We need as many people as we can get on this, especially for the fun stuff like playtesting. :wink:
Here is an idea that satisfies a lot of problems. Every nation has 6 NAs, 1 of which per nation makes 1 type of unit cheaper. The decision as to which unit is the special cheap unit for that nation is made simply to promote a purchasing strategy similar to historical purchases.
Russia NA for T34’s: Armor units cost 4 IPCs
Germany has NA for Subs: Subs cost 6 IPCs
UK has NA for FIGs: FIGs cost 8 IPCs
Japan has NA for transports (maybe called tokyo express but doesn’t apply specifically for DDs anymore?): Transports cost 6 IPCs each
US has NA for DDs or carriers?: DDs cost 10 or carriers cost 14… I think I like the effect on the game of cheap DDs better than cheap carriers.
Remember, I chose the type of unit for each nation based only on promoting a more historical purchasing strategy.
I don’t know how much I’ll be able to respond to all those topics on account of my work load is picking up for the next couple months and I want to try to get this phase 1 thing done quickly. I’ll probably just end up concentrating all my forum time on the phase 1 stuff and then pick up on the other phases in a couple months.
No worries. We’ve broken up into threads when one is busy just focus on what you are most keen about.
tekkyy…… Ok its official your on the team … welcome!
I’m really liking this cheap unit type per nation idea, but I think we should change it a little:
One of Russia’s NAs is that they can buy 1 armor unit per turn for only 3 or 4 IPCs (I haven’t decided yet, depends on the game balance). Any additional armor units per turn costs the usual 5 IPCs each.
Same for Germany’s NA except instead of an armor unit Germany can buy 1 sub unit per turn for only 6 IPCs.
Ditto for UK except instead they can buy 1 FIG per turn for only 8 IPCs.
Ditto except Japan can buy 1 transport per turn for only 6 IPCs.
Ditto for US except they can buy 1 bomber per turn for only 13 IPCs (maybe even just 12 IPCs, but it depends on game balance).
Yes sounds good… but is their a justification for only one or perhaps i may venture a new nation specific price list? I have proposed this on other sites years ago.
I like these rules as well … they may have some value under tech… like underground industry and full mobilization.
Wait a minute, that doesn’t model mass production which has historic importance IMO.
so who else is on the team?
Here is my thinking why it should be limited to 1 cheap unit per turn:
There’s no problem with having unlimited cheap German subs, British fighters, Japanese transports, and US bombers. The reason why is because with all these unit types the logic doesn’t hold that if it’s beneficial to buy 1 cheap unit, then it’s beneficial to spend all/most your money on that cheap unit. Germany can’t buy all subs and win, US can’t buy all bombers and win, etc… What I’m worried about is unlimited cheap Russian armor. If it’s baneful to buy 1 armor because it’s cheap enough, then Russia should probably end up spending all their money on armor.
Obviously, you can’t have unlimited armor at 3 IPCs each. 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs should be fine because still many infantry will be purchased. I don’t see how 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs would really make Russia that much stronger, but we’ll never know for sure until playtesting.
The only other option for cheap armor is then armor for 4 IPCs each, either with some per turn limit or not. If we have a per turn limit where armor can be 4 IPCs each, then the worth of that NA would only be approximately 1IPC*(the limit of cheap armor per turn). In the case of 1 per turn, the NA would only be worth at most 1 IPC per turn… not very good compared to the rest of the NAs. This then brings me to why I don’t think unlimited armor at 4 IPCs each would work… If armor costs the same as rtl, then the mass production of armor would cut into the production of rtl. How much rtl would you buy as Russia if you could pay the same for armor? I for one wouldn’t buy a whole lot of rtl, if any. If you take into account the infantry attack bonus for rtl, then they are at best just as good as armor. On defense and movement, armor is clearly better. Realistically, there must be some benefit for Russia to purchase rtl and there isn’t a benefit when all armor costs 4.
So I guess my conclusion is that the best way to model cheap is to have a limit of 1 per turn at 3 IPCs. Alternatively, you could say, if Russia buys 3 armor per turn, then they get 1 free, but the problem with that is that it doesn’t compliment the other cheap unit NAs very well. You can’t say, for every 3 fighters UK buys in a turn, UK gets 1 fighter free. UK would have to save up a lot of IPCs and then buy 4 fighters in 1 turn. That’s not a good realistic purchasing strategy.
I feel that a limit of 1 per turn brings a nice similarity and simplicity to the cheap unit NAs, while offering a great compromise between realistic mass production and game balance. I concede that it doesn’t make perfect sense to have a limit on production like that, but think of the effect of only having 1 cheap armor per turn on the game. It is a great, simple rule that happens to give a realistic model of the number of Russian armor units without being too powerful for Russia.
That post will take time to grasp…
the team is: you, me, duke, Mr. Andersson (gamemaster), das reich, and a few other bit players for now. more to follow…
I don’t see how 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs would really make Russia that much stronger, but we’ll never know for sure until playtesting.
Thats just a 2 IPC bonus. It’ll be fine.
This then brings me to why I don’t think unlimited armor at 4 IPCs each would work… If armor costs the same as rtl, then the mass production of armor would cut into the production of rtl.
Yeah it would be weird. Tanks should cost more than artillery even when mass produced.
So there is something wrong with our model.
We need to model mass production. The overall cost should still be more than artillery.
Maybe 1 free tank when you purchase 5 tanks?
With 25 IPC Russia can buy 6 tanks, or 6 artillery with 1 IPC left.
We get strange situations when don’t modelling it properly. “Tank at 4 IPC” is much stronger than “1 free tank every 4 tank”. More logically it should be called “5 tanks for 20 IPCs” instead. It would model how the other factories (eg. artillery factories) can’t produce tanks!
Also this mass production advantage I believe wasn’t there until 1943. Something about the older T34 (vs. T34-85) wasn’t “right on the money” and they didn’t mass it.
“You can’t say, for every 3 fighters UK buys in a turn, UK gets 1 fighter free. UK would have to save up a lot of IPCs and then buy 4 fighters in 1 turn. That’s not a good realistic purchasing strategy.”
My sugguest was specific to Russian tanks. I haven’t done research to this whether this mass production thing can be justified for UK planes.
If we were to do it anyway it could be “2 fighters for 18 IPCs”.
I actually rather not a totally remake of cost charts. We work with such small numbers you can’t fine tune.
I’m OK with defining it as 1 cheap unit per turn like I said (i.e. 1 Russian armor per turn for 3 IPCs) or defining it like 2 of that type of unit for a discount (like 2 Russian armor per turn for 8 IPCs). Obviously, with these 2 examples the first option is better than the second but both would work out fine.
I don’t like saying that you need to buy more than 2 of that unit type to get the discount. Russia should never be forced to buy 4-5 armor in a turn to be able to take advantage of this. Russia needs to be able buy many infantry every turn and still take advantage of T-34s NA.
Like I said before, I’m OK with either of the 2 options above, but I still prefer 1 armor for 3 over 2 armor for 8. I just don’t see the big deal of just letting it be 1 armor per turn for 3 IPCs. IMO that’s as good a model of T-34 production as we’ll get.
Well instead of making a few pieces cost different for each ally… why not make a new nation specific unit value so each nation has specific units that have better values and costs. So japan will have like tanks at 2-3, while germany gets 4-3… some infantry will be at 2-2 while others are getting artillery at 3-2. UK can have planes at 4-4 and usa can have bombers at 5-2 (heavy) the list goes on…of course the costs reflect accurately what was possible… perhaps this is phase 3 stuff.
what do you guys think of having the game presented as a combination of a set of rules? What I mean is instead of having a game of RR, axis advantage or bidding (like the combination rules there were before), now before players sit down and play they decide what type of game they’ll play with exactly one choice in the following 3 categories…
Tech rules:
National Advantages:
Expansion Units
Italy
I think this set of combinations is key so that this will appeal to a wide enough audience. Not everyone wants the same thing, and this solves that as well as gives people the chance to mix things up for better replayability.
The structure is fine. It would be like a menu of installed rules covering each type of game they want.
If we’re going to have options like that, then all options in a certain category don’t all have to be introduced in the same phase. The Simple Tech option can (and should IMO) be introduced in phase 1 while the Complex Tech option can be introduced in a latter phase.
For our main version of historic accuracy the list of NAs could be quite short. What could happen: Radar shouldn’t be restricted to UK and become a tech option…Lend-lease is going to be standard…Convoy raid would sort of displace U-boat interdiction…
But thats normal and realistic.
If we’re going to have options like that, then all options in a certain category don’t all have to be introduced in the same phase.
We’ll have to structure our phases well if we were to have multiple versions.
Or lets not get carried away and just focus on our dream historic version.
Trimmed down options are just something on the side IMO.
This is a list of all the options that I think we need along with when each of the options should be available IMO:
Tech rules:
National Advantages:
Expansion Units
Italy
I agree that we’ll be able to do away with many of the NAs since we’ve incorporated those NAs into the game for all nations to have available to them (like U-boat interdiction and radar, etc…). This will leave room for some other NAs that we can introduce (like cheap unit types for each nation).
I think that it’s important to have the total number of NAs for each side (not each nation) to be the same for balance purposes. I propose having 4 NAs for each Allied nation and having 6 NAs for each Axis nation. Also for balance purposes I think we need to make it so all the NAs are about equivalent in value (no more super good ones and worthless ones).
Ok ill go with this as well… its good and adequate for the job.
Great to see its planned out.
I actually like all NAs active.
Unless we find historic resource constraints otherwise or something.
Oh we don’t have to worry about making same no. of NAs.
Balance is not achieved via no. of NAs.
At this stage balance needs only be looked at loosely.
Because even if we tried to we won’t do a good job.
Its difficult to anticipate as AAR is no where as realistic/detailed/strategic/fun… 8-)
Some of these ideas are mine and some are not! The German 88’s are not mine and I do think that Fortress Europe prety much involves the 88’s! The 88’s in the NAs mentioned in this topic is imbalanced! It is a game braker! Any German player that would get that NA will most likely win the game, since a pile of such artillery with opening fire will kill anything, since casualties can not counter attack! :mrgreen:
I dont like the T-34 NA due to historical reasons, it was not better than a Sherman! But worse than a Panther or upgraded Panzer IV! German tanks cost 7 IPCs and have a combat capabillity of 4/4 were as an allied tank has a combat capability of 3/3 and cost 5 IPCs! What do you think?
@B.:
Any German player that would get that NA will most likely win the game, since a pile of such artillery with opening fire will kill anything, since casualties can not counter attack! :mrgreen:
For your information there is this other AAR varient “Enhanced” popular on AH forum.
(The varient is about balance and was pretty much created in an unstable and ad-hoc style.)
They found the opening fire didn’t save them that many return hits.
@B.:
I dont like the T-34 NA due to historical reasons, it was not better than a Sherman! But worse than a Panther or upgraded Panzer IV! German tanks cost 7 IPCs and have a combat capabillity of 4/4 were as an allied tank has a combat capability of 3/3 and cost 5 IPCs! What do you think?
Yes I’ve something alone the lines that you need 5 T-34s to kill a Panzer but Russia usually had 6. :-D
T-34 is just a massed unit and this is what we are trying to model at the moment.
