Thank you for asking! The three US transports please. You are gambling high…
2016 League General Discussion Thread
-
Something worth considering… rather then just adjusting the improved NO’s is adding 1-2 units to western germany. 1 infantry and 1 artillery will make france + normandy slightly easier. It will also make sealion slightly easier.
Make kamikaze tokens something you can buy with the Japanese. 1-2 ipcs for a token.
Those are good ideas I think
1 to 2 IPC a token seems too cheap to me. Not saying it is or isn’t, but my knee-jerk reaction is “frakkin hell, I can lose a carrier and 2 planes to 2 to 4 IPC!?!?” IMHO, 4 to 6 IPC seems better given the value. 10 Kamikazes can do serious damage to an attacking fleet and 20 IPC for 10 tokens would be so worth it for Japan (vs 2 defending fighters? Heck yea!)
-
Probably right. DEFINITELY not 1!!! I wasn’t endorsing the cost, just the idea!
1 kamikaze also stops all bombardment. Just the ability to buy more is huge. Sounds like a great house rule though - probably should cost 3-4 - at LEAST - and have a limit on the total # you can buy
Kamikazes can target ships, and a single hit disables a carrier which could mean dooming 2 planes. Maybe cost 5-6 apiece
-
They are so situational. I don’t like the idea of spending money on something I can’t choose to use. I’d buy a few for 2, if that was an option and Japan was doing badly, but 4 or more seems overpriced to me.
-
Something worth considering… rather then just adjusting the improved NO’s is adding 1-2 units to western germany. 1 infantry and 1 artillery will make france + normandy slightly easier. It will also make sealion slightly easier.
Make kamikaze tokens something you can buy with the Japanese. 1-2 ipcs for a token.
Those are good ideas I think
Yup. Especially the 2 units for Germany aren’t such a big deal for the allies, but they do help out a lot. Obviously it requires at least 10 games worth of testing to see how much this would influence things, but my gut tells me that it might be the right fix in Europe anyways.
As for the cost of the Kamikaze tokens. I agree to a limit of how many you can buy, but honestly 2 feels like the right cost and the reason for that is that on average a kamikaze wil hit 1 out of 3 times. Which means that if you need to pay more then that for something that doesn’t even represent a unit on the board it becomes to expensive. So rather then increasing the cost… a limit to the total kamikaze tokens seems to be right.
-
I wouldn’t have a problem with allowing Japan to replenish their Kamikazes at a cost of 5 IPC each. That’s a little cheaper for a submarine but unlike a submarine, the Kamikaze is lost after use so it balances out, in my opinion.
Of course, if Japan is down to buying Kamikazes instead of actual ships, odds are good they are pretty desperate anyway, so it would definitely be a situational thing.
-
The ability to buy kamikazes is HUGE
You only need 1 to stop all bombardment. 1 kamikaze stops unlimited battleships and cruisers from bombarding, and just having one provides the threat to stop bombardment or disable a carrier or take out the only destroyer that could attack subs.
Would be an interesting house rule. I still suggest 4-5 IPC’s apiece, or perhaps if you want to make them 2-3 then have a low limit, like maybe 2-4 that can be purchased. Would be a good addition to the balance mod - throw a bone to the poor Axis
-
The ability to buy kamikazes is HUGE
You only need 1 to stop all bombardment. 1 kamikaze stops unlimited battleships and cruisers from bombarding, and just having one provides the threat to stop bombardment or disable a carrier or take out the only destroyer that could attack subs.
Would be an interesting house rule. I still suggest 4-5 IPC’s apiece, or perhaps if you want to make them 2-3 then have a low limit, like maybe 2-4 that can be purchased. Would be a good addition to the balance mod - throw a bone to the poor Axis
I think you are overrating bombardment here. You need to buy 5 ipc costing marines these days. Now this may not seem like much more then say an infantry, but there is a significant cost attached to it. Meaning countries like the US are more likely to invest in marines, but countries like Japan are less likely to invest in them (at least in the beginning) and they may invest later in them, but it all depends. Germany might invest in them, but unlikely. UK may also invest in them, but it depends on the size of their fleet and the situation. Basically most of the time it is just the US that buys them and that is about it. At least that is the way I see it.
Also don’t forget that the allies gained a lot in the pacific. The ability to get random infantry in china is huge.
-
Yea, speaking of which, I think Marines are overcosted at 5. They should really be 4 - there’s a pretty strong tradeoff between them and Artillery.
-
The way it works in practice (based on 100+ play tests of the mod) is Japan gets the most early-game use out of marines. A typical J1 purchase, for example, is 3 transports, 1 marine (26 PUs). Have seen them used effectively by every country–including even Russia. (Thats always a fun one. hehe).
Initially Marines were play tested at 4PUs. The increase to 5 was based on the value of what you’re getting. . . which is, in effect, a free transport (converting one of your existing capital ships) and an artillery powered unit. They seem to get used in virtually every game.
-
The ability to jump on a cruiser or battleship is HUGE
I’m sure 5 is most appropriate, and agree with the designersNo idea what marines have to do with 1 kamikaze stopping bombardment, and yes that is huge too. Also the ability to target a carrier or a cruiser (or a destroyer or 2, taking away their capabilities) is gigantic
-
Does a cruiser or Battleship unloading a marine, still get to bombard?
-
@Infrastructure:
Does a cruiser or Battleship unloading a marine, still get to bombard?
Yes
-
Cool.
Thanks!
-
In Balanced Mod can the Marine unit be loaded as an inf on transport? i.e. 2marines, or a marine and an armor?
-
Yes, they’re the same as an infantry unit
-
Can a carrier starting in a sz with an enemy sub ignore the sub while a tp unloads from that sz move on NC (assuming no other ships are with the carrier)? Example would be sz 80 with carrier and enemy sub in it, and a tp would come and unload in Persia and the carrier/tp would ignore the sub, could the carrier move on NC?
-
Yes, you can completely ignore enemy subs during movement (except amphibious assaults with only transports) in all ways. Combat and non-combat movement alike
-
Yes of course, but does that take away the ability to move in the non-combat phase?
-
You never said it was an amphibious assault or that the transport was unloading in the combat movement phase.
So you’re using the carrier to escort the transport. Then I would think the answer is no it can’t move, same as cruisers or battleships that bombard. The escort by the carrier is a combat move even though it’s staying put. You’d have to ask Krieghund to be sure.
-
Yes I did, but maybe it was confusing. Thanks.
Suggested Topics
