1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less


  • 2019 2015 '14

    I wonder if anyone has tried this?

    It would yield the following costs…

    Subs 4 ipcs
    Transports 5 ipcs
    destroyers 6 ipcs
    Cruisers 10 ipcs
    Carriers 12 ipcs
    Battleships 18 ipcs

    I know Baron has experimented with new unit costs structures for air as well, but I think this simple reduction might have promise.

    Cruisers would be on par with the Fighter.
    All other core ships would be much better on balance vs bombers.

    Only the battleship would be outmoded, but that’s fairly unavoidable, their absorption plus bombardment isn’t that potent compared to the destroyer carrier combo, but 18 is still better than 20 haha.

    I think the real promise would be super cheap subs, transports and destroyers, to make it much cheaper to develop fleets to face down the mass bomber threat.

    This would allow for some nice combos on the water, since transports are a much better buy at 5 ipcs (giving this unit the 5 spot unit that has been missing since AA50). Subs at the same cost as an artillery piece and destroyers at the same cost as a tank, makes both those core ships much more attractive at purchase.

    The main balance issue for the first round would probably be a sea lion G1 naval expansion, but sea lion is currently impossible, so this might produce some interest. Allies would have a lot to gain as well. I think players would be much more likely to buy ships all around.

    Any thoughts?



  • Germany could buy 10 subs (with 1 ipc left over) so Germany can go sub crazy. I like cheaper sea units because they cost so much that there less desirable and now USA can get more of their troops to Europe. It also means bigger sea battles in the Pacific.

    So I like the idea. 😄


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    For the larger ships it makes sense. I don’t think you could do the 2 IPC drop for the cheaper ones though.
    I could agree to a 6 IPC TT, but would leave Sub and DD as they are. Sorry!


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    @wittmann:

    For the larger ships it makes sense. I don’t think you could do the 2 IPC drop for the cheaper ones though.
    I could agree to a 6 IPC TT, but would leave Sub and DD as they are. Sorry!

    I agree - perhaps you should try making all ships a certain percentage less. I agree ships should cost less. A consideration of their relative value to the winning effort should be a factor in deciding the price. Ships do not take land.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Der:

    Ships do not take land.

    Except in very rare cases such as this one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_grounding_incident

    At a meeting which was taking place at a nearby military facility, the whole room went silent when an officer entered to ask why the Missouri was requesting the assistance of every tug in the area.  An admiral jumped up from his chair, rushed to a window, looked out for a moment, then turned to the other people in the room and said, “Gentlemen, the Missouri has just gone half a mile inland.”


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I’m a fan of reducing ship costs! What about:

    Subs 5 ipc
    Transports 6 ipc
    Destroyers 7 ipc
    Cruisers 10 ipc
    Carriers 12 ipc
    Battleships 16 ipc?



  • I like your idea Argothair, because it’s smarter to have the smaller ships 1 ipc less then like the bigger ships like 2-4 ipcs cheaper.


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    Yes, Argothair - that looks reasonable…


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Seems pretty agreeable Argothair. 🙂

    I know similar cost structures have been proposed. It’s something I was interested in for other games too, such as 1940 where the advanced shipyards tech was always active. Of course 1942.2 doesn’t have tech, so I thought something simple and easy to memorize would be helpful. So if a 2 ipc reduction is too much, then 1 ipc less for smaller ships is certainly workable.The problem with creating a simple mnemonic device is that Battleships are off compared to other ships, and A&A uses a kind of strange nomenclature when it comes to “capital ships” since you never quite know where Cruisers are supposed to fall.

    I’m curious though, beyond just an initial knee jerk reaction, why it is that the smaller ships couldn’t be reduced -2?

    Because I don’t see a major issue. I definitely agree that the larger ships are prohibitively expensive OOB and always get smoked from the air. But if you really want to make naval builds more viable I think its the smaller vessels that really need to come down in cost. Perhaps down 1 is enough, but I don’t see why 2 is really that distorting. Since it would be universal and fleets would still be limited by the overall production capacity at coastal factories and the expense of land troops.

    My thought was that perhaps a German or Russian naval build might finally be possible, if these cheapest of ships were even cheaper. Whereas the nations who already use them (UK, USA and Japan) would just be able to build more stuff more “quickly” as a way to accelerate the pace of the game.  I’ve found that my 1942.2 games routinely last like 10 hours, often much longer, and most of this comes from the naval build delay. You know, the expensive cost of building out transports and the ships needed to protect them. Right now the dynamic is Air vs Naval (favoring the former over the later), but perhaps cheaper destroyers, subs and transports would help this?

    Perhaps a global reference would be helpful.
    In 1940 the Advanced Shipyards tech has the following costs…

    Subs 5
    transports 6
    destroyers 7

    cruisers 9
    carriers 13 (2 hit, defenseless)
    Battleships 17

    Basically -1 for the small ships -3 for the larger ones (from their OOB 1940 values).
    I think this tech tree indicates the intuitive divide between what is considered a “Capital Ship” in A&A lately. The cruiser, the carrier and the battleship. Going down from -3 from the OOB 1942.2 values gives you the same as above, except the Carrier would cost 11 ipcs (1 hit, defend 2.) Hell I don’t see why you couldn’t go down -4 for all the capital ships to keep everything nice and “even” again, at least at the high end…

    Cruisers 8
    Carriers 10
    Battleships 16

    Then “odd” for the two smaller ships warships…
    Subs 5,
    Destroyers 7

    And then you’re just left with the transport (defenseless)…
    At 6, the same value as 2 infantry.

    I’m just less wedded I guess to the OOB Naval cost structure than I am to the OOB Land/Air cost structure. Perhaps because the naval stuff has changed so much over successive A&A games. I mean Battleships used to cost 24 ipcs and didn’t even have 2 hits. Destroyers used to cost 12. Transports and subs used to cost 8. Most of the combat values have changed too. It all feels kind of arbitrary on the water to me now. Ships used to be all even number cost values, but in the latest games it’s mixed up some even some odd.

    OOB I’d say that the Air game is balanced vs the Land game, but unbalanced vs the Naval game. To me this indicates that way to get around the “Air Umbrella” vs Naval problem is to alter the cost of ships directly. Rather than changing the rules, or the unit combat interactions, or messing with the cost/ability of Air (which will screws up the balance of Air vs Ground.) Changing the cost of ships seems pretty easy by comparison, and there is a precedent, since these units have been made cheaper over time.

    For perspective I try to keep in mind that cruisers suck it pretty big time right now. If we want players to actually buy them, then they should be the same cost as a fighter. In fact they should be cheaper than a fighter, because they’re locked on the water, and fighters are just way more useful.

    Right now OOB the fighter can trade at advantage vs both the destroyer and the cruiser. Destoyer at 2 ipcs less in value but with a weaker 33% chance to return fire vs your fighter.
    Cruiser at 2 ipcs MORE in value with the same 50/50 chance to return fire vs your fighter.
    And both are locked on the water.
    And or course, both get smoked by bombers with fighter fodder for cover.

    I like the new bomber cost
    I like the current fighter cost
    It’s the ships that seem problematic.

    Granted that the game is trying to enforce the idea that Navies are expensive in the real world both to build and maintain over say tanks and aircraft. But the actual gameplay effect is mainly to slow down the game and discourage the purchase of ships unless absolutely critical (and even then it’s all built around air defense and air attack.) Plus everything is so abstract already anyway. I think most players reserve a separate logic for the cost of ships in their minds.

    Many people have noted how the new bombers have nerfed the naval game with the air umbrella or dark skies style approach to coastal defense. Where it’s just better in the long run to counter a naval build with an air build, rather than a naval build to counter a naval build directly. That might make sense for the period, but for the gameplay I think players have fun when it’s clashing fleets.

    I think the easiest fix is just to lower the cost of naval units in isolation. Whatever the values that seem most popular, but try it out I’d say before altering the combat rules/values, to see if you can accomplish the desired effects just with cost alone.
    Something should be returned to the 5 spot (for the old tank slot in the roster.) The sub at 5 would be fun. Though I’d like to see the transport lowered for sure. 6, or 5 whatever works. The only thing to watch for there on the low end of the cost spectrum is the G2/G3 Sea Lion attack, the transport spam by G should just barely match the Allies ability to stack London, otherwise sea lion is basically impossible. Invasion USA is likewise pretty impossible. A cheaper transport might make those viable, while still providing an advantage to the Allies as an offset (since they traditional buy many more than Axis.)

    Just more thoughts on the simple cost reduction method, it makes the starting naval TUV slightly less significant and this is where most of the randomized swings come into play during the first round. The totally game breaking type stuff, where 1 sub making a lucky hit, or totally dudding out can screw everything royally for one side or the other. Cheaper ships would make this less distorting since their replacement cost would be diminished.

    Less TUV at stake on the water makes the starting units more likely to be traded in combat. Or at least, that’s the way I was looking at things.
    😄


  • 2017 2016

    Your idea is very daring.

    I think about very low cost for ships within my own cost structure (with different combat values for Fg and TcB) and also within the actual OOB 1942.2.

    I believe that reducing the minimal cost below 6 IPCs for warships and especially for transport will make for a shorter game with an Allies bias in a KGF strategy.

    A few additional Germans Subs required to prevent UK and US debarkment in mass will not be enough against Destroyers blockers and Cruisers escorting transports.

    Germans’ Subs can provides a few fodders but the main punch is always coming from the Luftwaffe.
    And trading a 10 IPCs Fg against a 6 IPCs Destroyers is not a good deal for Germany.

    Lowering warships cost would divert more Germany’s money into the sea and far away from Russian front.

    I believe that the way to play within balance limit could be to keep at least the same cost for transport: 7 IPCs.


    In another dream,

    Your 2 IPCs cost redux, makes me think further about both my special Subs (A3 D1 M2) and DDs (A2 D2 M2) at 5 IPCs while having classic transport (A0 D1 M2) at 8 IPCs.

    In such cost structure, Cruiser would be at 8 IPCs while Carrier would be at 10 IPCs and BB would be at a high 14 IPCs.

    That way, 2 iconic units would be in the 5 IPCs gap. (One actual issue about cost structure.)

    Subs A3 D1 C5, can be hit by planes any time when not submerged. No DD is needed.

    DDs A2 D2 C5, 1 DD blocks all Subs First Strike, but only 1:1 ratio against Stealth Movement and Submerge.

    Cruiser A3 D3 C8

    Transport A0 D1 C8 (the classic one), 1 hit value.
    EDIT: a Classic Tp at 7 IPCs can be functionnal in this cost structure.
    And there is nothing to change from OOB TP cost. Easier to remember.

    Carrier A1 D2 C10, carry 2 planes

    Battleship A4 D4 C14, 2 hits

    I hope this can be relevant to solve other issues about unit interactions, mainly defenseless transport and Subs interaction with DDs and planes.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Sometimes I really wish we could design a scenario from the ground up, to test out your unit values ideas Baron! I have this feeling, like if we could just get the right roster balance and consider the starting unit placements and map design from scratch, we could make a really fun A&A variant.

    I’m always torn between the ideas in my head, and what I think I can persuade people in my playground to try haha. Always with that tension between the desire to try something new, and the desire to play what’s familiar. For me there are a couple possibilities that I find intriguing about lowering the cost of defenseless transports. But one that I especially dig is the idea of an Axis squeeze that can somehow find a target other than Moscow.

    Moscow is straightforward, easy to execute, and has been the standard going back to Classic. For an alternative to ever work, e.g. Crush London, or Crush Washington, then Axis need a viable attack route across the water.

    The concept of a German naval expansion, or a Japanese option transport option for invasion USA, might both be workable, if transports weren’t so damned expensive. Right now neither of those attack routes are workable. Even if Axis dedicate everything to the effort, they  can either develop the surface fleet, or the transport capacity necessary to pull it off, but never both. Or at least, never both until Moscow is already defeated.

    But I had this sort of gamey idea, what if Axis could conceivably kill any one of the 3 Allies, if they totally ignore the others and do a full press.

    This is basically what happens right now to Russia in every game, but it’s not inconceivable to work it such that if Japan and Germany throw everything at either UK or USA, that they might be able to achieve something similar. There are two difficulties with that though, first Russia has no good way to “go monster” and take Germany by itself without coordination by UK/USA fighters, and second because the cost of transports is prohibitive.

    Its not that the Axis production spread too terribly off target. Germany has UK outclassed in production, and Japan could conceivably build enough production to match the total US output  of North America. But neither Axis player transport enough of it to do any good. USA beginning with the strong production advantage that it does, never has to really put stock much stock in a West Coast invasion threat. And UK is built out to defend against Sea Lion fairly easily. Really all it takes is a single Russian fighter in position to fly to London.

    Of course then there’s also the issue of both Axis players just using those cheaper transports to hammer Russia, which is what would likely happen anyway, because we’re all so well trained to gun for the center by now haha.

    But yeah, it is a bit of a dream. Its hard to make these numbers fit on an existing board, but I think a naval expansion for A&A would be cool.

    I think the real limiting factor for the cost and prevalence of ships, is that the unit sculpts are more expensive to produce, larger and weightier. But even then, the game maker has the sense to put in more ships than can ever be used (with all those Russians.) Even with a redesigned economy (some sort of bonus) or a few more starting units, the Russians will never build any of those warships haha. But just looking at them is like a tease. Or a challenge.  Or say you buy two copies of the gameboard, like most of us end up doing, and you just stare at all those ship sculpts that never get purchased. Cruisers and battleships and the like. I just start to pine for a map that was more geared towards the naval purchase. 1942.2 doesn’t have any built-in ways to tweak the cost of units, like technology, so that HRs would be the only way to really get there.

    I just like the idea of having the 5 spot returned to the roster, but be on the water, as a way to encourage naval builds. I also have this feeling, that the idea of a cheaper defenseless transport might be easier to adopt than a return to transport defense. Sure I sometimes pine for the classic defensive dynamic, but after playing classic and revised again after going defenseless for so long, it does have a way of giving you the brain freeze. If the replacement cost was cheaper, I don’t think the defenseless transport would seem like such a drag (with its infinite auto kill, no hostile sz and all the rest). Going down -2 would probably be too much for everyone to get behind, but dropping it by 1 ipc might find some takers.

    It might also make the half loaded transport seem less of a drag for the cost, like you’re just wasting them, or perhaps encourage more transport fanning where you cast a wide net expecting the units to be destroyed but taking land in the process.

    Subs at 5?
    Transports at 6?

    G1 would allow for 6 transports.
    J1 would allow for 5 transports.

    Too overpowered? Sea Lion might be back on the table for G. Japan is still limited by its total production and the location of its starting infantry.

    The sub spam would definitely be more wild. USA and Germany could both build 8, UK and Japan could both build 6 at their starting income value. Russia could spam 4, though that’d never happen hehe.

    I think the advanced shipyards structure might work. It favors Allies sure, but the board so far favor Axis OOB, so there is some balance to offset. But Axis would still have some options too, so its not just a totally one sided boon. I think it might work.

    The values that Argothair suggested the smaller vessels seem achievable. -1 ipc in cost… if you want to go that route. If not you can keep those all the same as OOB.

    For the capital ships -2 ipcs in cost is pretty easy to remember.

    Cruiser -2 = 10 ipcs
    Carrier -2 = 12 ipcs
    Battleship -2 = 18 ipcs

    Its a start at least. Going lower even lower for those is still an option if one wished. Like -3 for capital ships “Advanced shipyards style” if desired.
    😄


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    As long as we’re going for radical change, what about swapping the relative prices of transports, destroyers, and subs? Something like:

    Defenseless transports: 5 ipc
    Destroyers: 6 ipc
    Submarines: 7 ipc
    Cruisers: 8 ipc
    Carriers: 10 ipc
    Battleships: 13 ipc?

    My thought is that if what we really want to encourage is cheaper shipping of ground units across the ocean, then the cheapest naval unit should be the transport, followed by the defensive destroyer. That way, for 11 ipc, you can build a 1 trans + 1 DD combo that is not super-attractive to try to sink with a lone fighter – sure, you have decent odds of sinking 11 IPCs of ships, but you also have a significant chance of losing your 10 IPC fighter.


  • 2017 2016

    @Black_Elk:

    I wonder if anyone has tried this?

    It would yield the following costs…

    Subs 4 ipcs
    Transports 5 ipcs destroyers 6 ipcs
    Cruisers 10 ipcs
    Carriers 12 ipcs
    Battleships 18 ipcs

    Only the battleship would be outmoded, but that’s fairly unavoidable, their absorption plus bombardment isn’t that potent compared to the destroyer carrier combo, but 18 is still better than 20 haha.

    I think the real promise would be super cheap subs, transports and destroyers, to make it much cheaper to develop fleets to face down the mass bomber threat.

    This would allow for some nice combos on the water, since transports are a much better buy at 5 ipcs (giving this unit the 5 spot unit that has been missing since AA50). Subs at the same cost as an artillery piece and destroyers at the same cost as a tank, makes both those core ships much more attractive at purchase.

    The main balance issue for the first round would probably be a sea lion G1 naval expansion, but sea lion is currently impossible, so this might produce some interest. Allies would have a lot to gain as well. I think players would be much more likely to buy ships all around.

    Any thoughts?

    I thought further about this issue on cheaper warships.
    My solution would be more like this, with only 3 changes, to solve 3 issues:
    A lack of an interesting OOB 5 IPCs unit. (AAA doesn’t make an interesting buy.)
    Cruiser and Battleship which are not optimized buying at 12 IPCs and 20 IPCs vs DDs and Subs.
    To keep a more fairly balance , I would reduced both by 2 IPCs.
    Subs, DDs and Carriers are already interesting buy at their OOB cost.

    Transports 5 ipcs
    Subs 6 ipcs
    destroyers 8 ipcs
    Cruisers 10 ipcs
    Carriers 14 ipcs
    Battleships 18 ipcs

    I believe that lowering by 2 IPCs all ships (or a scale like Improved shipyard) will affect too much the balance from OOB slight Axis bias toward Allied bias.

    Germany cannot divert all his money on sea.
    A lot of Russian territories need to be kept by Germany to get a high income and prevent Russia to grow out of hand.

    When lowering DDs or Subs by 1 IPC, it means that USA and UK, both save 1 IPC per DD or Sub put on the board.
    So it is a 2:1 against Germany.

    All A&A games seems to be based on some time ticking bomb against Axis.
    Axis must keep as much as possible all his costlier start up units (planes and warships) while dealing a lot of damage on Allies powers in the opening turn. On the long run, Axis usually have less and less units (compared to the initial set up) while Allies are growing steadily.

    Making the replacement of this expensive warships too easy would compromise the balance.

    I believe this high cost of warships is an important piece of the “ticking time bomb” and it is make to give a few rounds to Axis powers to reach an economical even point against Allies.

    Lowering the price of all ships (to increase earlier actions) would hastened the Axis demise.

    However, lowering only defenseless transports to the 5 IPCs gap could increase early small skirmishes and maybe a Sea Lion threat but would probably imply to sacrifice some of them as easier targets.

    So, my guess is mostly on trying the 5 IPCs transport alone.
    (Your people could also probably accept more easily this small change from OOB.)
    Since it is defenseless, lowering its cost doesn’t have any consequences on combat values balance, unlike changing the cost between warships.

    On this matter, I always prefered to keep this cost ratio between these 4 units:
    1 DD + 1 Cruiser = 1 BB
    Also in G40, 2 DDs cost the same as 1, 2 hits Carrier A0 D2.
    In 1942.2, 1 A1 D2 Carrier cost must be lower than 2 DDs but higher than 2 Subs.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    I like it Baron, a solution like that might prove more feesible than the 2 ipc drop for all ships, while still producing a bit more fun on the water.

    I’d be interested to see how the 5 ipc defenseless transport would play out with the Sea Lion dynamic.
    On the one hand a 5 ipc transport, might make the G2 hit on London a lot more dangerous for UK, but it would also make a liberation on US3 easier.

    It’s statistically very unlikely for Germany to use their med transport in a G2 sea lion attempt. As I’ve outlined in other threads, to secure the use of that med transport requires destroying both Atlantic destroyers  (sz 11 and sz 10!) Or else the Allies can block at sz 13.

    G has 1 starting transport in the Baltic, at a cost of 5 ipcs they could conceivably purchase 8 more on G1, though this would be foolish since they’d just get swept from the Air on UK1.  More likely would be a G2 mass transport spam, or splitting them out over the first 2 rounds in combination with support carriers for defense.

    Under the proposed cost structure by Baron, at 41 ipcs starting income, Germany can buy 1 carrier and 5 transports with 2 ipcs remaining. That gives them a G2 transport threat of 6 transports vs London, or 6 inf + 6 tanks, plus the Luftwaffe and a cruiser bombardment.

    If UK purchases for max defense, say 7 inf 1 fighter. USA flies the bomber over and Russia sends their fighters. That is a 45% chance on a G2 Sea Lion. This seems pretty reasonable to me, as it would still be a rather Pyrrhic victory, with a decent chance for USA Russia recovery.

    A single extra AAGUN on London could be an option as well. This drops the odds on G2 Sea Lion to 40% using the defense suggested above. Or this extra AAgun could free up Russian fighters so they don’t have to defend London.

    I think this has promise, since it would put Sea Lion back on the table as a potential German opener, which is currently impossible in 1942.2 in my assessment. The Sea Lion dynamic is also fairly simple to re-balance by using one or maybe even 2 extra AAguns at London if necessary. I think the pay off elsewhere on the map of having a 5 ipc transport would be fairly huge, just for more naval fun all across the globe!

    I mean hell, they’re defenseless after all! Why not just give them the 5 spot in the roster?
    😄


  • 2017 2016

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    I wonder if anyone has tried this?

    It would yield the following costs…

    Subs 4 ipcs
    Transports 5 ipcs destroyers 6 ipcs
    Cruisers 10 ipcs
    Carriers 12 ipcs
    Battleships 18 ipcs

    Only the battleship would be outmoded, but that’s fairly unavoidable, their absorption plus bombardment isn’t that potent compared to the destroyer carrier combo, but 18 is still better than 20 haha.

    I think the real promise would be super cheap subs, transports and destroyers, to make it much cheaper to develop fleets to face down the mass bomber threat.

    This would allow for some nice combos on the water, since transports are a much better buy at 5 ipcs (giving this unit the 5 spot unit that has been missing since AA50). Subs at the same cost as an artillery piece and destroyers at the same cost as a tank, makes both those core ships much more attractive at purchase.

    The main balance issue for the first round would probably be a sea lion G1 naval expansion, but sea lion is currently impossible, so this might produce some interest. Allies would have a lot to gain as well. I think players would be much more likely to buy ships all around.

    Any thoughts?

    I thought further about this issue on cheaper warships.
    My solution would be more like this, with only 3 changes, to solve 3 issues:
    A lack of an interesting OOB 5 IPCs unit. (AAA doesn’t make an interesting buy.)
    Cruiser and Battleship which are not optimized buying at 12 IPCs and 20 IPCs vs DDs and Subs.
    To keep a more fairly balance , I would reduced both by 2 IPCs.
    Subs, DDs and Carriers are already interesting buy at their OOB cost.

    Transports 5 ipcs
    Subs 6 ipcs
    destroyers 8 ipcs
    Cruisers 10 ipcs
    Carriers 14 ipcs
    Battleships 18 ipcs

    I believe that lowering by 2 IPCs all ships (or a scale like Improved shipyard) will affect too much the balance from OOB slight Axis bias toward Allied bias.

    Germany cannot divert all his money on sea.
    A lot of Russian territories need to be kept by Germany to get a high income and prevent Russia to grow out of hand.

    When lowering DDs or Subs by 1 IPC, it means that USA and UK, both save 1 IPC per DD or Sub put on the board.
    So it is a 2:1 against Germany.

    All A&A games seems to be based on some time ticking bomb against Axis.
    Axis must keep as much as possible all his costlier start up units (planes and warships) while dealing a lot of damage on Allies powers in the opening turn. On the long run, Axis usually have less and less units (compared to the initial set up) while Allies are growing steadily.

    Making the replacement of this expensive warships too easy would compromise the balance.

    I believe this high cost of warships is an important piece of the “ticking time bomb” and it is make to give a few rounds to Axis powers to reach an economical even point against Allies.

    Lowering the price of all ships (to increase earlier actions) would hastened the Axis demise.

    However, lowering only defenseless transports to the 5 IPCs gap could increase early small skirmishes and maybe a Sea Lion threat but would probably imply to sacrifice some of them as easier targets.

    So, my guess is mostly on trying the 5 IPCs transport alone.
    (Your people could also probably accept more easily this small change from OOB.)
    Since it is defenseless, lowering its cost doesn’t have any consequences on combat values balance, unlike changing the cost between warships.

    On this matter, I always prefered to keep this cost ratio between these 4 units:
    1 DD + 1 Cruiser = 1 BB
    Also in G40, 2 DDs cost the same as 1, 2 hits Carrier A0 D2.
    In 1942.2, 1 A1 D2 Carrier cost must be lower than 2 DDs but higher than 2 Subs.

    In 1942.2, 1 A1 D2 Carrier cost must be lower than 2 DDs but higher than 2 Subs.
    OR 1 A1 D2 Carrier cost must cost twice a defenseless transport.

    Applying these ratios above to a 2 IPCs redux for DDs, within my modified roster (Subs and planes), the scale would gives this:

    Main units roster: Defenseless Transport A0 D0 cost 5

    Submarine A3 D1 cost 6 IPCs (no DD is needed to hit such Sub with planes)
    Destroyer A2 D2 cost 6 IPCs (blocks Sub’s Submerge and Stealth Movement on a 1:1 basis)

    Classic Transport A0 D1 cost 7 IPCs

    Cruiser A3 D3 cost 8 IPCs

    Carrier A1 D2, 1 hit, cost 10, hold 2 planes
    Carrier A0 D2, 2 hits, cost 12 IPCs, hold 2 planes

    Battleship A4 D4 cost 14 IPCs

    My special units roster:
    Fighter A2 D2 cost 6 (always hit aircraft first)
    Tactical Bomber A3 D2 cost 8 (gives +1A/D to 1 Tank paired 1:1 with)
    Strategic Bomber A4 D1 cost 10
    Special Carrier, A0 D3, 2 hits, cost 12, hold 3 planes
    Escort Carrier, A0 D2, 1 hit, cost 7, hold 1 plane, acts like Destroyer

    The main roster scale is still easy to remember because it keeps all the usual cost increment:
    6, 7, 8, 12, 14 IPCs, only exception is the 10 IPCs 1 hit Carrier.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 26
  • 7
  • 3
  • 6
  • 29
  • 10
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts