@Imperious:
Id say destroyers can cruisers cannot be at 3/3. Thats just ridiculous. Destroyers should be at 2/2 and cruisers at 3/3
Cruisers should move 3 and cost 15 and take 2 hits, BB drops to 20 IPC and destroyers goto 2/2 and cost 8-10
Also, carriers should drop to 15 or so and take 2 hits, but also defend at 2 and not 3.
A 15 IPC naval unit moving 3, attacking and defending on 3, and taking 2 hits?
zomgbbq roflcopter?
China was a 3rd rate at best power, Italy although porrly lead was a 2nd rate power on par with Japan and Russia in industrialisation and millitary might. they just made bad strategic moves. that is no reason to say they don’t rate but a nation that got lucky dose rate to have a team. China had such a weak economy that they could not generate Armor to any real degree or generate air power. how fun would it realy be to play as a secound Russia but not even start with air power or Armor and also never be able to afford them to gain flex in combat? Italy atleast had all this and more and had the economy to stand on it’s own.
Maybe China would not fun. Maybe yes. But think in Italy. What can do anyway? Send a couple of inf to Africa? Try a lesser aid against USSR? Italy would had a difficult time building anything greater than an armor, at least with the map we have now (6 ipcs from Seu, 1 ipc from Lybia = 7 ipcs). Of course, China is even worse (4 ipcs), but I said a cuople of posts ago China needs more territories.
China a lesser USSR? No. USSR should be meant for fighting the Germans, not for being crushed between them and Japan. As now, USSR do the most of the job stopping the Japs in Asia in most of games, when it should be China (independent or USA dependent) who should stop the japaneses. Italy would easily be as a 2nd Germany if included…
My thought is both Italy and China at best, and if I must choose, China alone
And no, Italy, even well managed, couldn’t match the power of USSR or even Japan. And China had aircraft (very crappy, of course, but they had). Don’t forget lend-lease also went to Nationalist China
Italy should be in the game for 3 on 3 balance of teams. Adding china wouldnt be good, and adding china WITHOUT Italy would just be worse.
You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.
OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos :-P )
And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”
They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
That ship got a lucky hit in the wrong place, besides the hood was one of a kind.
A true Heavy Cruiser can take more punishment, its supposed to fight anything up to battleships and if it faded with one salvo, it would have no use relative to its cost/value.
The hood was a battle cruiser and this means a fast moving hybrid battleship class guns but with light armor plating to get the high speeds.
You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.
OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos :-P )
And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”
Im almost positive that there will have to be an at least slight change to the map to accommodate for Italy as a power. Splitting them up on the current map would make Germany too weak and make Italy almost useless.
I am sure that at least 5-12 new territories.
More than one in france
More than one in Balkans
More than one in Italy
Something in Russia should be changed
More in South East Asia
More in China ( like 4 new ones total 6 like AARHE 1939)
@Imperious:
They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
That ship got a lucky hit in the wrong place, besides the hood was one of a kind.
A true Heavy Cruiser can take more punishment, its supposed to fight anything up to battleships and if it faded with one salvo, it would have no use relative to its cost/value.
The hood was a battle cruiser and this means a fast moving hybrid battleship class guns but with light armor plating to get the high speeds.
Then should there be perhaps two cruiser classes, a battlecruiser at 3/3/12, one hit, bombard, and heavy cruiser at 3/3/18, two hits, bombard?
Well you know these are going to show up right after Deluxe shows up.
But id place all these units on D12 at that point so that each nation has different values for its ships anyway.
Also light and heavy cruisers are more accurate, because only really Uk and Germany had Battlecruisers, while the Alaska class battleship was a battlecruiser, and most of the British design japanese battleships were in fact battlecruisers. However this class is far less in numbers than either light or heavy cruisers.
Id give the battlecruisers a 3 attack and 2 defence, but moves 3 and takes 2 hits cost 15-16
Heavy cruisers at 3/3/2 take 2 hits cost 12-14
Light cruisers 2/3/2/ take one hit cost 10-12
Destroyers 2/2/2 one hit cost 8-10
No naval unit except the carrier should defend better than it attacks.
yes admittedly, problem with overload on D6 system. Thats why its only good for few pieces
Why should the carrier defend better than it attacks?
carrier should be a 1/1/$14/1 hit. they sucked in battle, there strenght was and is not in it’s guns (how few it has) but in it’s air power.
Cruser should be better then a destroyer, but i don’t think it warants 2 hits, i think it should be more like 3/3/$15/1 hit/ Bambard on a 2/ move 3.
DD 3/3/$12/1 hit/ negate subs. no extra stuff.
BB all the same as normal just $20.
subs stay the same.
it’s not big changes but makes the navy work better IMHO. now short of play testing no idea can be said to work best. i realy need that job, play tester for games :-)
this is a picture of the front cover of the game
Nice finding…but is this for real?
I have to say this cover looks a little strange to me…looks more like the Milton Bradley cover than the recent Axis & Allies covers… Would like to read Larry’s comments on this one…
The cover is a lot of fun and covers quite an extensive array of people. However, I agree with Dagon81 and that it looks out of place with all of the current box covers for A&A. It does harken back to the MB edition and maybe they are trying to capture some anniversary nostalgia.
carrier should be a 1/1/$14/1 hit. they sucked in battle, there strenght was and is not in it’s guns (how few it has) but in it’s air power.
This.
I believe that cover could be real, I would think that for an anniversary edition they would try to make it look more like the old game.
Cobert i think your quoting the wrong person as my statment had nothing to do with the cover (it was before he posted the link :wink:)
No, I was agreeing with your 1/1 carrier and the other statement was in response to something different, I was just too lazy to quote the person talking about the cover.
ok i see, it just looked to me as you were on one thought.
