The UK carrier would not be involved in the battle in any way, regardless of what the US attacked with.
2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?
-
@ncscswitch:
Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…
who cares about historal accuracy in this case?
it’s still a game, right?
and you have to have LOT’s of fantasy to see the realism as it is now!
If the game should be historical accurate?
then armor could not defend when you make a landing in Western Europe for example :-P
and most of all: axis would never win the battle or even the war…
:roll:what I mean: I still prefer a NICE and FUN game, rather then being subject to a historical accurate -but not compelling- replay of history where ships cost a lot more etc…
-
By historical accuracy, I was refering to the fact that WWII was the war that put an end to the dreadnaughts. By the time Midway was complete, BB’s were passe, and Carriers would become the lords of the seas for the next 60+ years.
With the current set-up of IPC costs in Revised (lower AC and FIG costs), Revised moves toward that naval air power dominance instead of the WWI subs and BB’s.
-
Yes!
Every nation starts with a couple ftrs, so for 16 IPCs you get a defense of 3 + 4 + 4, no other ship can compare or even come close, even if you beaf up DD and drop their cost to 8 that is still only two 3’s for 16 and a BB can give you basically two 4’s but for 24 IPC’s. And if you are attacked by enough units you only get one roll.
As for offense a ftr costs 10 and out classes (or is cheaper then any naval unit), plus they can’t even be hit by subs, and a bom has just as much punch as a BB and cost 9 IPC less. Plus planes have greater range and are reusuable and can also serve in land combat.
-
Exactly Darth…
By the time of WWII, General Mitchell’s prediction had come true…
The BEST navy has WINGS…“It is probable that future war will be conducted by a special class, the Air Force, as it was by the armored knights of the middle ages.”
Brig. Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell, Winged Defense, 1924 -
This is why I said Navies were irrelevent in my initial obs thread.
They aren’t really irrelevant, but with an AC loaded, plus planes near by and a bunch of trans that is all you should need. Defensive power and a way to troops where they need to go.
-
This is why I said Navies were irrelevent in my initial obs thread.
They aren’t really irrelevant, but with an AC loaded, plus planes near by and a bunch of trans that is all you should need. Defensive power and a way to troops where they need to go.
So you think that BBs and DDs are more or less worthless in comparation to CAs. I agree, but don’t think it is a “gamebreaker” as it is now! Almost noone buy BBs and DDs (except for one DD). Why have a piece like BB that is more or less useless? I think the design of the BB and DD are not balanced as is now and need to be revised. First of all I think my airsupremacy rule clarifies the importance of wings and should be used as a standard rule in all games (if no enemy fighters, then your fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat)! Then wings are more important and historical correct. How ever BBs and DDs are still and even more lousy pieces compared to a fully loaded CA! My suggestion is that BBs should cost 20 IPCs and DDs 10 IPCs with a 2/3 combat ratio and shore bombardment capability!
-
I think lowering the costs as you have suggested would help, perhaps you’d have to raise Carriers back to 18 IPC or even put them at 20 with a BB, or drop the BB down to 18, AC at 18 and DD at 2/2/2 (with 2 bombard if you want) for 8 IPC, or if you want a little more potent DD keep either att or def at 3 and price it at 10.
Lets say you go with:
AC - 18
BB - 18
DD - 10 (2/3/2 - with 2 bombard)It still seems worth while to get a DD, But the added investment of a BB or AC is certainly worth it, b/c they’d be cheaper then 2 DD’s. Kind of like buying in bulk, you get a better deal if you spend more in one turn.
The problem still remains with ftrs at 10 IPC with a 3/4/4. This out classes a DD and even comes close to a BB. Same with a bom at 15 IPC at 4/1/6.
I think overall though the game dynamic makes navies (no matter what the cost) secondary. The easiest objectives are still Moscow and Berlin.
There is just no way around that. This make a German Naval focus secondary as well, and if Ger doesn’t have a big navy the Allies don’t really need one. Likewise if Germany gets too carried away Russia (who doesn’t even need to worry about a navy) may be able to overrun them.
My thoughts would be, in addition to playing with the Values and Att/Def of units change two VC.
Move the 2nd UK VC city to Aus instead of Ind, and the US from Wus to Hi.
Beaf up Aus with an inf or two from Ind.Now you give Jap a reason to go Pacific, 2 VC cities right there and 1 to defend in the Phil, and this certainly means the Allies cannot just ignore the Pacific. The Axis can be at 8 VCs in no time and 9 with Kar. Now the Allies really have to shift focus. Similar to an M84 defense in Classic with a high Afr bid.
Oh! Maybe bump up the cost of Trannies to 10. Really make it costly to lose them and really make te allies commit to defending them.
Afterall Trannies are great for fodder and they acomplish the main goal of the navy, get troops from A to B. Also since Ger doesn really need trannies this can give them a bit of a boost.So forget changing the VC’s how about this:
AC (1/3/2) - 18
BB (4/4/2) - 18 (with 4 bombard, does not need 1-1 ratio [bb to tran] for bombard)
DD (2/3/2) - 10 (with 2 bombard, needs 1-1 ratio [dd to tran] for bombard)
Tran (0/1/2) - 10
Subs (2/2/2) - 8Ftrs (3/4/4) - 12
Bom (4/1/6) - 16I think you can even get away with making trans 12 IPC. Really make them have to be defended, instead of making them the easy choice for fodder.
-
Not sure I agree with upping the FIGs to 12 again. Lowering the price to 10 has resulted in more FIGs being bought in Revised than in Classic (raising the price makes sense from a “naval” persepctive, but makes FIGs a really BAD deal for Land use, where most FIGs see their main use anyway.
If you just up the AC price back to 18, you make a loaded AC a 38 IPC commitment (unless you steal existing FIGs), which is more than 3 of the 5 nations can pull off in a single turn… and 2 of the “naval” powers can;t afford to buy loaded ACs withiout increasing their income. Even stealing FIGs, it makes Japan and UK have to comit nearly 2/3 of their income to buy an AC.
As for increasing the price of a TRN… That just serves to re-secure US and UK and push the fight back to Germany/Russia even more. Keeping TRNs cheap, and allowing ANY of the nations to drop 3-4 in a single turn makes all of the nations pay a bit MORE attention to enemy naval activity, not less.
-
@ncscswitch:
Not sure I agree with upping the FIGs to 12 again. Lowering the price to 10 has resulted in more FIGs being bought in Revised than in Classic (raising the price makes sense from a “naval” persepctive, but makes FIGs a really BAD deal for Land use, where most FIGs see their main use anyway.
You are so right! FIGs should be the best piece for naval battles, no question about it! I think thecost of 10 IPCs even might be too much. Perhaps 8 IPCs in a land based perspective!
@ncscswitch:
As for increasing the price of a TRN… That just serves to re-secure US and UK and push the fight back to Germany/Russia even more. Keeping TRNs cheap, and allowing ANY of the nations to drop 3-4 in a single turn makes all of the nations pay a bit MORE attention to enemy naval activity, not less.
Yes!!! That is correct. The price and load capabilities of TRNs are the main factors that will affect the degree of naval activity.
-
Bingo! Which is why they should be increased in price, if you want people to buy DD’s that is.
If you are going to keep ftrs cheap then you must accept that both DD and BB are obsolete and shouldn’t be bought at all, no matter how much they cost. They simply aren’t integral to the game, because the only purpose of a navy is to get troops from A to B, ie Trans.
Thus, the only way to make Navies significant is to punish those countries that use trans as fodder, ie the UK and US.I don’t know how many times as the UK or US I’ll leave a lone tran undefended just to get a drop off in Afr or some other somewhat remote spot only to have it shot down. Big deal it was only one tran. Well, I should be punished for that and the only way is to make the tran more costly. Otherwise navies will never be a focus. If they Allies don’t need to protect there ships there is no need to buy Capital Ships at all. In the Atlantic the UK starts with a BB, the US with 2 DD’s and a BB that can be there from Wus in 2 turns, 3 to UK. So spend 16 on a UK AC and that is it, if that.
I’ll take 10 trans (80 IPC) over a mix of 2 BB’s, 2 DD, and 1 trn (80 IPC). Provided, I have a starting capital ship nearby.
As long as trans remain the cheapest option for fodder there is ne real need to buy anything else. Ftrs and bombers are better for bombardment anyway, and you can use them for mulitple rounds. This is why “retreat” from an Amphib assualt in 3rd Ed and now in Revised is huge.
Plus, the Germans shouldn’t be buying boats to begin with, certainly not for the Baltic (or Atlantic). I could make a case for a tran (possible a DD with trn) in the Med, but anywhere else and it is a waste of money.
-
A 2/2 DD for 8 IPCs would dominate a 2/2 SS for 8IPCs, since the sub cannot defend against air. One will always prefer DDs compared to a SS, hence no opening fire for any SS!
I say a 2/3 DD (with shore bombardment ability) for 10 IPCs will do, were as the cost for a BB should be reduced to 20 IPCs. Lower the cost for a CA to 14 IPCs, not raising it to 18 IPCs. It should be cheaper to defend than attack. However still a SS and a FTR is slightly better in offence than a fully loaded CA for 14 IPCs. What makes the difference is air supremacy from carrier based FTRs over SSs, but only if CA is protected by one DD that disrupts the surprise attack from SS. So no more stacking of SS, except for defense! When it comes to attacking FTRs one has to consider the fact that a defending CA always (except for LRA) has the initiative against attacking FTRs! Hence the fact that an attacker with FTRs or SSs will win on a IPC-for-IPC basis against a defending CA that is fully loaded (strongest naval defense) is more theoretical than practical.
However the price for a FTR should not be raised, keep it 10 IPCs. More over one should include the air supremacy rule, or else the DDs will dominate the CAs (better in both defence and attack)! The air supremacy rule will make CAs important, in offence when attacking an enemy force without FTRs and in defense in order to deny an enemy naval force air supremacy!
Do the math and you will see how balanced it is (see below)! To find out the true fighting power, one need to consider the number of units that can absorb hits especially BBs 2-hit ability. BBs will be the best attack unit as long as used in combination with a DD (to disrupt submarines) and FTR (to cancel enemy air supremacy), just like it should be! No longer are subs the best offensive unit (as long as the enemy is protected by DDs)! Great!!! So why buy a SS? I say, SS are for protection from amphibious assaults and convoy raids (see rule clarification below)! Just like it should be!!!
Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese palyers are susceptible to suply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink†IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese palyers collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).
10 CA + 20 FTR (14 IPCs/AC & 10 IPCs/FTR)
Cost: 340
Att: 110+320 = 70
Def: 310+420 = 110
Hits = 3017 BB (20 IPCs/BB)
Cost: 340
Att: 174 = 68
Def: 174 = 68
Hits = 3434 Ftr (10 IPCs/FTR)
Cost: 340
Att: 334 = 102
_Def: 434 = 136 (meaningless)_
Hits = 3434 DD (10 IPCs/DD)
shore bombardment on a 2Cost: 340
Att: 342 = 68
Def: 343 = 102
Hits = 3442,5 SS (8 IPCs/SS)
Cost: 340
Att: 42,52 = 85
Def: 42,52 = 85
Hits = 42,5 -
Where are the trans? :wink:
Or will those troops be swimming to their destinations. :-D -
Where are the trans?  :wink:
Or will those troops be swimming to their destinations.  :-DJust in case you did not notice, I was talking about combat/fighting capabilities. However I don’t think the cost or transport capability need to be changed, due to the rule for convoy raids. That is incentive enough to buy a navy!!! My friend, you need to think outside the box :wink:
-
Hey andersson … hows those NA’s coming along?
-
@B.:
Where are the trans?  :wink:
Or will those troops be swimming to their destinations.  :-DJust in case you did not notice, I was talking about combat/fighting capabilities. However I don’t think the cost or transport capability need to be changed, due to the rule for convoy raids. That is incentive enough to buy a navy!!! My friend, you need to think outside the box :wink:
Just giving ya a hard time. :-D
Personally, I go with something like this: (360 IPC)
Either 4 AC, 8 ftr, 27 trns or
6 AC, 12 ftr, 22 trnsI’d be very tempted to just buy 45 trannies. :-P
It is cheaper to defend then attack, so as long as your navy is strong defensively you need not worry. Make your opponent spend on offensive units.
Nice rule with the convoy thingie, but if it cost you 8 to buy a sub, are you going to make back your cost?
Well placed aircraft, esp bombers should prevent lone subs from creeping around, and if you have to buy “protection” for your subs, aren’t you once again going to have trouble coming out ahead on the economic trade off?
My out of the box thinking is puschase air early (ftrs or boms) with the Allies. UK and US can both afford an early extra bom and with air supremecy you simply contain (or confine) any German fleet in the Balt or Med and have a global reach. Boms in Mos or Cauc have a pretty good reach.
I’ve yet to play as the Axis though. But have some ideas. Muhuhahaha! :-D
-
….
I’d be very tempted to just buy 45 trannies.  :-PIt is cheaper to defend then attack, so as long as your navy is strong defensively you need not worry. Make your opponent spend on offensive units.
…
TRNs defend on a 1 and attack on a 0, hence no good idea of buying them without protection of DD and CA loaded with FTRs! Use two BBs and one fully loaded CA along with a DD and some SSs and attack for one round, then retreat and use those two hits for your BBs. As long as the enmy has got TRNs in his navy worth the same IPCs I gues you will come out a head! You should try these new rules for navy along with the air supremacy and convoy raid rules. You will see!
I always play with the tech super submarines (revised), hence no chance for air to hunt subs alone:
Super Submarines
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack and defend on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines only, unless an enemy destroyer is present.One could play with the rule as standrad. The rule that says submarines may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines only, unless an enemy destroyer is present. This will definitely force the Japanese, UK and US player to think about navy!
-
I was joking about the 45 trns. :-D
-
Where to start.
First, fighters are used against ground targets so ground forces are not committed. This makes fighters VERY valuable against ground targets; decreasing the IPC cost to 8 is, I think, FAR too good.
Example: USSR has a stack on West Russia and two fighters in Russia. Germany holds the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia with one infantry on each territory. USSR attacks Ukraine and Belorussia with two infantry and one fighter each. The most likely result is killing the German infantry worth 3 IPC and gaining a 2 or 3 IPC territory. USSR will lose the 6 IPCs of infantry to the German counterattack, but the USSR infantry can cause more casualties as they die. So the USSR will have a clear IPC advantage from the attack.
But if the USSR tries the same thing with two fighters and a tank each. Germany takes back. Now, instead of spending 6 IPC of units to gain 6-7 IPC of territory and German units (plus a positional advantage), USSR now spends 11 IPC, unacceptable.
That is why fighters really ARE worth 10 against ground targets.
–
There’s a lot of talk about chopping naval unit costs. I disagree. My belief is - ground units are cost effective, air units less cost effective against ground but more cost effective against navy, and naval units least cost effective.
The game mechanic is, the Allies have to build an expensive fleet to counter the German and Japanese fleets, then expensive transports to transport cost-effective ground units into Europe, or to take isolated Japanese islands. This is what gives the Axis time to take Russia. The Allies have to build a navy, and an air force to support that navy, and all that takes time.
If air and naval units are suddenly chopped in cost, the Allies will smash the Axis fleets much faster. The Axis will not have a chance in hell; the Allies will be rammed down their throats. Giving destroyers a support shot and cutting its price is icing on the cake; the Axis can’t afford to build much new naval or air forces so won’t benefit from the destroyers, and the Allies can now bombard the crap out of W. Europe, Karelia, Japan’s islands, and soon, the Asian coast and Japan itself.
The Axis navies represent a considerable portion of their starting IPCs; the attack on the UK battleship and likely destroyer, and on Pearl Harbor slows the Allies down considerably. Do the math. After one turn, if the Germans build a single carrier in the Baltic, the Germans will often have a loaded carrier, two subs, transport, and destroyer in the Baltic, plus a sub, battleship, and transport in the Mediterranean. The Japanese will have two battleships, a destroyer, four transports (after a three transport build), and two loaded carriers. That’s 116 German IPC and 144 Japanese IPCs the Allies have to overcome, totaling 260 IPCs. The Axis spent 40 IPC on navy, so figure the Axis basically had 220 IPC without building.
On contrast, the Allies will have a USSR sub, 2 UK transports and a battleship, another UK sub, destroyer, carrier with a fighter, and two transports in the Indian/Pacific where they are cut off from reinforcement, and a US battleship, three transports, and two destroyers. That’s 120 IPC on the front, and 62 IPCs that are VERY inconveniently placed, possibly dead, depending on the UK and Japanese move.
Effectively, the Allies have to overcome a 100 IPC difference in naval and air cost to start moving ground troops into Europe or the Japanese islands. And believe me when I say it is not difficult, even with naval and air units as “pricy” as they are.
I think it is no accident that the Allies have far less navy and air force to begin with. I think it is quite deliberate. And I think some of the proposed changes will be very unbalancing.
–
If the Germans have naval interdiction (subs have economic attacks), then I think things could be interesting. The Japan player would have to get something special too.
-
Thread has very strongly shifted to House Rules type discussion…
I really do not want to move the whole thread due to the early content being perfect for this topic area…
Perhaps a new thread in the house rules or variants area covering Naval and Air modifications?
-
Where to start.
First, fighters are used against ground targets so ground forces are not committed. This makes fighters VERY valuable against ground targets; decreasing the IPC cost to 8 is, I think, FAR too good.
Example: USSR has a stack on West Russia and two fighters in Russia. Germany holds the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia with one infantry on each territory. USSR attacks Ukraine and Belorussia with two infantry and one fighter each. The most likely result is killing the German infantry worth 3 IPC and gaining a 2 or 3 IPC territory. USSR will lose the 6 IPCs of infantry to the German counterattack, but the USSR infantry can cause more casualties as they die. So the USSR will have a clear IPC advantage from the attack.
But if the USSR tries the same thing with two fighters and a tank each. Germany takes back. Now, instead of spending 6 IPC of units to gain 6-7 IPC of territory and German units (plus a positional advantage), USSR now spends 11 IPC, unacceptable.
That is why fighters really ARE worth 10 against ground targets.
I dont follow! I get the point that FTRs can retreat and never land in the territory just captured.
The cost of 6 IPCs for INFs are wrong, two INf per territory (2), that is 12 IPCs that will for sure be lost in a counter attack! Germany will loose at least two INFs that is 6 IPCs. The gain of 5 IPCs (2+3) for the terrotories just captured are just trading IPCs with Germany, since they will gain it back in a counterattack! I dont think that trading IPCs on one-for-one basis with a economical stronger enemy like Germany is wise for Russia! The on who think so will loos for sure! The tank thing you use in your scenario is very odd, I dont follow at all. USSR spend 11 IPCs on what? I thought two tanks cost 10 IPCs! No, I think you need to be more precis here! Fighters are not costeffective for 10 IPCs in a ground based combat. It all depends how much the movement is worth. As it is now it is worth some 4-5 IPCs for two additional movements for both land and sea! I hardly find that a good buy. But if the air supremacy rule would be included, then there would be a strong incentive to buy FTRs. Just deny an enemy air supremacy as well as giving an extra punch in an attack!
Suggested Topics
