Island hopping is great, but its not critical. Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great. This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers. They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults. I will have no less than 2. I then will support my fleet with destroyers. I try to build 2 for every carrier. If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment. This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically. Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower. Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines. If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics. Your maximizing your money and strength. Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry. You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault. the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition. But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up. Battle should be over without losing anything. Your fighters land for fleet defense. Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea. Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.
2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?
-
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! -
“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!”No, there is also the IPC gained from the surviving USSR infantry killing attacking German invaders. In addition, USSR also gains a positional advantage by trading infantry produced two turns ago for infantry produced four turns ago. Also, if Germany takes too long to take Russia, the Allies will win. The alternative is NOT attacking German held territory, in which case the Germans simply gain 2-3 IPC per turn. Do you understand what I mean?
Two USSR infantry and a USSR fighter attack a territory worth 2 IPC held by one German infantry. If the USSR takes with one infantry and one fighter surviving, the USSR gained +3 IPC from killed German infantry, -3 IPC from lost USSR infantry, +2 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 probability of killing a German infantry when the German infantry invades next turn.
If Germany sends a TANK, that is BETTER; the expected payout becomes +5/3 instead of +1 IPC. If Germany cannot send anything to attack, that is good too; the territory is held at no cost.
" I dont think that trading IPCs on one-for-one basis with a economical stronger enemy like Germany is wise for Russia!"
So LOSING IPCs to the Germans is a better strategy than trading IPCs? Think about what you’re saying! Or are you saying that you have a strategy for Russia to consistently perform attacks against Germany that will GAIN IPCs?!! If you have something like that, you should really explain it. There’s the first turn attacks against West Russia and Ukraine or Belorussia, and that is it, unless the German player sucks or the USSR gets truly lucky.
–
USSR spends 11 IPC on two infantry and a tank. I thought it was clear in my earlier post. If USSR uses 2 infantry and a tank to attack a German territory held by 1 infantry, USSR will likely win, but the German counterattack will kill the USSR units. The attack then becomes too costly for USSR to make in the first place. On the other hand, if USSR attacks with two infantry and a fighter, the USSR has only commited 6 IPC worth of units.
Fighters are cost-effective for land combats for the reason previously given. You do not want to commit your forces. The fact that fighters are also used for naval attack and defense makes them a truly excellent unit even at the cost of 10 IPC.
-
No, there is also the IPC gained from the surviving USSR infantry killing attacking German invaders. In addition, USSR also gains a positional advantage by trading infantry produced two turns ago for infantry produced four turns ago. Also, if Germany takes too long to take Russia, the Allies will win. The alternative is NOT attacking German held territory, in which case the Germans simply gain 2-3 IPC per turn. Do you understand what I mean?
Well, we are talking about trading for a singel small territory. It wont delay an major attack from Germany. When Germany goes for Moscow it wont be just a INF or two. However in small battles before Germany is ready for the big go, these kind of trade battles might happen. You are right about that a 2 INF and 1 FTR combo is a better trade than a 2 INF and 1 ARM, since the trading will be worth 6 IPCs instead of 11 IPCs. But is still trading as long as both side have a FTR to use instead of a tank. So if we consider that both Germany and Russia will have FTRs, then such a battle will just be a better trade than using ARM. I would say if Russia does not have a FTR to back up such a battle (trading), it is simply not worth it if Germany have FTRs! This is just easy math.
Germany will simply gain those 2-3 IPCs no matter if Russia attack and captures that territory since they will counterattack with INF and FTR and hence use the same tactic. As long as both sides use FTRs in such a trade battle, the trade will be 6 IPCs (2 INF) for 6 IPCs. If one accept the trade Russia will gain 2-3 IPCs per round and so will Germany. But if Russia does not have FTR the trade will be 11 Russian IPCs for 6 German IPCs to gain 2-3 IPCs, that is a net loss of 2-3 IPCs!!! That is the reason why Russia should not take on such a trade battle and hence those expensive FTRs Russa starts with are very expensive. Right!
In your scenario a FTR is a better unit than an ARM, but it is not always the case! Sometimes one want to stay in a just captured territory to beef up defense for a counter attack also it can capture a territory! Not to forgett the fact that AA Guns can targey those FTRs, wich makes them a risky buy! So I would say that the FTR and ARM complement each other as units in that way. They are simply good for different purposes. Hence the pros and cons are even so far. The true question is what justifies those 10 IPCs for 3/4 unit compared to a 3/3 unit for 5 IPCs. If we consider a fictive FTR unit that can move and attack land only, what would such a unit be worth? I say 6-7 IPCs, since such a unit mainly would be better for defense. INF still is the best defensive buy, so that argument is not very strong. I say the main reason for those extra IPCs is the extra mobility, 4 in movement compared to 2 for an ARM. That mobility advantage is worth at least 1 IPC. So those extra 3-4 IPCs, of buying a FTR compared to an ARM, is basically assignable to a better range (movement) and option to fly across see and to engage naval battles. I say a that the versatility of a FTR makes it worth at least 8 IPCs, but to be balanced for naval combats the price need to go up a bit. I belive that a 8 IPC FTR would become a game braker for naval battles (for mathimatical reasons not disclosed here). As the design for navy cost and capabilities are now, I say 10IPCs is a balanced price for FTR. Still 10 IPCs is hard to motivate for land based combats, and that is why I suggests the use of an air supremacy rule! Such a rule should also affect naval battles, to capture the historical importance of controling the skies and make CAs even more important! Your arguments for a 12 IPC FTR are indeed something I would like to here more about. As long as one can lower the cost without braking the game balance, that unit is not perfectly balanced for the game. That is the true reason for the reduced cost of a FTR in A&A:R!
-
Seems like it is a tough choise between a BB and 2 DDs!
-
with 2 destroyers you get to attack twice on the first turn with two 3’s instead of 1 4 and even if you lose a destroyer you have overall more firepower with a chance to attack 3 times rather then two
-
with 2 destroyers you get to attack twice on the first turn with two 3’s instead of 1 4 and even if you lose a destroyer you have overall more firepower with a chance to attack 3 times rather then two
You are a genius!
-
Neither.
You only ever need one destroyer in a navy for sub deterrence.
I’ve never bought a Battleship in a game that wasn’t already decided.
But if you put a gun to my head I’d buy the Battleship, because it’s an intimidating purchase :evil:
-
What;s even better then 2 DD’s? 3 SSs. :) If the battle goes bad, you can always dive and live to fight again later. :P
BTW, in June Switch was talking about not raising the price of fighters again. Maybe we need two different types of fighters? Carrier Fighters that cost 8, ATT 2, DEF 2, Rng 5 (so they can hit islands easier.) And land fighters cost 10, ATT 3, DEF 4.
-
Futher discssion on that point needs to be moved to House Rules area.
-
“with 2 destroyers you get to attack twice on the first turn with two 3’s”
what the hell is this? destroyers attack at 2 not 3…. I think you guys must be using a house rule.
-
Sorry IL, DSTs are 3/3.
-
OMG! I have confused my own house rules with OOB rules… LOL!
if thats the rule then 3/3 is far better than the cost value of a BB
-
Yea, common house rules were (at least here and SIU-Carbondale)
8 IPC Destroyers: 2/2 only ship that can kill submarines
12 IPC Cruisers: 3/3 can do shore bombardment
20 IPC Battleship: 4/4 2 Hits to Sink
12 IPC Aircraft Carrier: 1/1
10 IPC Naval Fighter: 2/3 -
Still depends on the objective IL…
If you have massed navy issues, then yes the 2 DSTs are the better buy.
If you ahve small navy issues, the free hit for teh BB may be well worth it.
If you have no naval issues, and are just landing troops hither and yon, then the BB is obviously the better of the two (IF you buy navy at all!)
-
Hi There
I’m new to this sight. Thus such a late reply.
This thread has been very interesting.
On the issue of Destroyers, I think if they are allowed to bombard shore units then they should also be subjected to land attacks. The reason being is that in most cased their gun range would be about the same as most shore batteries. It’s clear that DD did participate in anphibious assaults, they also suffered losses. With a few exceptions, CA & BB were well out of range for most shore guns and as far as I know, a CA or BB was never lost (although some CAs were damaged) from shore bombardment.
Now there was a lot of discussion about the value of the DD vs CA & BB. Perhaps by allowing only CAs & BBs shore bombardment and not the DD, would give more value to these ships.
-
Yea thats what i got …no dd shots can count for SB. plus you need to land 4 infantry for one free shot, but each supporting ship also gives one infantry a +1 (including dd) at a 1/1 basis like artillery.
- free SB shots (preemtive)
- defending artillery fires and AA guns (preemtive)
- attacking infantry land and air and fire ( not armor or artillery)
- all other defending units fire
second round+:
- all attacking units fire (incliuding tanks and artilery)
- all defending units fire
-
We have strayed into House Rules. Further discussion along those lines needs to be moved to the House Rules area.
Suggested Topics
