Cruisers and tac bombers new abilities


  • Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?


  • @The:

    Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?

    That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.


  • @McMan:

    @The:

    Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?

    That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.

    Well, I’m not suggesting a house rule. I don’t like those. Just a thought for future games. And, hopefully, future games won’t “balance” the game in the bs way they did it this time with a Japanese air-force that has more planes than practically every other power combined.


  • @The:

    @McMan:

    @The:

    Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?

    That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.

    Well, I’m not suggesting a house rule. I don’t like those. Just a thought for future games. And, hopefully, future games won’t “balance” the game in the bs way they did it this time with a Japanese air-force that has more planes than practically every other power combined.

    They have 28 planes. The US has 12. The UK has 10. Germany has 8. They don’t even beat 3 of the other powers. Adding Russia’s 3, France’s 1, China’s 1, ANZAC’s 4, and Italy’s 2, its 41 vs 28


  • personally i like the idea that games wont end within 2 turns of someone getting super bombers, cause that is all that happens. turn they get it they buy bombers and thats all they buy from then on, just becomes innevitable at that point unless they were close to collapsing. This is much better.


  • oops, had multiple windows open and replied to the wrong one. sorry.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @The:

    @McMan:

    @The:

    Speaking of AA Gun territories, I’ve always wondered why AA guns don’t fire every round. What about having them do that, but only having them shoot once (instead of at every plane) but also allowing lots of AA Guns. So you could have like an AA gun with two chips under it, which would fire three times a round (even if there were like 10 planes) and then maybe you could choose aa guns as casualties or something? Thoughts?

    That would probably throw off the balance of the game quite a bit, seeing as attacks can include around 30 planes. I imagine a lot of battles in the Pacific would change if AA guns fired like this.

    Well, I’m not suggesting a house rule. I don’t like those. Just a thought for future games. And, hopefully, future games won’t “balance” the game in the bs way they did it this time with a Japanese air-force that has more planes than practically every other power combined.

    They have 28 planes. The US has 12. The UK has 10. Germany has 8. They don’t even beat 3 of the other powers. Adding Russia’s 3, France’s 1, China’s 1, ANZAC’s 4, and Italy’s 2, its 41 vs 28

    Really man? you call them having almost as much as the three largest world powers acceptable when they should barely have more than germany? What is this?


  • @The:

    Really man? you call them having almost as much as the three largest world powers acceptable when they should barely have more than germany? What is this?

    Keep in mind that it’s Japan vs. the US, India, ANZAC, China, and 18 Russian infantry. Together, they outearn Japan by nearly 100 IPC’s in Global. Whereas Germany can easily increase its income by steamrolling France and then turning on an unprepared Russia, Japan has no easy means of getting more money other than going for China, unless it does J1, and it has no allies in range to help out in the Pacific. It needs all the planes it can get! Although Pac isn’t balanced, I imagine Global will be, even with all those planes. Why is a ratio of units such a big deal if the game is balanced and fun (which I’m assuming it will be)? There are so many nitpicky details that aren’t exactly like the war was, but that’s why it’s a GAME. If it was exaclty like the war, the Allies would win every time  🙂


  • The problem is not cruisers are too weak; it’s rather destroyers are too strong. Aircrafts should always have some edge against navy for the same investment so 12 IPC for a 3/3 naval unit is just fine. To balance things, I will try a very simple rule. Just give cruisers (and also battleships) the ability to drop the combat value of a single enemy destroyer (this can also be applied to enemy carriers) to 1 on a one-on-one basis, in the exact opposite way as artillery does when supporting infantries. I did the maths using the “no luck” method and it completely balances cruisers vs destroyers IPC-wise, giving a slight edge to mixed groups, while keeping the battleship as the “king of all ships”. It gives an interesting role to cruisers when its time to deal with single destroyers which is, I beleive, rather realistic and, more importantly, it doesn’t break the air vs naval balance.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Cruisers don’t do this in the real world.

    Its not realistic. They don’t do anything to enemy destroyers in that regard. The solution must be somewhat realistic.

    However a cruiser did have the fastest speeds and longest cruising range and were designed as a AA gun platform to help protect larger ships.

    AA gun roll at 1 either each round or every round for each CA could balance it out, or just reduce them to 10 and drop the SB capability and add in ASW.

    or drop to 11 and add in ASW and one round AA fire


  • @Imperious:

    Cruisers don’t do this in the real world.

    Its not realistic. They don’t do anything to enemy destroyers in that regard. The solution must be somewhat realistic.

    or drop to 11 and add in ASW and one round AA fire

    Yeah, I see your point. But I see the problem on the opposite angle. The purpose of my rule is not to increase the strength of cruisers but rather to decrease that of destroyers against larger and better armed vessels. As far as I know, large ships have been removed from fleets after WW2 because they were getting too vulnerable to aircrafts. I don’t think that strengtening cruisers would be a very good idea because of balance vs aircrafts that is already fine.

    There are other options for destroyers though. Maybe preventing a hit from a roll of 2 to be allocated to a cruiser, a battleship or an aircraft (or something like this)…

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    In my opinion, destroyers are already crap units and are only good as shield ships… absorbing hits. But for the fact that they are not at all useful offensively, I never buy them.


  • @LHoffman:

    In my opinion, destroyers are already crap units and are only good as shield ships… absorbing hits. But for the fact that they are not at all useful offensively, I never buy them.

    Except for subs, they are the most cost effective offensive naval unit. They are also the most cost effective naval unit on defense except a loaded carrier.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @LHoffman:

    In my opinion, destroyers are already crap units and are only good as shield ships… absorbing hits. But for the fact that they are not at all useful offensively, I never buy them.

    Except for subs, they are the most cost effective offensive naval unit. They are also the most cost effective naval unit on defense except a loaded carrier.

    You mean cost effective as in least money for most hit points, or whatever term you use for that? That may be so, but they are utterly worthless except to help make your fleet unassailable by buying large numbers of them. They have no positive attacking qualities compared to other naval units (except subs-transp) and they cannot support naval landings. I prefer to buy for hitting power than die quantity… especially in this new game where carriers also take two hits to destroy… lots of carriers and BBs near a friendly naval base are hard to take out by themselves.


  • @LHoffman:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @LHoffman:

    In my opinion, destroyers are already crap units and are only good as shield ships… absorbing hits. But for the fact that they are not at all useful offensively, I never buy them.

    Except for subs, they are the most cost effective offensive naval unit. They are also the most cost effective naval unit on defense except a loaded carrier.

    You mean cost effective as in least money for most hit points, or whatever term you use for that? That may be so, but they are utterly worthless except to help make your fleet unassailable by buying large numbers of them. They have no positive attacking qualities compared to other naval units (except subs-transp) and they cannot support naval landings. I prefer to buy for hitting power than die quantity… especially in this new game where carriers also take two hits to destroy… lots of carriers and BBs near a friendly naval base are hard to take out by themselves.

    You can buy 2 BB or 5 DD. 5 DD have a 60% chance of winning.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    You can buy 2 BB or 5 DD. 5 DD have a 60% chance of winning.

    And 2 BB can hit and run and kill 2 DD and avoid any damage entirely. Each BB hit can cost you zero, while DD hits cost 8 per.

    Of course getting the SB at 4 is pretty much an automatic hit too.


  • @Imperious:

    You can buy 2 BB or 5 DD. 5 DD have a 60% chance of winning.

    And 2 BB can hit and run and kill 2 DD and avoid any damage entirely. Each BB hit can cost you zero, while DD hits cost 8 per.

    Of course getting the SB at 4 is pretty much an automatic hit too.

    Assuming you’re one space away from naval base and the DD’s don’t attack you first.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    BB’s usually are protected with other ships, so in combat usually the guy with BB will get some free hits that wont cost him.


  • @Imperious:

    BB’s usually are protected with other ships, so in combat usually the guy with BB will get some free hits that wont cost him.

    So are DD’s.


  • I love all this discussion on the cruisers.  I would also agree on the historically accurate changes for the cruisers as well.  Being that cruisers could go 3 spaces at all times (so does that mean that cruisers would also gain the extra movement space from a NB?)  Plus I think that one round of AA fire is appropriate as well.  I pose a question to Kreighund.  Was this discussed as well in the development phase of the game?  Btw thanks for all your hard work that you’ve put in the game and for answering your questions.  I can’t wait to get my copy at the store. 🙂  Good gaming to all!

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Imperious:

    BB’s usually are protected with other ships, so in combat usually the guy with BB will get some free hits that wont cost him.

    So are DD’s.

    Usually ALL ships are in fleets with others… but nobody buys a Battleship to protect destroyers… it is the other way around. If you have a decent fleet already and you are looking for some advanced firepower, I’d buy Battleships or Carriers over cruisers and Destroyers… they can take free hits AND they are more versatile in combat capabilities. I may be more dissuaded from attacking 1 Battleship and a loaded carrier than attacking 6 or 7 Destroyers… depending on my situation.


  • I really like the idea of a first-round AA shot for cruisers. With the new destroyer abilities, I naver buy cruisers except for the occasional amphibious landing. I think adding the AA shot will make a cruiser a necessary addition to any mixed fleet.

    I’m not sure how to improve the Tac Bomber, though. For only one more IPC than a fighter you loose a defense point and gain the possibility of having an extra attack point (if there’s an escort fighter or a tank). I’m afraid that the first-round targeting ability will tip the scale in the other direction and makes Tacs too powerful. Are there any other thoughts on other advantages? Or do you think that they’re balanced already?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Tactical bombers should have their original idea restored:

    in land battles in the first round they can select land target
    at sea in the first round they can select their own naval target

    no other changes except allowing them to attack SBR at 50% effective rounded down.

    5 becomes 2
    3 becomes 1


  • The problem with allowing Tacs to select their target is that it makes them better than SBRs. An 11 IPC unit that (when coupled with a tank or fighter) selects its targets on a roll of 4 or less. That’s less expensive for a unit that’s better than the SBR in all categories except range.


  • Walked into a local comic store on a lark and they had a copy sitting on the shelf. The clerk mused that I was buying the only copy they had recieved!

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 5
  • 2
  • 5
  • 56
  • 3
  • 30
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

15.8k
Users

37.4k
Topics

1.6m
Posts