• 2007 AAR League

    @Lucifer:

    I’v been thinking same thoughts, Frood.
    The current prices are better than the old ones, from 1th., 2nd. or 3rd. ed. rules.
    But still it does not pay off to buy bombers, as well as several other units. 
    And I would very much like to see SBR removed entirely from the game.
    Then bombers should cost about 12 ipc.
    DD should cost 10.
    BB 18, maybe even 16.
    Subs 6.
    Carriers should have 2 hits, same as BB.
    Carriers should take 4 fighters.
    Another opition is to change the abillities of some units that no one buys.
    If bmbrs attacked at 6 then maybe ppl would buy them, and the bmbr attack value (4) is not related to
    ipc loss in SBR.

    Think of it, even heavy bmbrs are not cost-effective.
    Cost 7,5 ipc, attack at 4…
    15 ipc u get 8 attack points with HB, 9 with tanks, and tanks defend well  :-)
    Only reason why bombers have some sort of meaning is the SBR option for bmbrs only.

    I generally like these suggestions. I also like the idea of bombers being the artillery of the sky.

    Comment in general - you can’t just base IPC cost on punch value. The range of aircraft also add to their value, as they create a lot of tactical options - eg. a Ftr in WE can hit Z12 or Norway or Belo. Bombers even more so, which is why it would make the game really interesting to have more of them around.
    The other value of air units is that they can “retreat” after helping to take a territory, so you can take a territory with just 1-2 Inf.

    Re: the artillery idea, that actually reminds me of another idea I’ve had, which is to make artillery more like Ftrs - they actually stay back the territory they are in and can’t move into a newly captured territory. This would make them useful for swapping territory, which would really help Russia out (but therefore might unbalance the game?)

    Good point, DDs are also overpriced. It’s worth having one to counteract enemy subs, but apart from that I never buy them.

    ACs are fine I think, people do buy them (DM has bought about 8 so far in my game)

    BBs are perhaps ok too. As I said before, if you tinker with the navy too much it could boost the allied side more than the axis.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If I had to change SBR/AA rules it would be thus:

    You may have any number of AA Guns in a territory you want that has an IC.  (Limit 1 per territory if no IC is present.)
    Each AA Gun gets to shoot at up to 5 Aircraft Each and they may over lap. (3 AA Guns can target one bomber if they want too.)
    Bombers can only do 50% the damage shown on the die.  Heavy bombers re-instated.
    Radar NA is now a tech in place of Super Submarines, which is, was and always will be a stupid tech.
    Bombers now cost 10 IPC

    THat leaves SBR in but makes it much more realistic with the majority of bombers attacking being shot down.


  • @Frood:

    Re: the artillery idea, that actually reminds me of another idea I’ve had, which is to make artillery more like Ftrs - they actually stay back the territory they are in and can’t move into a newly captured territory. This would make them useful for swapping territory, which would really help Russia out (but therefore might unbalance the game?)

    So they’re like fighters, in that you don’t have to commit them, and they’re therefore not vulnerable to enemy counterattack?  Pretty big change.  But I disagree with the concept of using artillery pieces like that anyways.  I mean, can you REALLY see artillery in Berlin supporting infantry in Paris?  What I think you’re really looking for is a new unit.

    Good point, DDs are also overpriced. It’s worth having one to counteract enemy subs, but apart from that I never buy them.

    On the contrary, all you need to “counter” enemy subs is your own sub fleet.  Even the subs that your opponent kills will still get to fire back in the opening fire step.  Destroyers, though, have their uses; they are inefficient for most of the game, but with destroyer bombardment tech, they are a way of confining Japan to its main island, while reducing enemy forces.

    ACs are fine I think, people do buy them (DM has bought about 8 so far in my game)

    By extension of the idea that destroyers are overpriced, then, perhaps you would say that carriers are UNDERPRICED?  I think that carriers are underpriced.

    BBs are perhaps ok too. As I said before, if you tinker with the navy too much it could boost the allied side more than the axis.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Obviously artillery from in Berlin can’t hit Paris, smartypants. But artillery from behind the front line can usually hit stuff on the other side of the front. At least I think that’s the idea.  :lol:


  • @Jennifer:

    If I had to change SBR/AA rules it would be thus:

    You may have any number of AA Guns in a territory you want that has an IC.  (Limit 1 per territory if no IC is present.)
    Each AA Gun gets to shoot at up to 5 Aircraft Each and they may over lap. (3 AA Guns can target one bomber if they want too.)
    Bombers can only do 50% the damage shown on the die.  Heavy bombers re-instated.
    Radar NA is now a tech in place of Super Submarines, which is, was and always will be a stupid tech.
    Bombers now cost 10 IPC

    THat leaves SBR in but makes it much more realistic with the majority of bombers attacking being shot down.

    Another option is to change the AA units, let AA guns act to air units like subs act to naval units…when defending…!
    If u attack 3 subs with 3 AC and 5 ftrs, if the subs get one hit in defense, u can’t choose the fighter as casuality.

    U may buy as many AA guns as u want, each fire 1 dice at 1 defense point (?), and they can be killed,
    but AA guns only fire at air units, and still only move during noncombat movement.
    I still don’t think players would buy i.e. 5 AA guns and stack’em on any territory,
    as AA guns can’t defend against ground units.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Destroyers do serve a purpose, but they are hopelessly over priced.

    First, I like to buy a Destroyer with Japan if I have issues with Allied fighters.  Until you get 3 IC’s running you may not need it, but 1 Destroyer can adequately protect 5 transports from 2 or 3 fighters with cost effectiveness.

    Anyway, two solutions to the Destroyer problem:

    1)  Reduce the cost of the Destroyer unit to 9 IPC.  This is a higher cost then submarines making Submarines cheaper in teh long run, but low enough people might actually chose the destroyer for their mainline auxillery naval unit.

    or

    2)  Keep the cost 12, but give all destroyers combined bombardment without needing the technology.

    Likewise, if you don’t want to reduce the cost of Battleships, a good alternative is to give them AA Gun abilities on defense and offense.  All fighters attacking a battleship or a battleship attacking fighters gets free AA Gun shots at all fighters in opening fire. (This would represent all naval units in the battleship floatilla, obviously, since a BB never sailed alone.)


  • You just got Good Karma for that thought of BB’s having AA capability for opening fire in naval combat Jen!

    I LIKE IT!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Thanks. =)


  • Now just add in DST’s have PRE-opening fire against enemy SUBs (only), and naval combat may just be worth some effort!


  • Just a quick pip: the game needs to be kept at a somewhat reasonable level of complexity, and by that I mean (and it’s been said before) we can’t have a game so detailed that you actually have to be a ranking officer on a general staff in order to play. It’s fine if you want for your own games, but overall I am against continuing to add new units to the game.

    If you’re going to re-adjust pricing, my vote is to price Soviet infantry @ 2 IPC.

  • 2007 AAR League

    If you want to make the destroyers worth their price then why not give THEM the AA capability and just reduce the cost of BB’s to about 18 or 20. The destroyers represent the lighter cruisers that carried more of the AA load than battleships did anyway.

    And then you could split off a shorter range close air support/CV torpedo bomber(4/1, range 2) from the fighters/interceptors (2/3, range 4) and make them both cost 8. That way the bombers longer range would justify it’s 12 IPC cost.

    It would make for far more interesting naval combat with mixtures of different types of aircraft, cheaper BB’s, and AA DD’s.


  • @nuno:

    Actually the strategic level of play being practiced there now i believe is even worse than what it was 5 years ago…No surprises here since Carico continues to lead the way there…Afterall we’re talking of a group of Iraq war/GWB hardline supporters.

    What does that have to do with the topic on hand?

    Please keep your political statements ouf of threads in which they do not belong.


  • @nuno:

    @axis_roll:

    @nuno:

    Actually the strategic level of play being practiced there now i believe is even worse than what it was 5 years ago…No surprises here since Carico continues to lead the way there…Afterall we’re talking of a group of Iraq war/GWB hardline supporters.

    What does that have to do with the topic on hand?

    Please keep your political statements ouf of threads in which they do not belong.

    In my way of thinking both things are related, that’s why it comes to my mind.

    Sorry, they are in NO WAY related.

    Your way of thinking how things are related is skewed.  PLEASE keep your political observations to yourself.  You have a history of not following this protocol.


  • Still, i don’t understand why destroyers are overpriced  :?

    What do you buy then when you need some cheap ship to protect transports?

    Subs are cheaper but don’t protect from aircraft… or from other subs  :lol:

    Battleships and carriers cost more than destroyers. BB double, and carriers need some fighters and have crappy attack value.

    I buy more than one destroyer in my games. Usually one from UK atlantic fleet and two for USA, one for Atlantic and the other for Pacific. Germany and USSR sure don’t need, but even with Japan i buy some DD sometimes…


  • DD’s are too expensive.
    Subs are better because numbers are important.
    And only subs get to fire back if hit by attacking subs.
    Best buy to protect fleet is AC+ftrs * 2.
    U don’t really want to buy any naval units, but to get the land units to their destination, transports need
    protection.
    Remember, all capitals in A&A are placed on land, not sea……Atlantis anyone, Waterworld?  :lol:
    And DD’s are too pricey to give value for money.
    Same goes for bombers.
    But if u are a good player, then u will win a lot of games even if u don’t buy the most cost-effectice units all the time.
    Buying is important, but not the most important issue in A&A.


  • Btw, just as a side note on the bombers (which everyone seems to be bashing price-wise), IMO they’re an option for the allies because frankly they’re the only ones who can seem to afford the price vs. effect with them. Also, bombers were a different kind of buy back in the day when the rules were a little more… how shall we say, skewed to favour such craft? I still think that they hold some value for the allies as far as SBR’s and giving added support to invasions. Let’s be honest: you’re never going to buy bombers like you buy fighters, if only because although the firepower is slightly better the defense is regrettably lacking.

    Now, if one were to up the bombers to an attack of 5, say, that might influence things differently as they could become more of a threat offensively.


  • I would consider buying bombers if they attack at 6. If bombers had att.def.mov.cost: 5-1-6-15, fighters are still the better choice.
    Or if bombers cost 12. Wouldn’t buy them at 14, but with cheaper bombers then u have the SBR problem…


  • @Lucifer:

    DD’s are too expensive.
    Subs are better because numbers are important.
    And only subs get to fire back if hit by attacking subs.
    Best buy to protect fleet is AC+ftrs * 2.
    U don’t really want to buy any naval units, but to get the land units to their destination, transports need
    protection.
    Remember, all capitals in A&A are placed on land, not sea……Atlantis anyone, Waterworld?  :lol:
    And DD’s are too pricey to give value for money.
    Same goes for bombers.
    But if u are a good player, then u will win a lot of games even if u don’t buy the most cost-effectice units all the time.
    Buying is important, but not the most important issue in A&A.

    Indeed I thing that a good naval task force in A&A have a Carrier, with two fighter, 1 DD and as many SUB and TRN you may afford.
    It depends from your necessities from increasing punch against ships, then you need more SUBs, otherways, if you have necessities to transport troops and your enemy use more fighters than ships, then TRN are a better investiment.

    Regarding Buying units. A&A needs a carefully planning of the buying. Buying the right units and bringing them to the front (logistic) is fundamental as the strategy. I think that buying planning is fundamental as the startegy is, in A&A.


  • @nuno:

    @axis_roll:

    Your way of thinking how things are related is skewed.

    That’s what the (republican) group that controls AAMC it’s been saying since last century,
    but we saw who unstoppably went up in the ranks and who was right on the mark about how Events unfolded…
    Of course much of (my) unconfortable posts/“prophecies”  foreseeing such things were already deleted by that group to prevent further embarrassment.

    @axis_roll:

    Sorry, they are in NO WAY related.

    They are,
    I do undertand if you don’t see it though, since you’re likely in the same bandwagon mobilized by Dictator Carico’s group
    to support my ilegitim “2-years” ban in the Fall of 2004.
    But those who know AAMC long enough also know that when it happened I had already quited long ago(since Jan/Feb 2004) any participation in AAMC’s Message Boards  because of biased Midlands censorship against me in them.
    Afterall it was an Elections year and they couldn’t afford such blatant humilliation of “superior” (republican) Generals in the 2003 CLI final.

    @axis_roll:

    You have a history of not following this protocol.

    Therefore is explained why that group likes to pass this idea you just passed(for defamation/discredit/manipultion purposes)…

    You’re a nut job.  This is my reply to you since you just won’t stop with your dribble.

    There absolutely no connection between a persons political beliefs and how they play A&A.

    Period.

    End of Story

    Now stop posting such crap… and get back to the threads discussion

    and have a nice day.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    Now just add in DST’s have PRE-opening fire against enemy SUBs (only), and naval combat may just be worth some effort!

    Oooh, me likey, me likey!!!  If no enemy subs are present, the destroyer fires normally, if submarines are present, destroyers get to target them first in opening fire!  Then submarines fire in their opening fire. Then Battleships get to fire at any aircraft present. Then everyone else gets to shoot!!!

    A rule we played with in classic (with destroyer pieces, add on set from Gamer’s Paradise) was that destroyers or fighters had to FIND submarines before they could be shot at.  This allowed Submarines to sink entire fleets without getting shot at if the dice were bad.

    Once found, however, the submarine could only submerge if it survived ending combat, if it survived.

    Procedure was thus:

    Submarine attacks and gets a free shot
    Destroyers and Fighters rolled 1d6 each.  If the result was 1, 2, 3 or 4 the submarine was “found” by that craft.
    Submarine attacks and gets another shot
    Any destroyer or fighter that “found” a submarine got to fire back.
    Submarine then had to disengage (except submarines not yet found.)

    It was tedious, but I think worth it.

    At the least, it made submarines more useful then as fodder for battleships in classic!

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 8
  • 17
  • 30
  • 2
  • 12
  • 8
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts