ps. Also by using the autotech method suggested by Knp, not only do you get the benefit of a more focused tech tree (if you want to play with all the other techs too), but it’s also a lot easier to implement FtF and in TripleA! Excellent call dude, that’s a much easier way to go about it. This has the benefit of plugging in OOB cost values for the tech that are already written in the rulebook. It just gives them to everyone from the outset! So simple!
I actually have not yet hit the Improved Shipyard tech in any of my games. Perhaps because of the way the G40 tech rules make rolling tech a bit of a gamble for the cost, over say the reusable tokens of aa50. Perhaps because few people I play with like to roll for tech anyway, so I haven’t seen it in action. It’s buried in the back of the Europe manual Global section, and not even part of the independent theater games. I didn’t even realize the numbers aligned so well. That’s fantastic! It even makes the cruisers and carriers cheaper than the originally posted suggestions. In my view that would be a net positive.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing with Japan, that hopefully the reduced cost for all players would allow USA to match them (especially if Anzac could get a few more ships into the fight.) This might alter the Anzac naval strat from one that favors Anzac fighters on US carriers, to one where Anzac builds more ships of their own. Especially cheap subs and destroyers, but perhaps also cruisers, or even a carrier deck or battleship, if they manage to get their income up high enough to pull it off haha. Would be cool to see how it shakes out.
I will definitely explore this option in my next game! Thanks again for the input man, and pointing out the tech angle :-D
You can try this in tripleA very easily. All you have to do is launch the normal G40 game.
Click “Enable Edit Mode”
Click “Add technology”
add “Improved Shipyards” to all player/nations before the game begins.
Presto! Cheaper ships for all :-D
Also, I see the logic of trying to pair the values of certain units 2:1, but these numbers above are also already in the game manual. They reflect an OOB option, that actually seems to provide a pretty desirable affect on the naval game, by having some key warships slightly cheaper than the smaller ones they might be paired against. So a carrier at 13 is slightly cheaper than 2 destroyers at 14. But a battleship is slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than the destroyer/cruiser combo, which encourages cruiser buys. Here 3 subs are nearer the cost of 2 destroyers, which would encourage wolf packing. 2 cruisers are slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than a single battleship. Overall I think this cost structure favors the cruiser pretty nicely. The destroyer is still effective as a hunter killer or as a fodder unit, but less overpowered relative to the sub. Meanwhile the transport is less expensive relative to the TUV it transports, and the cost seems to better reflect the fact that they are defenseless as noted by enoughsaid.
Just looking at some of the options, the Carrier + Destroyer combo = 20 ipcs for a pretty clean buy. Cruiser + Transport combo at 15 ipcs also pretty clean. 3 sub combo at 15 ipcs, fairly clean as well.
Overall I think this cost structure is probably ideal, and does a lot of what I’d like to see for the naval game generally, providing more flexible naval purchase options at a reduced cost.
