Real value of units

[ItIsILeClerc]

@MrRoboto:

@ItIsILeClerc:

@MrRoboto:

I just want to say that Japan is doomed, of Japan doesnt Build strong Navy because of all the convoy. With only China and India and some Russin territories, Japan will only earn something like 20-30, as much as anzac. That’ll lose pacific for you

Mr. Roboto are you talking about AAG40?
Because with only China and India and some Russian territories, Japan will earn at least 60 IPCs.
FYI I assumed if Japan controls Calcutta and China it has also taken without a doubt: Burma, Shan State, Malaya, French Indo, Hong Kong. Especially with China and India gone. And I bet Philipines can be taken as well for another 2 IPCs but since you didnt mention it I left it out.

And I bet that with India and China out of the equasion and the Russians fighting for their lives against Germany, Japan could have gotten those other 9 IPCs as well (West-India + 7 more Russian territories): 69 IPCs.
  And while we’re at it, with India gone, those 20 IPCs from the DEI + Borneo should be Japanese as well. I estimate the IJN at start of the game strong enough to achieve than ;-) : 89 IPCs.

But let’s keep it at 60 IPCs for only the mentioned territories.
I estimate the maximum convoy damage that can be done to Japan at 11 around and that’s only as long as the IJA and IJN are busy elsewhere, or 20 around very late in the game (like J12+) when the USA is so strong that the war is lost to Japan anyway.

I count 12 in China, 1 in Burma, 2 in West India, 1 in Iwo Jima, 5 from having India. Thats 21. With a couple of Russian territories and maybe a little luck with convoy, you get to 25-30.

If Japan doesn’t build navy, as was suggested earlier in this thread by someone, that’s what’s gonna happen from J6 or J7 on.

Arent you forgetting the 26 Japan starts with?
Maybe I am missing an important clue about what you mean but if you say ‘Japan earns’ I assume you mean as grand total  :?.

So, as grand total Japan will earn the 25-30 you mentioned, plus its initial 26 makes 51 to 56.
And I still wonder what happened in your calculation to  Shan State, Malaya (no Island), French Indo China and Hong Kong. All very easy to get for the Japanese -especially if they don’t build any navy early on. That’s another 9 IPCs for a total of 60 to 65. At least  8-).

Furthermore if the USA has such a big fleet J6/J7 already, I would argue the war in Europe looks pretty rosy for the Axis.
In my experience, if the USA wants to do something meaningful in Europe, it can come to roughly even naval forces with Japan J7 in the Pacific. By no means doomsday for Japan but from then on I agree that Japan has to start looking after its navy again otherwise the USA will go over that critical mass, spelling unavoidable doom for the Japanese: then they will be stuck in Asia forever!

[MrRoboto]

I was referencing to the suggestion that Japan does not build any navy at all, but concentrates on taking China+India asap.
In this case, USA will have the bigger navy quite fast. It will defeat the existing Japanese Navy, which leaves Japan with the Airforce and some ground units.
That means that all coastal territories will generate no income at all, due to US and ANZAC submarines. This leaves the mentioned areas.

We can play a game if you want, where you won’t buy Japanese Navy and I will show you how I bring Japan down to 25-30 even with India+China, without losing Europe. Usually this heavy investment in the PAC leads to a fall of Moscow, but the Allies should be able to hold Egypt.
Anzac will earn something around 30 as well (10 original, 15 from DEI and 5 bonus), eventually capturing Malaya or FIC probably. That means that from US7 on, US can spend all ~80ish for the Atlantic. Securing Egypt first and then landing in Norway/Denmark/Normandy for the win.

That’s why I say the Axis are doomed, if Japan does not build any Navy. No dicing or hard mistakes of course…

[ItIsILeClerc]

Aaah, I see!
An allied Japan First grand strategy. Sorry I didnt figure that out by myself but some threads are so long I usually only read the last posts.

Playing a game sounds always fun (tho I have no experience with online A&A). But I cannot promise that I will not buy naval units with Japan as I usually do build ships for Japan and I don’t like wrestling with the promise I won’t use my right arm ;-).

I must admit I normally do not buy ships for Japan for as long as possible. I know the strength of the combined IJA + IJN, which is 39 units@100 Attack factors, or 27 units@63 defense factors followed by 12 units@43 attack factors. In both cases there are also 5 to 7 ‘free hits’ to consider (when a BB or CV is able to soak up a hit, or a sub defending at ‘1’ is taken as a loss).

Since the USA starts at not even a third of this might, Japan can focus its first turns on ‘Mainland Asia’ and/or the money Islands if the USA invests very heavily in the Pac. And I’d say Japan has no choice in the matter at all because it must bring its paltry income of 26 IPCs up to at least 60, in order to at least hold out. I once tried to contest the USA from the beginning but then India gets too strong. Together with China they 'll become a real danger to the Axis cause if unchecked. They must be isolated and castrated at least and, as I keep saying to myself, Japan can strike anywhere but not everywhere at the same time.

I must say, in my group, after our initial successes with the Axis we always loose if playing Axis and always win if playing Allies. Assuming player strength is equally divided and no bad dicing ofc… So I currently have little to no hope for the axis powers.
If you say a US near 100% focus on the pacific will work I think it will indeed. There are many roads leading to Rome (and to Berlin and Tokyo now we’re at it).

And yet I must remain sceptical about any all-in on 1 map strategies for the USA, because I believe that there must be weak spots for all of them. I truly hope the game is better designed than that. I already feel the Axis cause is doomed but if this can be achieved very easily because of the USA goes all in on 1 map then I feel playing the game as Axis is pointless.

The obvious counter versus USA all in on Europe is taking Sydney + Honolulu for the Axis win. And I am trying to find other methods as well but it is hard.
A Pac all in is something I personally have little to no experience with. I once thwarted one as Japan because the USA only bought submarines, which I was able to exploit. So that one doesnt really count. Even more so because Moscow fell too easily (too much Germans left after the battle). No doubt a real fleet build up + a better defense of Moscow is too much for the Axis to overcome, but I must believe Germany and Italy should be able to abuse this somehow.

[MrRoboto]

I want to address some of your points.

First of all, the vast majority of the A&A community agrees, that the axis are stronger in G40. Most even think, they have a very big advantage.
Personally, I think they have an advantage, but it’s not bigger than a 12bid or so.

What I wanted to say is, that Japan HAS to build ships, in order not to be destroyed. The starting fleet will not suffice. And there are transports necessary as well. Of course there is more than just one viable strategy, but if you don’t want an all-out on Moscow+Egypt, with Japan only supporting Germany, you need to buy ships to secure and hold DEI+Philipp (or at least able to recapture them). This is where your money is!

It is possible, to invest 100% of the US income in the pacific, for the first 4-5 rounds, maybe even until US6, without losing the European theater. You need to adapt to mistakes and bad luck of course, but generally speaking, it is possible. With this heavy investment, the combined allied forces will remove Japan from the game, so you can spend the remaining turns all for Germany (Anzac could possibly build bombers every round, or fighters to defend Egypt).

The contrary, however, investing all in europe for the first 4-5 turns as USA, is not possible. Japan will snowball heavily since it can take out China and India one after another, even without big casualties. anzac/hawaii is next. A pacific win is very fast achieved if us doesn’t build in pac.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Yes, that a lot of people think the Axis have the advantage is clear to me ;-).

It depends on what that means, of course, ‘having the advantage’. If that means the allies will loose the game most of the time unless they play with a 12-ish bid, I simply have to disagree from personal experience.
Maybe I need to point out that we mainly use that LL-system because we were sick and tired of those turn 1 battles screwed by the dice so badly that the game was already lost or won right there.
None of us wants to continue a day long game (or even longer) that is already lost to the dice in turn1. The only reason we play with all the dice sometimes is to please some of the players who seem to play on luck and have no clue as to what it means to Axis victory if Germany looses a third (or more) of its luftwaffe in turn1 battles over the atlantic… :-o

I agree 100% with your point on Japan’s need to build ships.

About USA going all in Europe we can probably debate for hours without end  8-). I know it can work and I also know that Japan can exploit it to win in the Pac but its response is rather narrow and heavily prone to mistakes.

Edit: By the way, maybe we should move our discussion towards another thread, that “Axis advantage is bigger than you think” one, seems more fitting.

[Guest]

Japan’s true strenght is their insane number of airplanes (21). They dont need to buy more than a small number of carriers and destroyers to stop the american fleet.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Agreed.

Don’t let that intimidate you into thinking they are unbeatable.
I remember defeating a Japanese fleet US10 consisting of 11CV, 2BB, 2CA, 10DD, 2sub. I don’t remember the exact US fleetcomposition but it involved a lot of submarines. I believe I built an extra 3 submarines for every carrier I saw the Japanese construct.

Subs are an excellent counter to large CV-fleets as they only hit ships. Soon all enemy ships are no more and you can retreat if the carrierplanes have nowhere to land or continue fighting if you please (or must). Whatever suits your needs.

[wheatbeer]

Subs are a double edged sword for the Allied Pacific fleet. They can work wonders on attack, however they can’t defend a fleet against an air-heavy enemy.

Japan can block a sub fleet with destroyers if necessary, but there’s no way to block Japan’s planes. If I see sub-heavy Allied builds in the Pacific, I typically counter by buying even more planes for Japan.

[ItIsILeClerc]

:-D You are right sir!

You have a counter for a counter. Now what would be the counter for that counter-counter ;-)?

With 2 players playing the war in the pacific really on the edge of a knife, I guess this is what you will get; one building a counter for what the other one built, the other one responding next turn with a counter to that and so on.

Of course, Japan is more limited in this as time is ticking, working against it. It also has builds to consider with which it can actually capture VCs before it is too late.

[eddiem4145]

Mr Roboto.

Axis Global is like chess. If someone suggests a grand strategy as being superior, that doesn’t mean the suggestion is to do it regardless of what the other side is doing.

The point is and will always be that the least efficient strategy is for either Japan and the US to go dramatically on the offensive, (not all out-just spending a majority of their resources) in the Pacific because of the unrealistic resources demanded to build a Navy, and for those resources, the rewards attained are only a fraction of the rewards attainable if those same resources were spent on Asia for Japan and Europe for the US.

That doesn’t mean that if the US foolishly goes 100% on the offensive in the Pacific, Japan should just run and hide its Navy. It merely needs to play a defensive, much less costly naval war, holding of the US while it achieves the most important Asian objectives, UK Pacific and China.

Same for the US, if the Japan goes all out, (foolishly) against the US, the US is best served by playing defensively, only holding them off, while most of its resources are focused on Europe.

This is because Navy’s are still unrealistically expensive compared to the ground units.

This is of course with the caveat that you are not playing with the horrid, unrealistic, foolish NO of Japan winning to whole freaking game with only 6 VC’s. The stupidest rule axis ever came up with.

[MrRoboto]

@eddiem4145:

Mr Roboto.

Axis Global is like chess. If someone suggests a grand strategy as being superior, that doesn’t mean the suggestion is to do it regardless of what the other side is doing.

I am fully aware of that, and I don’t really know why you are pointing it out to me.

@eddiem4145:

This is of course with the caveat that you are not playing with the horrid, unrealistic, foolish NO of Japan winning to whole freaking game with only 6 VC’s. The stupidest rule axis ever came up with.

Well I agree with the Victory-City problem in Global, but since the League here plays WITH this rule (and other leagues like the one at tripleawarclub as well)……

Once again, I am trying to specify what I meant. I am just saying, that Japan cannot afford to lose it’s Navy to the Allied forces. If the US Navy gets so big that it can defeat the Japanese Navy, Japan gets convoyed heavily. Without the IPC from the coastal regions, ANZAC usually gets ahead of Japan. From there on, it’s just a little step with a little more help from USA to liberate Calcutta and/or some Chinese territories/Korea.

Since it IS indeed possible to survive Europe even without any US help for the first few turns, it is a viable strategy (note: viable, not superior or sole or whatever) to spend huge in the Pac to get the bigger Navy as US. If the allied players does exactly that, Japan can only answer by building Navy as well.
The question with that strategy is: How much exactly does USA needs to spend for Navy, and how fast is Germany, until USA needs to shift the main attention to Europe.

[toblerone77]

I actually agree with eddiem on some of his points about naval costs. I don’t agree with the changes to carriers, aircraft, or transports and here’s why:

1.Sea zones and land territories are just spaces. The only thing that makes them different is that vessels can only fight in water and land units can only fight on land unless a ‘bridging’ vessel like a carrier or transport enables land and air units ‘special’ abilities. You will never see a BB or CA or any other warship fight a land unit by itself if at all. Hence no BB vs. a Tank just because it sailed on by or vice versa.

2.Carriers enable small aircraft to land on the sea making it a special unit and valuable hence no change in cost and is worth it’s value. Transports enable land units to cross oceans and enable some ships to attack land during amphibious assault via bombardment, same thing.

3.Aircraft can attack both on land and sea and have the greatest range of movement/firepower hence they are worth their cost and ability.

4.We have no solid factor statistic about what any unit represents in cost or actual strength in numbers. So it is not unreasonable for a land unit and a naval unit with the same or similar attack and defense stats could have the same cost. Remember without another “bridging” unit they cannot possibly attack or defend against each other hence their cost’s are irrelevant to one another.

5.If everyone pays a lower costs for naval units they balance each other out because the Axis player pays the same price as the Allied player.

6.Transports still cost the same as do all OOB transport rules under my model. So no hordes of blockers or any of the “old” problems of previous editions. Transports become more precious than before. You will want and need to protect them even more, but you’ll also be able to protect them more easily.

7.Carriers remain the same as OOB stats. they will perform their intended role and become more valuable.

8.Aircraft don’t need to be modified as already stated above and by other posters.

This is just my two cents. Hopefully people will see what I’m talking about. While it seems strange really think about it. Are you ever going to see a Cruiser and Tank duke it out over a SZ after it drove off into the Med or swam into the Channel? Or a Battleship ever jump out of the water and take over an island?

Edit-
Side note: While I do agree with many points posted I’m not lobbying for an official rule change. I do think that this could be a great variant or house rule. I also have no aspirations of convincing Larry Harris, WOTC, tournament organization…etc. to deviate from any official rules. :-D

[eddiem4145]

With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.

Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.

Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.

But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.

So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.

I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.

What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.

[Derek]

Bombers should cost 13, cruisers 11.
Other than that i think the current system works well overall. It promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships to protect transports rather than the other way around. It also widens the gap between good and average players, as mistakes involving defenseless transports, and overspending or under spending on the sea often can be fatal.

Transporting men across the ocean and in turn protecting those transports is supposed to be inefficient, it was inefficient, but it must be done.
In the end land is where the money is, warships exist purely to protect/kill/block transports that move men from land to land across water.
Warships serve a severely diminished role with the old transport rules, and in fact much less money is spent on warships, taking away from a dimension of the game.

It is difficult to find the balance of naval purchases with defenseless transports, and the better player will become evident.

However, as inefficient as your navy might seem, its still better (most of the time) than investing in, 12-30 IPC, industrial complexes that cannot move, and can be SBRd.

In summation the defenseless transport adds depth and entertainment to the game, increases the gap between casual and pro players, and appeals to casual players common sense (transports are not warships)
Everybody wins (except grandpa of course)

[toblerone77]

@eddiem4145:

With the utmost respect, I don’t understand how your points relate to not lowering the costs of transports, carriers, or aircraft.

Assuming you support the idea of lowering the cost to build a navy in general to encourage building them without the need for silly national objectives; if you only lower the costs of subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, then the cost of the aircraft carrier and aircraft combination is now out of whack causing them to lose the dominance they are suppose to have.

Making transports cost $7 and having no defensive capabilities, made the transportation of materials even more expensive, which had no effect in the Atlantic because the US HAS to go there.
I
But in the Pacific, raising the cost to transport men and material and MORE SPECIFICALLY, the transports losing there defensive capabilities, made building a Navy to defend the transports, even more expensive, making it even more inefficient for the US to engage the Japanese.

So then that forced the stupid Japan 6 VC rule, to force the US to spend its resources inefficiently.

I agree with you that the old idea of building only a few ships and a boatload of transports was not fun, EVEN THOUGH, technically, in the old transport rule, a transport represented the transport ships, the landing craft, and escorts.

What’s the difference, spend 24 IPC’s for 3 transports that defend at 1 with the old rule, or spend 24 IPC’s for 2 destroyers that defend at 2 with the same 3 transports with the same rule. This would assume two destroyers would cost 6 IPC’s and transports would cost $4 IPC’s.

Eddie please re-read my post and you will see why. Please also stop quoting as a supporter of making permenant naval changes to the game. I am suggesting that you might have some valid points I am not advocating some big change to the game. I support using house rules or variants not campaigning or lobbying WOTC and Larry Harris.

[eddiem4145]

Uncrustable,

Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.

However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.

I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.

Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.

Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.

[eddiem4145]

Toblerone,

For the record I have played decades with lowering the cost of Navy’s with as many as 20 different players over and over again. Nothing as dramatic though as what I am suggesting now. As you might know, Navy’s have in fact been lowered over the decades, just not enough in my view. Remember the $24 one hit battles ship, $16 one hit AC, $12 planes with the richest nation, the USA making only $36 a turn, $32 once they lost China. One Battleship and one transport took the USA’s entire income. Which was why the Pacific was always a wasteland.

In my current games with Global, Japan and the US start with the tech, “Improved Shipyards”. These days I only play the board game with my son as most of my old players now have families, careers and have moved away. But we will soon begin playing with the more dramatic lowered Naval costs as I have found that even with the improved shipyards, it is not enough.

Unfortunately, one full Global game takes weeks for us to finish.

[toblerone77]

Eddiem,
I’m not trying to be rude and actually see what you’re talking about. What I’m saying is that most people like things just the way they are. Asking for people to join a petition,  campaign or saying its the best way will pretty much go over like a lead balloon and frankly just pisses people off.

I too have been playing since Classic. I have every edition except the really, really, old Nova games edition, Guadal Canal and Europe 1940 1st edition from 2010. Luckily I swooped up the second editons and a first edition Pac 40. That’s all beside the point.

You can have ideas and share them and people may like them or not. I’d recommend playing them through and posting in House Rules or Axis & Allies Variants.  Even then there’s still people who are going to get uptight about that. There’s even people who b-itch about HBG units even though they don’t have to have anything to do with them let alone buy them.

Everyone is entitled to thier opinion.  That’s what the forum is but if you come on strong with an opinion that everbody needs to play thier game a certain way it won’t go over well. Most players here are tourny, league or TripleA players and for the most part play strict games by the book. If you go around telling them “hey everybody we need to tell Larry to change the game” lol people don’t like it.

I personally like the historical, house rules, and customization forums. You ahould try pitching some of your ideas there. I’m sure they’d be welcomed.

Personally I’m not a TripleA/play by forum guy. There are a few of us who aren’t. I’m honaestly not trying to be rude but some sections of the forum just aren’t the best place to post radical ideas or house rules.

BTW welcome to axisandallies.org!

[eddiem4145]

Well, I see your point about coming on to strong. I also have to admit that I have been responding too to many posts at once and get confused about the purpose of that post.

I have also been arguing the same points with the “Cheesiest thing about Global” post someone else started. So being the 6VC victory thing to me is the cheesiest, it opened up my argument about Naval costs and that argument has bleed to this post.

Anyways I appreciate your comments.

[Derek]

@eddiem4145:

Uncrustable,

Being that I have and continue to argue that all Naval units are too expensive, I would of course completely disagree with raising the cost of any Naval units, even one. However, I don’t really disagree with most of your points.

However, the main reason for this reduction is the problem of the Pacific. The only reason the current system promotes sea battles both large and small and encourages the use of warships in the Pacific is because of the atrocious Japan 6VC rule. Without it, the Pacific would be a wasteland.

I don’t disagree with the idea of defenses transports, I disagree with making them defenseless and keeping them at the same high cost.

Without the Japan 6VC NO, you have to make the resources necessary to build a Navy and transports in the Pacific comparable to the rewards that can be achieved.

Overall, I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But that Japan 6VC rules has to go.

Well the only price change i suggested was a decrease, (-1 cruiser) nowhere in my post do i suggest any price increases to navy. I am in favor of an increase to strat bombers however (+1)

Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1.

Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.

lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.

I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…