• Hi everyone. I’m sure this idea has been floated around in various forms one time or another. Even though, I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on how different the game would be if we reduced the price of naval units. I think everyone can agree they are expensive, but are they appropriately expensive? Maybe so! Maybe not!

    So I was thinking, what if ships had the following costs:
    Submarine - 6
    Transport - 6
    Destroyer - 7
    Cruiser - 10
    Aircraft Carrier - 14
    Battleship - 17

    How much would that change the game? Would it make for a better, more enjoyable game? Would it throw off balance? Would it improve balance? What strategies would this change, nerf, or create?

    To be clear, this thread is ONLY talking about reducing the price of Naval units. NOT ANY CHANGES TO THEIR ABILITIES OR STATS. If you think other numbers would be better, too, (say, Battleship at 16) by all means shout it out!

    What do you think?

  • '17 '16

    From the large number of calcs have done in the past, I think you are in.

    Because you have keep this ratio between units:
    2 DDs (2x 7 IPCs) = 1 Carriers (14 IPCs)
    1 DD (7 IPCs) + 1 Cruiser (10 IPCs) = 1 Battleship (17 IPCs)

    Cruiser at 10 IPCs will be more competitive unit in combat but stay costlier per hit (10 IPCs/hit).
    You can run some tests in Battlecalc. on the same IPCs basis.

    The two hits Battleship IPCs/hit ratio (8.5 IPC/hit) stay above the basic Destroyer (7 IPC/hit).

    I forgot to mention that reducing Destroyer to almost the same price than a Sub (1 IPC difference) will make Subs less popular because Destroyer is a more powerful jack-of-all-trades warship.
    Just test this : 6 Destroyers against 7 Subs. And 7 Subs against 6 Destroyers.

    This means that Subs probably needs to go down to 5 IPCs.
    This will be at the same ratio as OOB 2 Subs : 1 Cruiser.

    That way, cheaper Subs will give Germany some way to stop the Allies fleet.


    It will give a natural boost to USA and UK mostly.
    Boats at reduced cost is a bias toward Allies.

  • '17 '16

    So from my POV,
    Ships should have the following costs to keep a similar ratio with OOB:
    Submarine - 5
    Transport - 6
    Destroyer - 7
    Cruiser - 10
    Aircraft Carrier - 14
    Battleship - 17

    Why did you left aside aircrafts?


  • Ok so battleships 24 - 17 = 7 IPC to build a battleships?


  • Baron Munchhausen,

    Thank you for the constructive replies!
    I hadn’t even realized that I kept the 2 DD = 1 Carrier  /  1 DD + 1 Cruiser = 1 Battleship ratios. So I didn’t even think about keeping 2 Submarines the price of 1 Cruiser. You make a good point there.

    Yet, making the Destroyer better in comparison to the Submarine was actually something I intended. In my experience, subs have so many benefits they’re an absolute bargain at 6 compared to other navy units. Even with the costs above, subs will still get used.

    One cool thing about this is how Cruisers are more competitive. Before, they had little benefit. They were outclassed by the other ships below and above them. Destroyers were better at sea. They bombarded more cost effectively than a Battleship, but that was it, which made them surpassed by the two capital ships for overall flexibility.
    Now, they’re 3.33 IPCs per damage pip, compared to 3.5 IPCs per pip on a destroyer. Sure, destroyers are more effective large-scale for controlling the sea due to IPC/hit as you called it, but it’s no longer a shoe-in for Destroyers over Cruisers. Cruisers can bombard and now hit harder for the dollar. They both have their roles now.

    Along the same lines, Battleships also become more effective. Compared to destroyers again - before: 5 IPC/pip vs 4 IPC/pip. Now: 4.25 IPC/pip vs 3.5 IPC/pip. The 25% gap is narrowed down to 21%. Same goes for IPC/hit(casualty). As you said, Before: 10 IPC/hit vs 8 IPC/hit –> 8.5 IPC/hit vs 7 IPC/hit. The % gap is the same, 25% -> 21%.
    But actual combat plays different. 1 Battleship beats 2 Destroyers in combat and survives 55% of the time, because it doesn’t lose firepower after taking the first casualty.
    Granted, you paid a little more for it.

    Transports before just seemed too expensive at 7. The maximum value you could load them was 9 IPCs. Spending 7 to move 9 is just grossly inefficient to me. Then you compare them to building a new Minor Factory, and the latter wins almost every time. 6 is just much more agreeable to the War Department’s Finance Minister. 😉

    Of course with everyone else getting the love, carriers do too. No real reason why I picked 14. It just seemed right. By making the carrier cheaper, that also boosts the effectiveness of air units; although they are overall weakened on a comparative basis by this change.

    I suppose this would all-in-all help the Allies a little more, like you said. Italy would love this change, as it would have the most impact to Italy in proportion to economy as other players. Same for ANZAC, too. The benefit to Japan and USA would mostly balance each other out in the Pacific theater. But in the Atlantic it would help the Allies more because USA and UK have more of a need for ships than Germany does (even though Germany can build them just as well) thereby swinging the balance.

  • '17 '16

    @EnoughSaid:

    Baron Munchhausen,

    Thank you for the constructive replies! The pleasure was on my side.

    I hadn’t even realized that I kept the 2 DD = 1 Carrier� � /� � 1 DD + 1 Cruiser = 1 Battleship ratios. So I didn’t even think about keeping 2 Submarines the price of 1 Cruiser. You make a good point there.

    Yet, making the Destroyer better in comparison to the Submarine was actually something I intended. In my experience, subs have so many benefits they’re an absolute bargain at 6 compared to other navy units. Even with the costs above, subs will still get used.

    One cool thing about this is how Cruisers are more competitive. Before, they had little benefit. They were outclassed by the other ships below and above them. Destroyers were better at sea. They bombarded more cost effectively than a Battleship, but that was it, which made them surpassed by the two capital ships for overall flexibility.
    Now, they’re 3.33 IPCs per damage pip, compared to 3.5 IPCs per pip on a destroyer. Sure, destroyers are more effective large-scale for controlling the sea due to IPC/hit as you called it, but it’s no longer a shoe-in for Destroyers over Cruisers. Cruisers can bombard and now hit harder for the dollar. They both have their roles now.

    Of course with everyone else getting the love, carriers do too. No real reason why I picked 14. It just seemed right. By making the carrier cheaper, that also boosts the effectiveness of air units; although they are overall weakened on a comparative basis by this change.

    I suppose this would all-in-all help the Allies a little more, like you said. Italy would love this change, as it would have the most impact to Italy in proportion to economy as other players. Same for ANZAC, too. The benefit to Japan and USA would mostly balance each other out in the Pacific theater. But in the Atlantic it would help the Allies more because USA and UK have more of a need for ships than Germany does (even though Germany can build them just as well) thereby swinging the balance.

    Here is a few results from the Battlecalc.
    (I’m not sure if it can prove something or not, in such a wide context as Atlantic TO.)

    For 56 IPCs you got 7 OOB Destroyers, now you have 8 Destroyers,
    while Germany would bought 9 OOB Subs (54 IPCs) and at 5 IPCs would get 11 Subs (55 IPCs).

    7 DDs against 9 Subs = 66% vs 33% for OOB � � �  9 Subs against 7 DDs = 83% vs 13%

    8 DDs (7 IPCs) against 9 Subs (6 IPCs) = 83% vs 16% � � � � 9 Subs against 8 DDs = 70% vs 29%

    8 DDs (7 IPCs) against 11 Subs (5 IPCs) = 57 % vs 43% � 11 Subs against 8 DDs = 93% vs 6%

    This would seems an improvement for Germany if Subs are at 5 IPCs.

    On the other part, planes doesn’t change while other combat units will such as Cruiser.

    Cruiser defending @3 will be on par (10 IPCs) with Fighter attacking @3. Allies will most willingly makes the trade off.
    Instead of making both exchanges a loss for Allies in OOB, 1 DD for 1 Sub = minus 2 IPCs and 1 Cruiser for 1 Fg = minus 2 IPCs


    I really can’t tell how far this change the OOB bias toward Axis into a bias toward Allies or simply making it fairer.

    My impression is that if I have to try such costs in a game-test, I would try the reduced cost for all naval units including Subs.
    Just to see, what happened to the balance of thing compared to OOB Axis bias.
    Does the bias remains or not with Subs at 5?
    Then I would play according to my preference, such as having a grudge against Subs and keeping them at 6 IPCs.


    Also:
    OOB 2 BBs 40 IPCs was costlier than OOB 1 CV + 2 Fgs at 36 IPCs,

    Now 2 BBs at 34 IPCs = 1 CV + 2 Fgs at 34 IPCs

    2 Battleships 63% vs 24% Carrier group

    Carrier group 7% vs 91% 2 Battleships

    Making BB better in both ways: offense and defense.


    Hope all your players will accept to try a game at your reduced costs.
    Have fun and keep us posted on the outcomes.

  • Customizer

    Enough Said,

    Hey I have have to agree with your line of thought here. Although some of my ideas on adjusting naval costs is different in many ways, I think your making some really good points here. Especially on the transports.  I am not a fan of the change to them since AA50 and niether are some of my “recruits” as they have been learning the “new” transport rules after starting with AAR and Classic.

    The drop in price would make the “new” rules more palatable for some of them. I personally don’t think the cruiser is always such a horrible purchase but this makes them more worthwhile also.

    I have not posted a thread on it, but I have really wanted to re-vamp the costs on naval units for some time now. Nice to see someone thinking about this in a vane similar to ideas I’ve been kicking around.


  • Toblerone77,
    Thanks!

    Baron Munchhausen,

    I don’t think your calculator is counting carriers as a capital ship.
    Let me put the BB vs carrier group battle this way:

    Attacker: 2 x 4 pips, 2 hits before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 8. Total hits: 4
    Defender: 2 x 4 pips + 1 x 2 pips, 1 hit before loss in any firepower. Total punch: 10. Total hits: 4
    Even if they both hit twice first found, then it’s an even fight with two 4’s against each other.
    The defending carrier group will be the winner the majority of the time in this battle.

    On the submarines,
    Offensive punch comparison between destroyer and submarine at original values was 3 IPC/pip (submarine) and 4 IPC/pip (destroyer), a gap of 33%.
    If you reduce subs to 5 and destroyers to 7, it becomes 2.5 IPC/pip and 3.5 IPC/pip, a gap of 40%. It makes the submarines even stronger in comparison. This still might be deemed appropriate, but it’s not the direction I was aiming to go.

    I’d love to test these and report back quickly, but I have no idea when my next game will be. I get to play a game once every two or three months, so you’ll have to get back to me with how your playtesting works!

    To slightly expand the topic: Do you think reducing Tactical Bombers to a cost of 10 IPCs would be an appropriate accompaniment to this change? At the moment I really can’t decide, so I’m probably against it. It’s just an idea bouncing around in the head. But maybe it would be proper?

  • '19 '15 '14

    I have long felt that ships should be cheaper, especially to bring them in line with the relatively cheap cost of air in G40.

    I’d fully support this cost structure for ships, provided the Sub only cost 5 ipcs as well.

    The game needs a decent unit at a cost of 5 ipcs anyway, since anti air artillery doesn’t do the trick here. If subs only cost 5 (like the old tanks did), it would be easier to support a decent convoy campaign, for Germany to conduct a more effective battle of the Atlantic for example, or just generally for Allies to support the large surface fleets they need to build to get into the fight.

    The structure suggested above with the inclusion of subs at 5 ipcs, would be superior to OOB, in support a robust naval game. I’d go for it.

  • '19 '15 '14

    ps. it is also worth pointing out, from an implementation standpoint, that a simple adjustment to the cost structure is a much easier than introducing new abilities or new rules. It may well produce a better overall gamebalance by sides too, though this would have to be tested, my gut tells me it will make the game much more enjoyable for everyone.

    I believe this spread for the naval roster is the best proposed so far, and would provide the most entertainment value…

    Submarine - 5
    Transport - 6
    Destroyer - 7
    Cruiser - 10
    Aircraft Carrier - 14
    Battleship - 17

    If it proves that Cruisers or Battleships are too weak (e.g. not a good investment) relative to other naval units, then it would be fairly simple to drop them to Cruiser 9, and Battleship 16, but first try and see if it works at the cost suggested above, since that may be fine.

    Submarines at 5 ipcs is key though! We need a solid unit at a cost of 5 for the spending of the remainder. This unit would be a much more likely purchase if the cost was at 5, and it sets up the whole idea of a “Cheaper” naval game in G40. If you can get more people to buy the cheapest naval unit (sub at 5) then you are more likely to jumpstart the naval game in general for everyone. So Subs at 5 is the way to get the whole thing up off the ground, the way I see it.

    Would you buy a sub for a cost of 5 ipcs? Of course you would!  😄
    And that’s how you set up the whole thing, because if someone buys the cheap sub at 5, then the other guy has to buy the cheap destroyer at 6 to counter it! It takes of from there, hopefully cascading into a more exciting naval game for all parties.

    If we could all agree to try the game out at these values, then I suspect we’d find the gameplay much improved, and we’d have a simple House Rule to make the game better. The simplest G40 HR = cheaper ships.

  • Customizer

    Okay guys, let’s get to the real point here. You can say with your new cost structure that it’s better because you get X hits with Y IPCs or that it somehow adds something that you think the game is missing. While you all may make good arguments, it’s really just a bunch of filler nonsense.
    What you REALLY want is bigger naval battles with more pieces on the board. That is the only real reason for lowering unit costs – to get more on the board. Granted, it also depends on a person’s personal strategy. For example, perhaps Germany, even with the lower ship costs, decides to NOT buy ships but keep buying land and air to fight Russia. Yet UK and US take advantage of the lower prices and build more ships. So the Allies will have an even greater naval advantage than they would before in the Atlantic. However, if Germany was employing such a strategy of land and air buys, then they have pretty much ceded control of the Atlantic to the Allies anyway
    Furthermore, don’t you think lowering the costs of ships could actually hurt some people’s strategies? Perhaps not a veteran player but someone with a more novice or even medium level of experience. The lower prices on ships may entice them to buy more ships when they really need other types of units and they end up critically short on air power or ground units. OR is that what some of you are looking for? Your opponent, enchanted by the lower ship prices, buys too many ships and YOU end up overwhelming his neglected ground forces. For shame! For shame!

    One other question: Do any of you play with tech?
    I ask this because with the exception of the Cruiser at 10 IPCs, those prices are the same as if you get Improved Shipyards.
    So, if you DO play with tech, and you DO get Improved Shipyards, do you lower the prices even further? With your new price structure, here is what you would get with Improved Shipyards:
    Submarine = 4 IPCS
    Transport = 5 IPCs
    Destroyer = 6 IPCs
    Cruiser = 7 IPCs
    Aircraft Carrier = 11 IPCs
    Battleship = 14 IPCs
    If you wanted to get more ships on the board, that would surely do it.

  • '19 '15 '14

    I would concede that, yes. The goal is to get more naval units on the board, for larger more epic battles and a more engaging naval game  😄

    It could certainly alter strategies, but that is a given with any HR. I would argue that the novice player would also benefit more from having cheaper ships. Often new players want to buy them anyway, and this provides better unit replacement on units destroyed, which is often helpful for less studied players to still achieve a fulfilling game experience, despite getting lots of ships blown out of the water haha.

    Playing with improved shipyards tech activated immediately for all players is an idea I have played around with before. This would basically just establish something similar from the outset. The difficulty with Shipyards is probably the cruiser cost as you suggested, but I still feel that this would provide an improved gaming experience for many players.

    Right now the cost structure OOB for naval units is rather prohibitive, when compared to ground and air, I think this would bring the ships in line with the ground game. The Allies benefit because they need a navy to cross the Atlantic regardless (so they have to buy ships anyway, no matter what they cost) but I don’t think the advantage would necessarily be totally one sided. Axis too would benefit from having more Naval options. The Germans and Italians, who tend to get blasted from the air, could wage somewhat more effective naval gambits. Japan would of course benefit disproportionately on the Axis side, but that may help to encourage more Pacific expenditure, which isn’t a bad thing in A&A games. Who knows, there might even be some instances here where the Italians can get back into the naval game, or maybe even the Russians in some cases. For sure it would make a minor power like Anzac more entertaining to play. I just don’t see any real downside to it, from a gameplay perspective. I think it favors the fun, especially for new people.

    I don’t think the point about a decent unit at a cost of 5 ipcs is inconsequential. It is a way to encourage spending the remainder of 2 ipcs (over the cost of inf) on a naval unit. Surely you’ve experienced this in game? Many players I know have complained about a lack of a strong combat unit at cost of 5 ipcs, the aaaguns will never assume the role of the old cheap tank at 5, but the sub could! That’s why I make the case for 5 ipc subs.

  • Customizer

    Well, like you said, Japan would really benefit on the Axis side. I am wondering if this would make a KJF more difficult, or about the same since US and ANZAC ships would also be cheaper.

    So even if you play with tech, in this case you would simply put every nations’ marker on Improved Shipyards at the beginning so that would be a tech they could no longer go after? Interesting idea. At the very least, that would keep a country like Russia from getting one less “useless” tech (since they rarely if ever buy ships).

  • '19 '15 '14

    Yeah I think for ease of use, it might be desirable to just give “Auto-Tech” improved shipyards to everyone standard. As you pointed out earlier, the values here are very nearly the same…

    Unit IPC cost
    Battleship 17
    Aircraft Carrier 13
    Cruiser 9
    Destroyer 7
    Transport 6
    Submarine 5

  • '19 '15 '14

    ps. Also by using the autotech method suggested by Knp,  not only do you get the benefit of a more focused tech tree (if you want to play with all the other techs too), but it’s also a lot easier to implement FtF and in TripleA! Excellent call dude, that’s a much easier way to go about it. This has the benefit of plugging in OOB cost values for the tech that are already written in the rulebook.  It just gives them to everyone from the outset! So simple!

    I actually have not yet hit the Improved Shipyard tech in any of my games. Perhaps because of the way the G40 tech rules make rolling tech a bit of a gamble for the cost, over say the reusable tokens of aa50. Perhaps because few people I play with like to roll for tech anyway, so I haven’t seen it in action. It’s buried in the back of the Europe manual Global section, and not even part of the independent theater games. I didn’t even realize the numbers aligned so well. That’s fantastic! It even makes the cruisers and carriers cheaper than the originally posted suggestions. In my view that would be a net positive.

    Yeah I was thinking the same thing with Japan, that hopefully the reduced cost for all players would allow USA to match them (especially if Anzac could get a few more ships into the fight.) This might alter the Anzac naval strat from one that favors Anzac fighters on US carriers, to one where Anzac builds more ships of their own. Especially cheap subs and destroyers, but perhaps also cruisers, or even a carrier deck or battleship, if they manage to get their income up high enough to pull it off haha. Would be cool to see how it shakes out.

    I will definitely explore this option in my next game! Thanks again for the input man, and pointing out the tech angle  😄

    You can try this in tripleA very easily. All you have to do is launch the normal G40 game.

    Click “Enable Edit Mode”
    Click “Add technology”
    add “Improved Shipyards” to all player/nations before the game begins.

    Presto! Cheaper ships for all  😄

    Also, I see the logic of trying to pair the values of certain units 2:1, but these numbers above are also already in the game manual. They reflect an OOB option, that actually seems to provide a pretty desirable affect on the naval game, by having some key warships slightly cheaper than the smaller ones they might be paired against. So a carrier at 13 is slightly cheaper than 2 destroyers at 14. But a battleship is slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than the destroyer/cruiser combo, which encourages cruiser buys. Here 3 subs are nearer the cost of 2 destroyers, which would encourage wolf packing. 2 cruisers are slightly more expensive (by 1 ipc) than a single battleship. Overall I think this cost structure favors the cruiser pretty nicely. The destroyer is still effective as a hunter killer or as a fodder unit, but less overpowered relative to the sub. Meanwhile the transport is less expensive relative to the TUV it transports, and the cost seems to better reflect the fact that they are defenseless as noted by enoughsaid.

    Just looking at some of the options, the Carrier + Destroyer combo = 20 ipcs for a pretty clean buy. Cruiser + Transport combo at 15 ipcs also pretty clean. 3 sub combo at 15 ipcs, fairly clean as well.

    Overall I think this cost structure is probably ideal, and does a lot of what I’d like to see for the naval game generally, providing more flexible naval purchase options at a reduced cost.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Yeah I think for ease of use, it might be desirable to just give “Auto-Tech” improved shipyards to everyone standard. As you pointed out earlier, the values here are very nearly the same…

    Unit IPC cost
    Battleship 17
    Aircraft Carrier 13
    Cruiser 9
    Destroyer 7
    Transport 6
    Submarine 5

    This naval cost structure is proportionate and would allow to buy them with less impact and sacrifice on ground units buy. For example, you can buy a cruiser almost at the price of a destroyer; or buy a destroyer and an artillery instead of an infantry.

    Considering that Infantry, Mech Inf, Artillery and Tank are at their right price, their is the issue on all this 4 types of air-related units:
    AAA, Fighter, Tactical Bomber and Strategic Bomber.

    What is a more adequate price for this 4 units with the Improved Shipyard tech as Naval cost?
    For example, Cruiser A3 D3 is near Fg combat value, does this means that Fg should be put at 9 IPCs? So, TcB +1 IPC (10 IPCs) and StB +2 IPCs (11 IPCs).

    I’m also wondering what could happen if Fg and TcB are change to A2 D2 7? or 8 IPCs as what I suggested earlier in my thread?
    Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2, same in SBR
    Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
    Move 4
    Cost 8
    1 hit
    Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
    All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

    Combined Arms Bonus, Fighter as a close-escorting aircraft for Dive or Torpedo Bombers:
    Gives +1 Attack/Defense to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with, if TcB is able to attack Ground or Naval units or defend against them.

    Fighter as part of Carrier Air Patrol or of an extended Air Defense System:
    Receive +1 Defense if paired 1:1 with an Aircraft Carrier unit or paired 1:1 with an AAA unit.
    Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)
    1 scrambled Fighter from an operational Air Base received +1 Defense.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338630#msg1338630

  • '17 '16

    So, on what criterias could we determined a balance planes cost structure based on Advanced Shipyard?

  • '19 '15 '14

    Well I’m not entirely sure you’d need to, since aircraft still have a much stronger movement advantage over ships (and can land on land), but if you wanted to lower the cost of all Air related units, in a way similar to Advanced Shipyards, I would just go with the “costs 1 ipc less” model, for everyone.

    That’s fairly tidy. Puts the fighter at 9, tac at 10, strat at 11, aaagun at 4. This would also cement the submarines position as the sole unit at a cost of 5 ipcs, further encouraging their purchase. I don’t have a major issue with this, provided it was applied evenly. It might be fun. The anti air unit especially, would probably benefit from being a little less pricey. Might be fun to explore. Guess you could call it Advanced Airfields rules, or something similar, if such was your desire  😄

  • Customizer

    I thought the AA gun was counted among ground units. I know it’s used for defense against aircraft, but in the book it’s listed under the ground units section.

  • '19 '15 '14

    Yeah I think it is, for the fodder aspect and the fact that it moves on the ground haha 😉 though baron mentioned it in his list of units.

    Right now I’m not sure I see a pressing need to change anything with aircraft.  That stuff isn’t mentioned in the OOB game manual either. In my experience people by plenty of air already. Their movement ability gives them the edge and accounts for their cost in my view. But if you did want to do something to them 1 ipc less just seems easiest.

  • '17 '16

    @knp7765:

    I thought the AA gun was counted among ground units. I know it’s used for defense against aircraft, but in the book it’s listed under the ground units section.

    I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.
    Also, if aircrafts prices are lower, then it is needed to get a lower price for AAA unit.

    @Black_Elk:

    Yeah I think it is, for the fodder aspect and the fact that it moves on the ground haha 😉 though baron mentioned it in his list of units.

    Right now I’m not sure I see a pressing need to change anything with aircraft. That stuff isn’t mentioned in the OOB game manual either. In my experience people by plenty of air already. Their movement ability gives them the edge and accounts for their cost in my view. But if you did want to do something to them 1 ipc less just seems easiest.

    Thanks for the answer.
    1 IPC redux makes sense because warship units at 12 or above were reduced by 3 IPCs while 8 IPCs and under were reduced by 1 IPC.
    Since aircraft is a very useful unit on both Naval and land battle, a reduction, if needed, shouldn’t be higher than 1 IPC.

    On the other side, OOB planes cost is 10, 11 and 12 IPCs. Is just between the high Capitals ships cost from 20 to 12, reduced by 3 IPCs and the smaller ships starting at 8 IPCs, reduced by 1 IPC.

    So, the average between minus 3 IPCs and minus 1 IPC is a 2 IPCs cost redux.
    This make Fighter at 10-2= 8 IPCs / Tactical Bomber at 11-2= 9 IPCs / Strategic Bomber at 12-2= 10 IPCs.

    This could also be the “Advanced Airfield HR cost”, similar and in the same proportion than Advanced Shipyard.


    Do you think their cost was based upon ground units or more based to balance Carrier operations?
    Or was it based on a Battlecalc treshold?
    or A lot of intuitive thinking and play-tests only?

    Ground basis: combat value points (7 for Fg) + number of move minus 1 (4 move -1) = 10 IPCs
    Same as Inf: 3+ 1 minus 1 = 3 IPCs

    Or Carrier A 0 D2 Cost 16, 2 hits + 2 Fgs A6 D8 Cost 20 = A6 D10 4 hits Cost 36.
    16 A/D points x 2 IPCs/ hit + 4 IPC for an additional hit = 36 IPCs


    So a full carrier (36) is around - 10 % (-3 IPCs) with Improved Shipyard,
    this means a 10 IPCs Fg should be reduced by 1 IPC.
    This would put a Carrier at 13+18 = 31 IPCs


    The Combo Cruiser (9 IPCs) + Destroyer (7 IPCs) = 16 IPCs is cheaper and as dangerous as 1 Battleship (17 IPC)
    Clearly the winner in Advanced Shipyard.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Baron:

    I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

    Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    @Baron:

    I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

    Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

    Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!

  • Customizer

    @knp7765:

    @CWO:

    @Baron:

    I put AA gun because its use has evolved and is not clearly fixed.

    Anti-aircraft guns are ground units, not air units.  They don’t fly, so they don’t count as aircraft.  The fact that AAA guns can attack aircraft doesn’t make AAA guns count as air units; if that were the case, then aircraft would have to be counted as sea units because they can attack ships, and ships would have to be counted as ground units because they can bombard land targets.

    Aha! The creation of the Land Battleship!

    The Table Tactics Hover Tank or the FA Hover tank would do nicely 😄

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Scene from the Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator:

    Benzino Napaloni: “Haven’t you heard of our new amphibious tanks that can roll on land, swim in the water and fly throught the air?”

    Minister of Propaganda Garbitsch: “Oh, those.  They’ve been made obsolete by our new flying battleships.”

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 9
  • 17
  • 4
  • 6
  • 5
  • 11
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

83
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts