’t have to commit them, and they’re therefore not vulnerable to enemy counterattack?  Pretty big change.  But I disagree with the concept of using artillery pieces like that anyways.  I mean, can you REALLY see artillery in Berlin supporting infantry in Paris?  What I think you’re really looking for is a new unit.

Good point, DDs are also overpriced. It’s worth having one to counteract enemy subs, but apart from that I never buy them.

On the contrary, all you need to “counter” enemy subs is your own sub fleet.  Even the subs that your opponent kills will still get to fire back in the opening fire step.  Destroyers, though, have their uses; they are inefficient for most of the game, but with destroyer bombardment tech, they are a way of confining Japan to its main island, while reducing enemy forces.

ACs are fine I think, people do buy them (DM has bought about 8 so far in my game)

By extension of the idea that destroyers are overpriced, then, perhaps you would say that carriers are UNDERPRICED?  I think that carriers are underpriced.

BBs are perhaps ok too. As I said before, if you tinker with the navy too much it could boost the allied side more than the axis.

@Jennifer:

If I had to change SBR/AA rules it would be thus:

You may have any number of AA Guns in a territory you want that has an IC.  (Limit 1 per territory if no IC is present.)
Each AA Gun gets to shoot at up to 5 Aircraft Each and they may over lap. (3 AA Guns can target one bomber if they want too.)
Bombers can only do 50% the damage shown on the die.  Heavy bombers re-instated.
Radar NA is now a tech in place of Super Submarines, which is, was and always will be a stupid tech.
Bombers now cost 10 IPC

THat leaves SBR in but makes it much more realistic with the majority of bombers attacking being shot down.

Another option is to change the AA units, let AA guns act to air units like subs act to naval units…when defending…!
If u attack 3 subs with 3 AC and 5 ftrs, if the subs get one hit in defense, u can’t choose the fighter as casuality.

U may buy as many AA guns as u want, each fire 1 dice at 1 defense point (?), and they can be killed,
but AA guns only fire at air units, and still only move during noncombat movement.
I still don’t think players would buy i.e. 5 AA guns and stack’em on any territory,
as AA guns can’t defend against ground units.

Destroyers do serve a purpose, but they are hopelessly over priced.

First, I like to buy a Destroyer with Japan if I have issues with Allied fighters.  Until you get 3 IC’s running you may not need it, but 1 Destroyer can adequately protect 5 transports from 2 or 3 fighters with cost effectiveness.

Anyway, two solutions to the Destroyer problem:

1)  Reduce the cost of the Destroyer unit to 9 IPC.  This is a higher cost then submarines making Submarines cheaper in teh long run, but low enough people might actually chose the destroyer for their mainline auxillery naval unit.

or

2)  Keep the cost 12, but give all destroyers combined bombardment without needing the technology.

Likewise, if you don’t want to reduce the cost of Battleships, a good alternative is to give them AA Gun abilities on defense and offense.  All fighters attacking a battleship or a battleship attacking fighters gets free AA Gun shots at all fighters in opening fire. (This would represent all naval units in the battleship floatilla, obviously, since a BB never sailed alone.)

You just got Good Karma for that thought of BB’s having AA capability for opening fire in naval combat Jen!

I LIKE IT!

Thanks. =)

Now just add in DST’s have PRE-opening fire against enemy SUBs (only), and naval combat may just be worth some effort!

Just a quick pip: the game needs to be kept at a somewhat reasonable level of complexity, and by that I mean (and it’s been said before) we can’t have a game so detailed that you actually have to be a ranking officer on a general staff in order to play. It’s fine if you want for your own games, but overall I am against continuing to add new units to the game.

If you’re going to re-adjust pricing, my vote is to price Soviet infantry @ 2 IPC.

If you want to make the destroyers worth their price then why not give THEM the AA capability and just reduce the cost of BB’s to about 18 or 20. The destroyers represent the lighter cruisers that carried more of the AA load than battleships did anyway.

And then you could split off a shorter range close air support/CV torpedo bomber(4/1, range 2) from the fighters/interceptors (2/3, range 4) and make them both cost 8. That way the bombers longer range would justify it’s 12 IPC cost.

It would make for far more interesting naval combat with mixtures of different types of aircraft, cheaper BB’s, and AA DD’s.

@nuno:

Actually the strategic level of play being practiced there now i believe is even worse than what it was 5 years ago…No surprises here since Carico continues to lead the way there…Afterall we’re talking of a group of Iraq war/GWB hardline supporters.

What does that have to do with the topic on hand?

Please keep your political statements ouf of threads in which they do not belong.

@nuno:

@axis_roll:

@nuno:

Actually the strategic level of play being practiced there now i believe is even worse than what it was 5 years ago…No surprises here since Carico continues to lead the way there…Afterall we’re talking of a group of Iraq war/GWB hardline supporters.

What does that have to do with the topic on hand?

Please keep your political statements ouf of threads in which they do not belong.

In my way of thinking both things are related, that’s why it comes to my mind.

Sorry, they are in NO WAY related.

Your way of thinking how things are related is skewed.  PLEASE keep your political observations to yourself.  You have a history of not following this protocol.

Still, i don’t understand why destroyers are overpriced  :?

What do you buy then when you need some cheap ship to protect transports?

Subs are cheaper but don’t protect from aircraft… or from other subs  :lol:

Battleships and carriers cost more than destroyers. BB double, and carriers need some fighters and have crappy attack value.

I buy more than one destroyer in my games. Usually one from UK atlantic fleet and two for USA, one for Atlantic and the other for Pacific. Germany and USSR sure don’t need, but even with Japan i buy some DD sometimes…

DD’s are too expensive.
Subs are better because numbers are important.
And only subs get to fire back if hit by attacking subs.
Best buy to protect fleet is AC+ftrs * 2.
U don’t really want to buy any naval units, but to get the land units to their destination, transports need
protection.
Remember, all capitals in A&A are placed on land, not sea……Atlantis anyone, Waterworld?  :lol:
And DD’s are too pricey to give value for money.
Same goes for bombers.
But if u are a good player, then u will win a lot of games even if u don’t buy the most cost-effectice units all the time.
Buying is important, but not the most important issue in A&A.