Reduce Cost for Fighters and Tanks (and Infantry?)


  • Customizer

    I just wanted to throw this one out there and see what people thought. This isn’t a massive overhaul, just an idea that I had after playing the game.

    So it seems to me like some units, especially fighters, are overpriced in regards to their effect on the war. I think reducing the cost of these units is something that’s in order, and it will also have the added effect of making fighters and tanks more plentiful on the map. Here are some suggested values:

    Fighter - 4 IPC’s
    Tank - 4 IPC’s

    I also thought that maaaaaaybe Infantry should be reduced to 2 IPC’s to reflect the massive numbers of troops being thrown into the war, but this in essence just makes it so my other changes equate to raising the price of artillery.

    Anyway, thoughts and comments are welcome.


  • Official Q&A

    Rather than decreasing the cost of fighters, how about increasing their survivability?

    Try having dogfights last for just one round.  After the dogfight, the side with the most fighters remaining gets air supremacy, and only the fighters in excess over the enemy’s get to strafe land units (the others being tied up in ongoing dogfights).  If the number of fighters is the same on both sides, neither side can promote artillery or strafe.


  • Customizer

    @Krieghund:

    Rather than decreasing the cost of fighters, how about increasing their survivability?

    Try having dogfights last for just one round.  After the dogfight, the side with the most fighters remaining gets air supremacy, and only the fighters in excess over the enemy’s get to strafe land units (the others being tied up in ongoing dogfights).  If the number of fighters is the same on both sides, neither side can promote artillery or strafe.

    That might work. My major hangup with the rules as they are written is that I’ve never seen more than 3-4 fighters per nation on the map at one time (they are usually much more rare, IPC’s are much more commonly spent on Infantry and Artillery), so I thought reducing their cost might help remedy that. I’d really like to see 3-4 fighters per front; right now it seems like combined arms is not worth the cost of the specialty units.


  • Customizer

    The key is to concentrate your artillery.

    For example after its first turn most of the Russian artillery should be concentrated in Belarus with a couple of fighters on the way ready to crush any CP force that moves within range.

    I think the price is about right, but I do support the 1 round only for air combat idea just as I do for naval battles.

    I’ve also suggested that new fighters increase in power, so planes bought on round 2 are more powerful in combat than starting machines as so forth to a maximum of 4.



  • Problem with fighters is that they are a gamble. If you spend 18 IPC to match an incoming attack with 3 fighters, its a 50/50 chance they will make any impact at all and if they do the impact is massive…
    If you well confident in an advantage on a front, you wont spend a single IPC on planes in their current state as you can saftly press the advantage with other “safe” units.



  • I think what this game really needs is much more USW action from Germany. It should produce Subs like no good. Maybe they should cost 3 IPCs only for Germany and there should be much more USW Zones in the Atlantic.


  • '14

    @Flashman:

    I’ve also suggested that new fighters increase in power, so planes bought on round 2 are more powerful in combat than starting machines as so forth to a maximum of 4.

    Do you mean this to say that they should increase in air-to-air battles, or also against land units once the air battle is complete (i.e., when the surviving airplanes of the winner strafe the loser’s land units)? Or both?


  • Customizer

    Both.

    Starting aircraft move 2 but fight at only 1;

    Those built in R1 move & fight at 2;

    Built in R2 move & fight at 3;

    Built thereafter move & fight at 4.

    Cost is unchanged.

    You might even make starters worth 0 in combat (but can still move), since these were essentially unarmed spotter planes. Greater number of units still counts for artillery promotion; there is just no air combat as such.

    A “1” fighter vs a “0” fighter is therefore an automatic victory.
    However a “1” vs 2 "0"s results in a tie as there is still only one combat round.

    Incidentally, this is combined with more starting fighters (one in each capital plus 1 extra for F & G.)

    Also includes SBR ability vs capitals; planes can land back in friendly tt after SBR.



  • I think that for a more fluid game we need cavalry units as well as adjusting the price of tanks. Tanks are devastating in large groups, but it’s hard for most nations to produce large groups of tanks at 6 ipc’s. Plus the early game is pretty monotonous with only masses of infantry and artillery attacking and counter-attacking. Cavalry could help spice it up a bit, maybe with 1/3 atk/def and a movement of 2 with blitz. If they cost 4 but could be boosted by artillery, they’d be a fairly viable unit but would probably fade a lot when tanks arrive.


  • Customizer

    @Auztria:

    I think that for a more fluid game we need cavalry units as well as adjusting the price of tanks. Tanks are devastating in large groups, but it’s hard for most nations to produce large groups of tanks at 6 ipc’s. Plus the early game is pretty monotonous with only masses of infantry and artillery attacking and counter-attacking. Cavalry could help spice it up a bit, maybe with 1/3 atk/def and a movement of 2 with blitz. If they cost 4 but could be boosted by artillery, they’d be a fairly viable unit but would probably fade a lot when tanks arrive.

    To say that cavalry played a major role in the war or even that it had an equal level of survivability as infantry is a misstep at best, and revisionist at worst. Cavalry units were consistently BUTCHERED against machine gun-defended infantry lines, and quickly became obsolete. I actually think that the omission of cavalry from this game is one of the better choices of the designer. The early game is “monotonous” (as you’ve put it) with infantry and artillery, because the early WAR was “monotonous”; 1914-1916 was a period hallmarked by mass artillery-supported infantry attacks.

    Now, I will grant that on the Eastern Front (as well as in other parts of the world, Mid-East, etc.) cavalry played a slightly greater part than on the Western Front, but I still don’t think it is worth adding an entire other unit to the game to represent this limited role.

    If you ARE going to represent cavalry in the game (which I don’t recommend), you must then differentiate between entrenched infantry and mobile infantry, and make the cavalry 0 attack against entrenched. This is the only way it would make sense.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 3
  • 3
  • 39
  • 4
  • 11
  • 14
  • 34
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts