League General Discussion Thread


  • @gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @axis-dominion
    What you’re saying, put another way, is

    it totally stinks that naval warship purchase choices are effectively subs, destroyers, or carriers

    And in actual practice, destroyer purchases are kept to the minimum that is perceived as necessary.

    So two (2) choices lol

    yes lol you got it!!


  • @regularkid and @Adam514 we have some requests for bm4.2, see below… i think many in the community would like to see battleships and cruisers have the same price improvements as ptv


  • @axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @regularkid and @Adam514 we have some requests for bm4.2, see below… i think many in the community would like to see battleships and cruisers have the same price improvements as ptv

    and also fig - tac correction

    if possible


  • @Amon-Sul said in [League General Discussion Thread]

    and also fig - tac correction

    if possible

    Meaning fighters to 11 and tacs down to 10?

    I hope there are several others who agree and that this could just maybe possibly be adjusted.

    And I’m not even talking about PtV where I have no recent experience, but it would seem with so many additional scramble opportunities that a 10% increase in fighter cost could be an improvement there also


  • @gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @Amon-Sul said in [League General Discussion Thread]

    and also fig - tac correction

    if possible

    Meaning fighters to 11 and tacs down to 10?

    I hope there are several others who agree and that this could just maybe possibly be adjusted.

    And I’m not even talking about PtV where I have no recent experience, but it would seem with so many additional scramble opportunities that a 10% increase in fighter cost could be an improvement there also

    yes i agree that figs and tacs shouldnt cost the same.

    Fig can intercept, is more useful on ACs / airfields etc.

    I am of course speaking about BM ,

    minimum is making figs and tacs cost even, and that should be 11, not 10

  • 2024 2023 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Fighters @10 and Bombers @ 12 are carryovers from AA50, but airbases were added for G40, therefore, fighters and bombers each became more powerful, but especially fighters.

    Bomber cost has been house-ruled up 16.7% and no one’s been complaining, though 13 would seem to me to be the happy middle ground.
    Wait… if the cost of fighters would be raised to 11 then more bombers would be purchased at 14. My opponents almost never buy any bombers at all. Boring.

    So, I’m saying airbases give a bigger boost to the value of fighters than even to bombers, and bomber cost has been house-ruled up 16.7% but fighters no change (0%). Hmmm

    @axis-dominion
    Cruisers @ 12 and Battleships @ 20 also carryovers from AA50 and there were complaints about no new purchases for them.


  • @axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

    maybe you guys can correct it in bm4.2, and while you’re at it make the battleships cost 18 and cruisers 11 like in ptv, or better yet, 16 and 10. :)

    So I’m hopeful for a BM4.2 also. Or!??
    BM5.0 ???


  • @gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

    maybe you guys can correct it in bm4.2, and while you’re at it make the battleships cost 18 and cruisers 11 like in ptv, or better yet, 16 and 10. :)

    So I’m hopeful for a BM4.2 also. Or!??
    BM5.0 ???

    yea… but maybe the nerd herd is ignoring our pleas/whining for an update here lol


  • for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:

    1. bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
    2. figs and tacs both at 10
    3. cruisers 11
    4. battleships 18

    then the two games are more aligned which makes it easier for ppl to transition between them


  • @axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.

    It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
    Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region.


  • @axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

    for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:

    1. bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
    2. figs and tacs both at 10
    3. cruisers 11
    4. battleships 18

    then the two games are more aligned which makes it easier for ppl to transition between them

    agree with U

    we need a fast BM upgrade, let say 4.2.

    and for some future upgrade, we can prepare 5.0 with time and discussion of how 4.2 is doing in practice


  • @surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.

    It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
    Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region.

    Very good post. I forgot them too.

    People mass cheap fighters , and we definitely need more aa guns. Something must be done.
    They need to be more effective (shooting 4 planes) or cheaper (3 IPC )
    or both (shooting 4 planes and the cost of 4 IPC)

    Maybe keeping the same price, or raising to 6 IPC but each 1-2 is a hit ?

    Or is it too radical ?


  • @Amon-Sul

    One thing I considered trying, was to lower cost to 4, still have 3 shots but only 1 shot counts, even if you get more than one hit.

    Would give you a 50% chance of whackin a 9 or 10 dollar Ftr if 3 attacked but limit totally dicing someones Air Force.

    But I have never actually tested it. I did test lowering to 4 and only get 2 shots. That seemed to work ok as there still a hp.

    Anyway, just a couple thoughts :)


  • @surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:

    @axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.

    It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV.

    This one I can answer with certainty.
    AA was set at 6 for G40, which I think was the same as AA50.
    When Larry was asking players for input for G40 before finalizing it, I argued that AA should be cheaper. If I said anything lower than 5, it most likely would have been rejected as too big a change. I petitioned for 5, and Larry actually agreed with me. That is my lame claim to fame.

    AA merit is a big discussion, but I just have to counter you a little bit. Don’t compare TUV of AA with fighter. As we all know, the attacker does not know how many planes will be shot down at the beginning of the battle and never be able to roll a die. AA can be absolutely devastating. It’s hard to put a price on it.
    Some will try to quantify by comparing average odds of TUV change between infantry and AA for defense. It’s not that simple, I’ll just stop there with that argument.
    Finally, AA has the unique ability to screw up a hit and run. You can save the AA until last, so hit and run can REALLY go wrong and could even wreck the game in the case of a Germany vs. Russia battle. You just can’t quantify that. I buy AA at 5, and not that rarely. If it was 4 I would go crazy 🙃🙃


  • @axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

    for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:

    1. bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
    2. figs and tacs both at 10
    3. cruisers 11
    4. battleships 18

    I wanna say again, fighters at 10 really are too cheap. Look at how much they’re purchased.

    I agree with the spirit of #1, especially. 14 cost bomber means very few of them on the board. The range of 6-7 is a big part of A&A, so if the price is high enough that very few are bought… hey… you just nerfed A&A.
    What about 4 attack on bombers but nerf them with 0 defense??! Sometimes bugs me that a bomber can defend. Anybody got real life examples to enlighten me?

    On that note. Ideas like reducing the devastating power of AA or significant reducing the number of bombers on the board to less than any previous version of A&A is kind of … nerfing… kinda feels like… a step towards low luck…?? You want predictability of battle results, go play chess. 😉


  • @gamerman01
    Perhaps it nerfs certain units, but I think changing the values helps make the game into more of a rock paper scissors decision rather than always picking rock.

    Currently, optimal buys involve inf, ftrs, DD, CV. SS, mech, and tanks are good for offensive punch. I see small value in AA, and none for cruisers and BB–RELATIVE to the main units.

    My point is that why have the other units? Or they are underpowered relative to cost. By changing value, you bring in more of a mix of units, which changes strategies. Add to that the differences in goals for the different countries, and IMHO you will have a richer game experience.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    @surfer
    I love your post, FWIW

    As to “why have the other units”?

    Here’s a thought. They are to start the game with, not to be replaced. During the war, it was found that carriers and fighters were MUCH more powerful than battleships and cruisers.

    There are many cruisers and battleships at game start that are played with for potentially many rounds. Do not assume that everyone agrees with the premise that all units should be bought somewhat proportionately throughout the game.

    In other words, the carriers progressively make the battleships obsolete. That’s kind of cool.


  • @gamerman01 if we want historical accuracy, we would have more battleships and cruisers still built in the game. Here are the splits for the US navy:

    By the end of World War II the U.S. Navy was by far the largest and most powerful navy in the world with 7,601 ships, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.

    Translating into axis and allies, we would have roughly similar spend/turn on battleship, cruisers, subs, and destroyers, and a bit disproportionally high spending on carriers.

    In terms of practical proposal, I would have cruisers cost 10 and battleships cost 17. Willing to get feedback if these numbers are attractive.


  • Thank you very much,

    As we all know, we like some historical accuracy in A&A but not too much. That line is decided by the game designer but we all like to speculate.

    So with that interesting data, the destroyers should be 7 so we have more, that would be interesting,
    The cruisers should be cheaper and/or have ASW capabilities,
    and battleships cheaper than 20, so just like you said.


  • as for bombers, i am playing a game against axis, the opponent bought bunch of bombers with Germany, even few with Japan. Maybe 1-2 with Italy too.

Suggested Topics

  • 65
  • 26
  • 24
  • 43
  • 50
  • 475
  • 69
  • 59
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.1k

Users

39.5k

Topics

1.7m

Posts