Lastly, I am not saying the US should never by any Naval units in the Pacific. That would be an ignorant statement. There are countless possibilities where the purchase of some naval units could efficiently counter act the Japanese. But the Japanese would have to be acting inefficiently.
So my ultimate point is that the cost of naval units is so great, the efficient action by the US is to play defensively in the Pacific and aggressively in the Atlantic.
It is efficient for Japan to play defensively in the Pacific, ONCE THE US ENTERS THE WAR, and play aggressively everywhere else.
If Navy’s were cheaper, it would increase naval actions.
Until transports cost as much or less than the infantry they are transporting? Let’s be realistic.
Why shouldn’t transports cost less than the men they transport.
There is a question as to what transports are suppose to represent. There have been many posts on this subject. In the old rules, where they had a defense, where they suppose to represent a group of transports with escorts? What do they represent now. Completely defensless boats that can’t even defend themselves against one single plane. That is not a very expensive boat. And i have a feeling that submarines are suppose to be significantly more expensive then a defensless boat.
But then agian, one submarine may not represent just one submarine, and one transport is not suppose to represent just one defensless boat (though there has been much on this topic as to what they are suppose to represent with the new defensless rule), and one infantry does not just represent one soldier.
So as to what is realistic, what is realistic is whether the cost to transport material and supplies is an accurate representation of what was at the time. I am no expert in that field, but my guess is that since they APPEAR now to be just defensless boats, they should cost much less. Remember, they used to cost 8 and could defend at a 1.
What makes all of this so mute as to the opposition to my idea and the references to being unrealistic and FACTS, is that historically, I am absolutely right.
The US spent 90% of its resources on Germany until they reached near defeat. That was because that was where the prize lay. Japans attempt to take Midway was to extend its DEFENSIVE perimeter to avoid another Doolittle Raid, not take the US or WIN THE WAR FOR THE GERMANS WITH A DECISIVE NAVAL DEFEAT. If the US lost the battle of Midway, any idea that would end the war with all of us today speaking German would be laughed at by any historian. The Pacific was a side show but nevertheless, an entertaining show.
PERHAPS, if the Japanese suceeded in taking India, then Australia, its actions then would have been a great concern. Would it go after Russia next? or target Los Angeles? These are hard questions to answer that take a great understanding of the political situation between Japan and Germany.
But nonetheless, there was Pacific action in the real war. But with the current cost of a navy, if the US only spent 10% of its income on a navy in the pacific, what could it buy. Very little.
I say slash the cost of all Navy’s
Paul and eddie you guys both have good points. Paul I know you’re a by the book guy and we have both agreed on many things and have been proponents for the inclusion of HBG units.
Eddie I see where you’re coming from in the naval department. I do think Paul’s a bright guy when it comes to the game and he’s no greenie.
A compromise on non-capital ships is worth a look IMO as an HR. Especially when it comes to transports and destroyers. If HBG is/was in the works it may solve some issues. A corvette would be oh so helpfull smaller cheaper defensive units with a defense/offense roll at a low cost would and could help.
My temp solution maybe using the small surface ships from the game Attack! as escort vessels. The three useful ships are a very small carrier which could function as an escort cv with “built-in” aircraft. Secondly, a small battleship that would scale down to a destroyer escort. Finally an even smaller ship they call a destroyer but could easily be used as a corvette.
Just some thoughts. Game on gents.
Make cruisers 10, and battleships 20-22. No player who knows better buys them now a days in global. I don’t see a need to make anything else cheaper.
Well I am truly surprise there isn’t any more support for making Navy’s cheaper. To be fair, they have been already made cheaper from the days of $24 Battleships and $16 Carriers and $12 Planes. But to build even a small diverse Navy eats up so much of your resources compared to what you can buy with land troops, I really think going cheaper would be good.
Now an alternative idea, even a realistic one, would be to require at least $10 IPC’s to be spent on their Pacific complex in the form of ships, to represent their Naval Shipyards. If they don’t spend it, it is the equivalent of those shipyards just gathering dust.
Just and idea, but I would much prefer cheaper navy’s.
Transports (defenseless, remember) $4
Subs=$5
Destroyers$7
Cruisers=$10
Air Craft Carriers $13
Battleships $18
Planes $9
and improved shipyards make them slightly cheaper.
And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.
I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.
