––First off, let me state that everyone has different opinions and are completely free to play A&A with whatever
“house rules” that the deem desirable. However, having said that, I’d like to give you some of my opinions concerning navies, naval strategy, etc.
Since you mentioned America & Japan in the Pacific I’ll use it as my example.
––This game has many facets:
1.) Strategy……The taking of certain Victory Cities such as Japan itself in order to win the game.
2.) Economics…The conquering of territories in order to increase your IPC income.
3.) Military……Defeating an enemy force to either increase your capabilities, reduce your enemies’ capabilities, or simply to defeat his forces.
––You can see that for America or Japan to accomplish the above Strategic or Economic facets of their games they MUST USE NAVAL TRANSPORTS to accomplish these goals.
––Therefore, IMHO the naval transport has the potential to be the most threatening of any enemy units and so it follows that eliminating enemy transports is PRIORITY ONE on my enemy target list. If you succeed in denying transports to your enemy you have already denied him the ability to grow via overseas movements**(Economics), and impotent to invading most victory cities(Strategy)**. By doing this you probably have, but not necessarily, scored a (Military) victory also.
––IMHO the MAIN PURPOSE of a navy is to defend/protect the naval transports which make victories possible.
––It’s imperative that you take into consideration the composition/power of any enemy navy you attack or defend against and purchase sufficient units to ensure victory. For example, you must have enough units to suffer as losses(Destroyers) and not loose your main power(Battleships, Carriers).
––An American Fleet defending in Hawaii with 2-Carriers(w/Fighters & Tacs), 1-Battleship, 2-Cruisers, 4 or more Destroyers, + Subs and 3-Fighters that can scramble from Pearl is a potent force indeed! Obviously more Destroyers would be even better, as would another Battleship or additional Carriers. If attacked at Hawaii the Battleships can absorb 1-damage each and be automatically repaired in place with NO LOSS. The Carriers could even take 2-damage each and be destroyed leaving the Fighters/Tacs to land in Hawaii.
––If going on the offensive subs are a great addition as they are CHEAP($6), and in some cases get a “first shot attack” with NO Return fire from any hit enemy units.
––Therefore, I respectfully but COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your opinion that navies are “inefficient and only for the sake of experience and not efficient strategy”. I believe navies are a primary component in any winning strategy if utilized correctly.
––The purchase of NEW NAVAL UNITS is a valid and almost always necessary option for a winning strategy. Your navy needs enough units to effectively defend the transports, defend itself, and/or attack your enemy.
––Balance in new purchases, as in anything, is always essential, too. Overemphasis on naval purchases to the detriment of land forces, and vice-versa, are loosing formulas. Unless you have a land mass that is threatened and needs to be well defended, any “extra” units located there can be considered as a loss of efficiency if they aren’t attacking, defending, or serving some useful purpose.
––YES, naval units are EXPENSIVE,….but they are a necessary expense!, especially if managed properly.
––I’m sorry, but I think more thought by you concerning balanced purchases, strategy adjustments, and efficiency in the composition of your attacking/defending forces are a better solution than radically changing the game by lowering the cost of naval units.