Navy's unrealisticly expensive


  • All major Pacific naval engagements are inefficient and are done for the sake of the experience and not for the sake of efficient stragety.

    I am not talking about using your current navy’s, but wasting resources to buy new navy’s at the cost of land units to support other ground theatre of operations.

    Japan-has a great enough navy to do what it needs. If it is forced invest heavily in a navy to engage in a take over of Anzac or challenge the US, there best bet is to play purely defensive, minimal buys as absolutely necessary to fend off invasions of the DEI and focus all they can on land troops that have more immediate payoffs.

    US-Any major offensives in the Pacific come at a massive cost to what could be achieve against Germany. There is not enough satisfactory targets in the Pacific worth taking. The targets that are worth taking are so far off, that the investment required to match Japans build, is so large, what you have to sacrifice in possible gains in Europe is not worth it. Again, the naval builds worth buying are those absolutely necessary.

    The Problem- 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Planes, 1 Destroyer= 8 infantry and 8 destroyers.


  • Solution=  Transports $4 (after all they are defenseless)
                  Subs        $6
                  Destroyers $8 (should only be bought for defense against subs)
                  Cruisers    $10 (this should be the work horse of the sea)
                  Battleships $16

    Carriers      $13
                  Fighters    $8 (this also makes them better use as defense against the new better bombers)

    In addition= The technology of Improved Shipyards should lower it even more
                  Transports $3 (after all they are defenseless)
                  Subs        $5
                  Destroyers $7 (should only be bought for defense against subs)
                  Cruisers    $8 (this should be the work horse of the sea)
                  Battleships $13
                  Carriers    $10

    This would encourage more realistic naval operations that are done out of strategic efficiency versus purely entertaining play. It would be great to combine the two.

    Is there any support out there for this idea. Maybe this could be part of a version 3.


  • Destroyers $8 (should only be bought for defense against subs)

    And to use as picket ships.

    Nothing like screwing up naval plans by having 2-3 destroyers picketing the area.  Because of destroyers I’ve been able to contain whole fleets to 1 move.

  • Customizer

    Eddiem4145,

    ––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.

    Respectfully,
    “Tall Paul”

  • '17

    If transports cost 4 IPC, London would be ridiculously vulnerable to Germany. It might have weird consequences for defending Rome and NSW too.

    Also, I’m not convinced that these price changes would make navies any more aggressive since you’re making the key defensive units (fighters and carriers) significantly cheaper.


  • You guys should view some of the pro games played on this site
    It is in fact far more difficult for USA to have as much impact in the Atlantic vs Germany than in the pacific against Japan, and you will find many global games on here tend to see a very strong USA in the pacific, of course it depends on which theater the axis are focusing on for the VC win
    Tall Paul is correct, it is all about transports (and maybe convoys in G40)
    The allies need them, period. And the axis want to kill them
    This is not so dissimilar to land combat, where the axis need more territories, and the allies will try to deny them

    One could completely scrap the current cost system and redo it, and balance the game out.
    But how long would that take? There have been thousands of games played helping to balance A&A for decades.

    If you played a land war while ignoring naval purchases, a good player would take advantage of that, and you will quickly find out just how dangerous a fleet can be(regardless of axis or allies and regardless of which game)

  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    You guys should view some of the pro games played on this site
    It is in fact far more difficult for USA to have as much impact in the Atlantic vs Germany than in the pacific against Japan, and you will find many global games on here tend to see a very strong USA in the pacific, of course it depends on which theater the axis are focusing on for the VC win
    Tall Paul is correct, it is all about transports (and maybe convoys in G40)
    The allies need them, period. And the axis want to kill them
    This is not so dissimilar to land combat, where the axis need more territories, and the allies will try to deny them

    One could completely scrap the current cost system and redo it, and balance the game out.
    But how long would that take? There have been thousands of games played helping to balance A&A for decades.

    If you played a land war while ignoring naval purchases, a good player would take advantage of that, and you will quickly find out just how dangerous a fleet can be(regardless of axis or allies and regardless of which game)

    Going with this line of thought; a cost structure for naval along the lines of land unit costs would in fact make more sense. The case for historicity v.s. balance can be detrimental to the game experience in many cases. To me it seems most games work out nothing like the history of the war. It is very rare IMHO  That you every see Normandy and many of the key battles and campaigns in the Pacific never happen.

  • Customizer

    Eddie4145,

    @eddiem4145:

    All major Pacific naval engagements are inefficient and are done for the sake of the experience and not for the sake of efficient strategy.
    ––My response is that NO amphibious invasions, whether for increased income, or Capital conquering is possible without a navy.
    I am not talking about using your current navy’s, but wasting resources to buy new navy’s at the cost of land units to support other ground theatre of operations.
    ––Naval purchases to allow your naval force(s) a more effective/efficient defense or offense are simply logical, especially since they SUPPORT LAND UNITS.
    Japan-has a great enough navy to do what it needs.
    ––Japan will at least need some more transports, and before long will need to increase it’s navy’s defensive and/or offensive capabilities in order to survive/win.
    If it is forced invest heavily in a navy to engage in a take over of Anzac or challenge the US, there best bet is to play purely defensive, minimal buys as absolutely necessary to fend off invasions of the DEI and focus all they can on land troops that have more immediate payoffs.
    ––When choosing to confront the US Naval forces it’s only logical to add Destroyers to suffer losses and Subs in order to attack.
    US-Any major offensives in the Pacific come at a massive cost to what could be achieve against Germany.
    ––BALANCE is the operative word here between the Pacific and Europe theaters.
    ----And NO OFFENSIVE against Germany is possible without Transports and a navy to protect them other than a heavy bomber campaign,…and it’s almost certain that you will eventually need to invade some land.
    There is not enough satisfactory targets in the Pacific worth taking.
    ––How about the island of Japan for the WIN!
    The security of your own country or that of an Allie (Anzac, British-Pacific).
    The valuable Dutch East Indies.
    The attainment of National Objective bonuses. These can cumatively be the difference between victory and defeat.
    The reduction of income to Japan.
    The reduction of the military capabilities of Japan.
    The efficient annihilation of Japan’s military forces thereby giving you an economic victory.
    The targets that are worth taking are so far off, that the investment required to match Japans build, is so large, what you have to sacrifice in possible gains in Europe is not worth it.
    ––The same can be said for the European theater. And if you don’t spend enough money in the Pacific you will be forcibly ejected from there by Japan.
    Again, the naval builds worth buying are those absolutely necessary.
    ––I completely agree. But I disagree with you on what is NECESSARY.

    The Problem- 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Planes, 1 Destroyer= 8 infantry and 8 destroyers.
    ––My question to you is simply how you plan to get ANY LAND FORCES delivered to anywhere without naval transports, and a navy to protect/defend them?
    At least in the Pacific you start out with a sizable force between San Francisco and Hawaii: 1-Carrier, 1-Battleship, 2-Cruisers, 2-Destroyers, 1-Sub, and 4-6 fighters/tactical bombers. With one additional Carrier and some Destroyer purchases your fleet should be effective enough to defend itself effectively. And if you added some Subs you can then go on the offensive.

    “Tall Paul”


  • @Tall:

    Eddie4145,

    @eddiem4145:

    All major Pacific naval engagements are inefficient and are done for the sake of the experience and not for the sake of efficient strategy.
    ––My response is that NO amphibious invasions, whether for increased income, or Capital conquering is possible without a navy.
    I am not talking about using your current navy’s, but wasting resources to buy new navy’s at the cost of land units to support other ground theatre of operations.
    ––Naval purchases to allow your naval force(s) a more effective/efficient defense or offense are simply logical, especially since they SUPPORT LAND UNITS.
    Japan-has a great enough navy to do what it needs.
    ––Japan will at least need some more transports, and before long will need to increase it’s navy’s defensive and/or offensive capabilities in order to survive/win.
    If it is forced invest heavily in a navy to engage in a take over of Anzac or challenge the US, there best bet is to play purely defensive, minimal buys as absolutely necessary to fend off invasions of the DEI and focus all they can on land troops that have more immediate payoffs.
    ––When choosing to confront the US Naval forces it’s only logical to add Destroyers to suffer losses and Subs in order to attack.
    US-Any major offensives in the Pacific come at a massive cost to what could be achieve against Germany.
    ––BALANCE is the operative word here between the Pacific and Europe theaters.
    ----And NO OFFENSIVE against Germany is possible without Transports and a navy to protect them other than a heavy bomber campaign,…and it’s almost certain that you will eventually need to invade some land.
    There is not enough satisfactory targets in the Pacific worth taking.
    ––How about the island of Japan for the WIN!
    The security of your own country or that of an Allie (Anzac, British-Pacific).
    The valuable Dutch East Indies.
    The attainment of National Objective bonuses. These can cumatively be the difference between victory and defeat.
    The reduction of income to Japan.
    The reduction of the military capabilities of Japan.
    The efficient annihilation of Japan’s military forces thereby giving you an economic victory.
    The targets that are worth taking are so far off, that the investment required to match Japans build, is so large, what you have to sacrifice in possible gains in Europe is not worth it.
    ––The same can be said for the European theater. And if you don’t spend enough money in the Pacific you will be forcibly ejected from there by Japan.
    Again, the naval builds worth buying are those absolutely necessary.
    ––I completely agree. But I disagree with you on what is NECESSARY.

    The Problem- 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Planes, 1 Destroyer= 8 infantry and 8 destroyers.
    ––My question to you is simply how you plan to get ANY LAND FORCES delivered to anywhere without naval transports, and a navy to protect/defend them?
    At least in the Pacific you start out with a sizable force between San Francisco and Hawaii: 1-Carrier, 1-Battleship, 2-Cruisers, 2-Destroyers, 1-Sub, and 4-6 fighters/tactical bombers. With one additional Carrier and some Destroyer purchases your fleet should be effective enough to defend itself effectively. And if you added some Subs you can then go on the offensive.

    “Tall Paul”

    Well said TP!  Could not of said it better myself.


  • The Problem- 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Planes, 1 Destroyer= 8 infantry and 8 destroyers.

    Also I fail to see what your saying here. The mixed fleet costs 56, the destroyers 64 and the infantry 24

    Carriers and fighters are a more effecient defense than destroyers, with the carrier and fighters being much more versatile.
    Submarines on the other hand are more effecient on offense than destroyers

    Destroyers are good at both, and make good fodder, however are little help when it comes to taking/holding territories

    It can be, has been, and I would say that cruisers are very inefecient, relatively speaking
    And added ability, such as +1 movement could help or a cost reduction to 11


  • OK everyone, I am primarily talking about Pacific Action.

    I thought it went without saying the US absolutely must spend a Navy to protect thier transports.

    Yes Japan of course needs more transports and it has to take the DEI. I thought I made that clear.

    The point is that for Japan to invest heavily in a Navy beyond what it has already in any response to a US naval campaign would be inefficient. It is stragtegically efficient to play purely defensive at this point, forcing the US to spend much greater resources in mounting a naval offensive. The optimal stategy at this point would be to focus on what brings the greatest reward for what you spend, the conquering of land units and land territory not requiring Naval units. 
          -So if Japan can launch a major offensive against Anzac without having to spend major resources on Naval units, that might be an efficient option. But if the US spends huge resources to try and stop it, it would then be more efficient for Japan to focus elsewhere, only buying what is necessary to defend the DEI and its homeland. Mininmal Naval purchases.

    If you are the US, mounting any kind of major Naval campaign in the Pacific where the rewards are either very slim or very far away takes away from the Atlantic where the rewards are higher.

    So the efficient option becomes scarce Pacific action.


  • The ultimate point in comparing the amount of resources needed to build a navy versus land units, is that it takes so many resources to build a navy, that the amount of material that can be purchased in ground units for the same amount can achieve so much more, especially for Japan.

    Of course the US has to build a Navy for the ATlantic, but trying to build a Navy for both the Pacific and Atlantic is inefficient.

    The optimal strategy for both the US and Japan is to play defensive in the Pacific in large part because Navy’s are so expensive compared to land units.


  • And any major offense against the Main Island of Japan is foolish. It is to easy to defend. And what I mean by that is not that it can’t be done, but that the cost to do it is so great, you might as well as give Germany the win in Europe, UNLESS, Germany is really screwing up.

    The cost of a major Naval offensive against Japan is foolish, ASSUMING, you are playing an efficient German opponent. Navy’s simply cost to much. You would have to put it all against Japan to do it.

    As far as balance. That is not how you win wars. You pour the vast majority of you resources where the rewards are the greatest and spend minimally as absolutely necessary. And what that means is very little action in the Pacific, ONCE THE US ENTERS THE WAR.

    Going back to my invasion of Anzac by Japan. If Japan tries it, it does not need to purchase any more Naval units except transports. Anzacs efficient defense can only be land units. The resources it would take by the US to mount a necessary Naval force to stop it would cost to much in terms of what it could pour against Germany.

    If Navy’s were less expensive, it would allow for more action in the Pacific.


  • how is a defensive japan that doesnt spend on navy, going to force the us to spend more on navy ? lol that is an oximoron or something?

    how is japan going to defend against USA and take India without adding to navy when necessary? it wont lol
    it will simply lose, hard
    and that means more pressure on germany = axis defeat. plain and simple

    compare the cost of a minor IC that will add 3 units per turn to 2 transports that will add 4 units but with flexibility to add them just about anywhere?

    i dont think you are truly considering all the economic benefits/losses in the pacific. NOs, the money islands, australia, india, all require a fleet to take/hold

    im also guessing that as germany you do not even feint sealion on G1, thus allowing UK to place IC in egypt and crush italy, with no threat of losing any of africa

    so with no navy you have no chance of the money islands, australia, india, africa, pacific NOs…how do you win? you cant just win by taking china and russia


  • I am not saying a defensive Japan forces US to spend. I am saying if the US decideds to mount a major Naval offensive against Japan, Japans efficient response is not to meet that threat with its own Naval offensive but to play defensive and use that time the US is not concentrating on Germany to mount an all out offensive on the continent. Use the navy it already has to merely slow down the US as much as possible.

    And my argument is that Japan only add to its Navy as “absolutely necessary” to slow down the US. Anyways, they start out with such a large Navy, I don’t think they would need to add to thier Navy outside of some transports. But that is irrelevant. My post addressed Naval action in the Pacific, or lack thereof, so I am talking about once the US enters the war. And if Japan hasn’t already taken India buy the time the US is at thier back door, you have lost already. LOL!!!

    Again, I am not talking about transports. That goes without saying. And if you have not purchased all the necessary transports before the US enters the war, you have already lost. LOL!!!

    Japan has all the Navy it needs for Australia and India, even Hawaii. My ultimate point is that if, the US decides to mount a Naval offensive, it would then be more efficient for Japan to surrender any gains i Hawaii or surrender any objectives in Australia to focus entirely on the continent and usse its current massive Navy to merely slow down the US.

    Again the point is that a Navy costs so much, that it makes purchasing NEW NAVAL UNITS  for offensive operations in the PACIFIC, an inefficient option.

    So the US allowing Japan to ultimately take the Pacific islands by buying only the necessary units to SLOW THEM DOWN, is the only efficient option for the US as it can use those resources in the Atlantic where the need for such a large Navy is minimal.

    And again, Japan already has the necessary Naval units to take India and mount an offensive in Australia.


  • Victory Cities,

    You can argue that the taking of Honolulu, can mean the difference bewteen success and failure depending on how the axis do in Africa and Russia, and that one city can tip the balance forcing the US to build a significant Navy, thereby reducing pressure on Germany, thereby forcing major Naval action in the Pacific, thereby tiliting the game heavily towards the Axis as some would argue.

    I have never played with the city victories nor have any of my buddies wished to do so. It is incredibly unrealistic and creates winners who have no hope of victory because for a brief moment they used tactics to give them a momentary short term advantage.

    But alas, if a victory through the capturing of a certain number of capitals is your idea of success in a global war, then my post may be irrelevant, but even still, the vast resources such a Navy would require from the US, takes so much away from thier operations in the Atlantic, thereby giving such a stark advantage to the axis, leave a lot of room for the arguement that Navy’s are just to expensive.

    Transports=4
    Subs=5
    Destroyers=7
    Cruisers =10
    Carriers =13
    Battleships =18
    *Improved shipyards should bring that cost down more

    If some adjustments need to be made in terms of troop placement due to Opersation Sea Lion then so be it.


  • @eddiem4145:

    Transports=4
    Subs=5
    Destroyers=7
    Cruisers =10
    Carriers =13
    Battleships =18
    *Improved shipyards should bring that cost down more

    Until transports cost as much or less than the infantry they are transporting? Let’s be realistic.

  • Customizer

    Eddiem4145,

    ––Concerning the Pacific theater of conflict:

    It is a FACT that if either the United States or Japan has their fleet sunk in battle it isn’t only a MILITARY victory, but….

    -that country looses the capability to ATTACK and increase it’s income through amphibious invasions.
    -that country looses the capability to DEFEND it’s possessions against amphibious attack from the enemy.
    -and after loosing enough income through having it’s islands taken from it it is weakened enough for invasion of it’s Capital and thus LOOSING THE WAR.
    ––So, it is a CARDINAL RULE that neither the U.S. or Japan can survive loss of it’s fleet.
    -The lesson to be learned here is that it is NECESSARY to spend some money on your navy in order to retain it.
    -Spend some on Destroyers to suffer as losses.
    -and eventually to purchase Subs and/or airpower to supplement it’s offensive power. Once your navy has attained enough offensive power you can then go and defeat your enemy’s fleet, depriving him of the offensive & defensive capabilities described above.

    Japan already has an enormous fleet,….and the U.S. starts the game with a most of it’s fleet: (see below)

    1-Carrier…FREE
    5-Fighters…FREE
    1-Tac. Bomber…FREE
    1-Battleship…FREE
    2-Cruisers…FREE
    2-Destroyers…FREE
    1-Sub…FREE a second Sub might be redeployed from the Phillippines.

    -Over three turns all that is needed is to add to the existing FREE naval force to “fill out” what is needed.
    1-Carrier…(1st turn purchase)
    2-Destroyers…(2nd turn purchase)
    2-Destroyers…(3rd turn purchase)….After adding these units you should be good defensively

    4-Subs…(4th turn purchase)….after the U.S. has increased income….In order to go on the offensive.
    After you get to this point you can judge if/when you are ready to go on the offensive.
    ----OF course, another Carrier, more Destroyers, Subs, and airpower are very welcome, but the point remains;

    If your Fleet is defeated,….you’re guaranteed to eventually LOOSE!

    ––IMHO, with more A&A experience you will see that these aren’t just MY opinions,…but FACTS!

    Respectfully,
    “Tall Paul”


  • Until recently, and in the history of axis and allies spanning over 20 years, the name of the game was always, ignore Japan, slam Germany, and the game is over within 6 turns. I have been playing since the 80’s. And all the tournament websites where you bid for the axis was the same.

    I would agree that if Japans fleet was defeated, it would lose, but Germany would then win, UNLESS, you have a novice playing Germany because of the VAST resources the US would have to spend.

    I would disagree that if all the US did was spend minimally on its PACIFIC navy, purely a defensive and buy time role against an all out assault from Japan it would lose the game. Are you seriously suggesting that Japan would be able to easily march on Washington if they wiped out the US navy. Absurd. Any serious US player would hope for such an attempt by Japan.

    At worse they lose some income from Hawaii. The rest it to easy to take back, and the time and resources spent by Japan takes away so much effort that would better be deployed elsewhere.

    You are making very general statements of FACTS, that barely apply. I would agree that it would be smart for the US to spend some money on its fleet in the face of an all out Japanese assault. Give them a reason to inefficiently spend their resources. But my ultimate point is, considering the vast resources needed to build a Navy, when two sides are both efficient players, the result is very little Pacific action.


  • And I am not sure how inexperience you are with Axis and Allies, but apparently very inexperience.

    The whole purpose of the National Objectives, the entire purpose, was precisely because in every game played by experienced players, there was not, or virtually zero naval campaigns between the US and Japan, except very early on in the game. Japan solely focused on Russia and the US soley focused on Germany. These NO were to encourage some action.

    And by the way, should the island of Hawaii rely be worth 6IPC’s, or the Philipines worth 7IPS’s. Because with the National Objectives, that is what they are worth. So Hawaii and the Phillipines are worth more economically than the entire eastern part the nation?

    No my friend, it is clear that the resources required to build a navy are unrealistic when compared to the resources required to build ground forces.

    The US stands unopposed in the Atlantic and therefore spends much less resources on building a Navy in the Atlantic and can spend more on ground troops for actual invasions of territories worth something much sooner when it matters.

    Japan can concentrate on Anzac, or Russia, or Africa or wherever else it wants and has the already necessary Navy, except transports.


  • Lastly, I am not saying the US should never by any Naval units in the Pacific. That would be an ignorant statement. There are countless possibilities where the purchase of some naval units could efficiently counter act the Japanese. But the Japanese would have to be acting inefficiently.

    So my ultimate point is that the cost of naval units is so great, the efficient action by the US is to play defensively in the Pacific and aggressively in the Atlantic.

    It is efficient for Japan to play defensively in the Pacific, ONCE THE US ENTERS THE WAR, and play aggressively everywhere else.

    If Navy’s were cheaper, it would increase naval actions.


  • Until transports cost as much or less than the infantry they are transporting? Let’s be realistic.

    Why shouldn’t transports cost less than the men they transport.

    There is a question as to what transports are suppose to represent. There have been many posts on this subject. In the old rules, where they had a defense, where they suppose to represent a group of transports with escorts? What do they represent now. Completely defensless boats that can’t even defend themselves against one single plane. That is not a very expensive boat. And i have a feeling that submarines are suppose to be significantly more expensive then a defensless boat.

    But then agian, one submarine may not represent just one submarine, and one transport is not suppose to represent just one defensless boat (though there has been much on this topic as to what they are suppose to represent with the new defensless rule), and one infantry does not just represent one soldier.

    So as to what is realistic, what is realistic is whether the cost to transport material and supplies is an accurate representation of what was at the time. I am no expert in that field, but my guess is that since they APPEAR now to be just defensless boats, they should cost much less. Remember, they used to cost 8 and could defend at a 1.


  • What makes all of this so mute as to the opposition to my idea and the references to being unrealistic and FACTS, is that historically, I am absolutely right.

    The US spent 90% of its resources on Germany until they reached near defeat. That was because that was where the prize lay.  Japans attempt to take Midway was to extend its DEFENSIVE perimeter to avoid another Doolittle Raid, not take the US or WIN THE WAR FOR THE GERMANS WITH A DECISIVE NAVAL DEFEAT. If the US lost the battle of Midway, any idea that would end the war with all of us today speaking German would be laughed at by any historian. The Pacific was a side show but nevertheless, an entertaining show.

    PERHAPS, if the Japanese suceeded in taking India, then Australia, its actions then would have been a great concern. Would it go after Russia next? or target Los Angeles? These are hard questions to answer that take a great understanding of the political situation between Japan and Germany.

    But nonetheless, there was Pacific action in the real war. But with the current cost of a navy, if the US only spent 10% of its income on a navy in the pacific, what could it buy. Very little.

    I say slash the cost of all Navy’s

  • Customizer

    Paul and eddie you guys both have good points. Paul I know you’re a by the book guy and we have both agreed on many things and have been proponents for the inclusion of HBG units.

    Eddie I see where you’re coming from in the naval department. I do think Paul’s a bright guy when it comes to the game and he’s no greenie.

    A compromise on non-capital ships is worth a look IMO as an HR. Especially when it comes to transports and destroyers. If HBG is/was in the works it may solve some issues. A corvette would be oh so helpfull smaller cheaper defensive units with a defense/offense roll at a low cost would and could help.

    My temp solution maybe using the small surface ships from the game Attack! as escort vessels. The three useful ships are a very small carrier which could function as an escort cv with “built-in” aircraft. Secondly, a small battleship that would scale down to a destroyer escort. Finally an even smaller ship they call a destroyer but could easily be used as a corvette.

    Just some thoughts. Game on gents.


  • Make cruisers 10, and battleships 20-22.  No player who knows better buys them now a days in global.  I don’t see a need to make anything else cheaper.

Suggested Topics

  • 50
  • 19
  • 4
  • 7
  • 2
  • 16
  • 1
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts