@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.
Overpriced units
-
What are indisputable facts is that the current DD+bmr+BB have no purpose in the game, apart from those units that u start with, and ofc we wan’t to keep our BB’s :-)
I could dispute the bmr as not being purchased. I’ve seen my share of US bombers (even Japanese ones) in revised games.
You should switch subs for bombers if you’re listing units with no purpose
I haven’t played other (official) variants than classic and revised.
Perhaps you should try some variants/house rules that are so structured to make ALL units, tech (and even NAs) involved in the game. I’m a huge advocate for A&ARe (Enhanced). I have probably played 100 Enhanced games and can say that every game is different.
-
Imperious Leader:
Well then… check out Nuno’s posts and a familiar pattern will develop and a smile will be produced> smiley
Battleships should be 20 IPC , Carriers should be 15 IPC Both should take 2 hits, but carriers should go to defense of 2
Destroyers should attack and defend at 2 and cost 10
Bombers cost too much and should be 12 IPC
Transports should be 10 IPC so that people don’t take them as combat loses as much.Yeah, I think the original quote was by Imperious.
Anyways, I totally disagree with Imperious. I think those changes are mostly whack.
Two-hit carriers, then no need to buy battleships. Decreasing the cost to 15 IPC as well? Jesus.
Battleships are already good at 24. They’re too expensive for casual buys, which makes sense. I can see a case for reducing battleship cost, but a 20 IPC cost means two US battleships in the Pacific on US1. Too cheap.
Bombers are fine at 15 IPC. There are solid lines of play that use lots of bombers, and I’m not just talking about Superfortresses NA either.
-
Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
and by watching good players in many games.
Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.
All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.
Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.
I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
but can move 8…
I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech! :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr. -
Well, cruisers moving at 3 would be nice for America if they get Fast Carriers advantage. Then their carriers can have escorts. :)
So, to get it right, IL, you would like to see 1 AA shot per defending cruiser as opposed to 1 AA Shot per attacking fighter/bomber?
-
Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
and by watching good players in many games.
Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment. That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game. Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.
Also - bombers are NOT bad investments. There are times and places for bomber buys. You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.
All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.
So you never build navies with UK and/or US? What’s your Allied win percentage like? How about those more experienced players you were talking about?
Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy? Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good? I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.
I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
but can move 8…
I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech! :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies. There were others that contributed. And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.
As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.
2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.
-
I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech! :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.Well the first treatment of tech in first and second edition (and the CD-rom) was horrible. It was game breaking technological break thrus obtained thru the luck of die rolls.
HORRIBLE application of a fact of WWII. Technology was VERY important in the outcome of the war.
Revised went a long way to making tech better (less game breaking tech, targetting a specific tech means you can only get one tech / turn), but still falls short, IMHO. Tech dollars should accumulate if a country fails to acquire a tech.
There’s still too much randomness in the acquiring of the tech.
Tech should be a part of the game rules. If you want, both sides can agree to a no-tech game if you wish. Fixing the tech rules is a better solution.
-
2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.
Agreed.
I have played with two hit carriers before, but they wouldn’t auto-repair at the end of a game turn.
They would need to sit a turn at an IC to be repaired. Same for BBs.Also damaged units could not be taken into combat. Only defend.
One other thing about the damaged A/C. They would lose their capability to carry planes until repaired.
There’s other rules used in conjunction with these, but these are the more important ones. This are excerpts from a Second Edition Expansion set of rules from a Chicago gaming chain called Gamers Paradise. We played these rules for YEARS…… until revised came out.
-
….
Ofc, sometimes u …Sorry, but what does Ofc stand for… couldn’t get a google answer:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ofc
I like the Old Farts Club link :)
-
Ofc= of course…?
English is not may native language, as u probably have known by now :-)
-
Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment. That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game. Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.
Also - bombers are NOT bad investments. There are times and places for bomber buys. You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.
Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy? Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good? I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.
Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies. There were others that contributed. And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.
As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.
2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.
I said that u have to move units to mainland, if u can read…
Generally the best units compared with cost/ability are tanks, art, inf.
All u have to do is to get these units to the mainland of afr, europe etc.
Tactics is another issue.3 powers must buy IC or trannies to ship units.
Apart from that naval units are not useful.
But, if the opponent kills your fleet then u can’t move units to mainland…
If the opponent does not attack your lone trans, or 4-5 trans together, it would be stupid to buy protection.
I don’t regard trannies as naval units. Trans are a necessity to bring units from point a to point b.
For discussions I guess it’s most convenient also to regard trannies as naval units, but I see trannies the same way
as I see IC’s. And IC’s are not the same as tanks and infantry…? U can’t kill enemy forces or occupy land TT’s with IC’s. -
So, to get it right, IL, you would like to see 1 AA shot per defending cruiser as opposed to 1 AA Shot per attacking fighter/bomber?
yes if you also allow movement of 3. If movement is at 2 then id prefer the classic AA gun approach for cruisers.
Battleships at 24 is horrible. Basically you are wasting money, because Carriers are better. But if BB’s goto 20, then Carriers and BB’s are very close buys overall. Also Carriers are too strong at 3 defense… that like a cruiser value. It should be 2… hence the ipc drop to 15 IPC
-
Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies. There were others that contributed. And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.
2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.
I’d go with the 2 hit AC if the price is raised to 24 IPC like Battleships.
I also agree that technology is an integral part of the game. It’s the only thing I don’t like about the leagues and tournaments here, no technologies!
Look, in classic getting lucky with tech could win the game for you. Not so in LHTR 1.3. You get tech and you get an advantage, but you also get the technology you are aiming for and the tech can easily be beat back through tech on the other side or superior play.
-
I said that u have to move units to mainland, if u can read…
What, you know I can’t read! I just have my secretary read these forums.
Generally the best units compared with cost/ability are tanks, art, inf.
All u have to do is to get these units to the mainland of afr, europe etc.
Tactics is another issue.3 powers must buy IC or trannies to ship units.
Apart from that naval units are not useful.
But, if the opponent kills your fleet then u can’t move units to mainland….
If the opponent does not attack your lone trans, or 4-5 trans together, it would be stupid to buy protection.
I don’t regard trannies as naval units.Well, since it would be stupid for your opponent NOT to blow up your lone transport or unescorted transport fleet, then it is probably SMART to buy protection.
Anyways, what you’re saying - if I understand correctly - is that you DO want to have a navy, but you usually want it to be of relatively little size. Which is what I’m saying when I say that in different situations, different units ought to be bought. So I think we agree on that, unless you don’t, and if we don’t agree, then I’m sure you can post and tell me so.
Trans are a necessity to bring units from point a to point b.
For discussions I guess it’s most convenient also to regard trannies as naval units, but I see trannies the same way
as I see IC’s. And IC’s are not the same as tanks and infantry…? U can’t kill enemy forces or occupy land TT’s with IC’s.ICs and transports are different animals. Transports can be taken as casualties in a naval battle, which is why J1 transport builds are far better in most cases than J1 IC builds. ICs cannot move and are thus vulnerable to enemy attack. ICs are vulnerable to strategic bombing (although this is of limited application in most games, it is a factor in, say, a German Rocket game in which UK puts an IC in India). Transports need to be near an IC or at least transportable infantry to be of best effect, while ICs can be put in the middle of nowhere and pump units out. Transports are more diverse, allowing (for example) infantry produced at Japan to be landed anywhere from Western Canada, Alaska, Soviet Far East, Burytia, Kwangtung, French Indochina, (and other various islands).
Dictated but not read. :roll:
-
ICs and transports are different animals. Transports can be taken as casualties in a naval battle, which is why J1 transport builds are far better in most cases than J1 IC builds. ICs cannot move and are thus vulnerable to enemy attack. ICs are vulnerable to strategic bombing (although this is of limited application in most games, it is a factor in, say, a German Rocket game in which UK puts an IC in India). Transports need to be near an IC or at least transportable infantry to be of best effect, while ICs can be put in the middle of nowhere and pump units out. Transports are more diverse, allowing (for example) infantry produced at Japan to be landed anywhere from Western Canada, Alaska, Soviet Far East, Burytia, Kwangtung, French Indochina, (and other various islands).
Me thinks he would be happy if nations could just move X number of units to certain landing zones per turn. Now there’s no pesky navies. Who cares about those of us who like naval engagements because we can easily out maneuver people who are not well versed and win the game because he can’t get his troops anywhere. It’s just much more simple to say American can ship X units a round, England X units, Russia X units, Germany Y units and Japan Y units, navies not required.
-
@Cmdr:
Who cares about those of us who like naval engagements because we can easily out maneuver people who are not well versed and win the game
Or put in other terms,
who cares about those who truly appreciate anything resembling REAL strategy!?… :lol:Exactly. The naval portion of the game can win the game just as much as the air power issue. Heck, let’s just dumb it all the way down to just tanks and infantry, then maybe some people will be more happy, since it’s so easy. Tanks hit 50% of the time, infantry hit 20% of the time. (just make attack and defense the same, it’s too confusing if units attack and defend at different values.)
-
Or put in other terms,
who cares about those who’s only comments have some lame excuse blaming different ideas and trying to make a bogus illusion of connection of these ideas and players who don’t understand the game over and over again?
Suggested Topics
