Overpriced units



  • Imperious Leader:

    Well then… check out Nuno’s posts and a familiar pattern will develop and a smile will be produced> smiley

    Battleships should be 20 IPC , Carriers should be 15 IPC Both should take 2 hits, but carriers should go to defense of 2
    Destroyers should attack and defend at 2 and cost 10
    Bombers cost too much and should be 12 IPC
    Transports should be 10 IPC so that people don’t take them as combat loses as much.
    –--------------------------

    I don’t really see the neccessity for closing the entire thread, because I think it’s an interesting discussion.
    About nuno, we’re here to dscuss A&A so nuno should go some other place and discuss politics. And if nuno
    will not leave volunteraly, then he should be banned!

    If BB’s cost 20 then ppl might start bying them 🙂
    I agree on the above suggestions, except DD’s.
    U might as well remove DD’s from the game, with 2-2-10 they’re obsolete.
    I’m happy that trans cost 8, but fodder issue can be solved by a rule change, it should not be allowed
    to bring trans in a hostile naval zone.



  • @Lucifer:

    I’m happy that trans cost 8, but fodder issue can be solved by a rule change, it should not be allowed
    to bring trans in a hostile naval zone.

    What about amphibious assualts in which there are naval vessels?  Transports not allowed?
    one sub would then stop a huge assault force


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Lucifer:

    I don’t know why or how you got to nearly 100 smites, but think your just fine as a poster.

    On destroyers they could goto 8 IPC and basically represent the opposite of subs. They counter the subs first strike ability so you need to buy them to stop ships from sinking. attack and defense at 3 for a destroyer is too great. Thats more like a cruiser. You might as well change the name to cruiser IMO.



  • Maybe DD’s should be named cruisers, and maybe DD’s should be able to conduct naval bombarment without any tech
    research. Then DD could be priced as is, or maybe 14. And this, a naval unit which att.def. 3-3 + naval
    bombardment IS a cruiser 🙂
    But the suggestion that DD’s cost 8 and is just the opposite of subs would be ok.
    DD’s would not be obsolete, although that defending units cannot return fire against sub hits would make
    subs slightly better as naval attack units. But u would at least buy one DD if the enemy has 3-4 subs or more.

    My first idea of a rule change with trans was not very well considered…  😐

    What about: u cannot choose trans as casualities in attack, only in defense, that could work?
    This would also bring more realism into the naval warfare mechanics of the game.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    To be honest, I’d split the DD into two units.

    A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

    and

    A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 10



  • @Cmdr:

    To be honest, I’d split the DD into two units.

    A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

    and

    A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 10

    With those prices it would be stupid to buy DD’s.
    U don’t need subs or DD’s if u have a (3-3) cruiser with naval b. which costs 10 ipc!
    Cruiser have to cost at least 12 ipc, maybe 14 with naval b.
    With BB at 20 ipc, 2 hits, cruiser can replace the current DD, then cruiser should cost 10.
    But with naval b., cruisers should be priced around 12, maybe 14.
    If cruiser cost 10 with naval b., BB is obsolete, even at 20 ipc with 2 hits, 4-4, + naval b.  😉


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Cruisers die in a single hit to an attacking Submarine.  No return shot.  Only destroyers can stop sneak attacks.  Battleships, on the other hand, costing twice as much as a cruiser hit on a 4 or less and take two hits to sink.

    That’s the value.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Ok if i can make an adjustment:

    A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

    and

    A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 12, and gets one free roll at any attacking planes hitting at 1… like the aa gun but on the sea. Cruisers were AA gun platforms. Specialty ships used to escort and protect larger ships but also potent on their own.

    other than that if you don’t like the AA thing , then give them a movement of 3 to represent their ‘cruising’ range


  • 2007 AAR League

    if they also have AA, should they cost more than $12.  or be a 2 and 2 but also have AA.  everyone would buy them if they had AA for the seas.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ok then 15?  If at 15 then they take 2 hits… BB’s are 20 IPC by mutual consensus, so a cruiser must be in line with that. hitting planes at 16.6% will not effect its cost too dramatically.



  • I’m not sure about AA on cruisers, but DD at def/att. 2-2, 8 ipc, is better than now, and ppl might buy DD for “cheap” protection
    together with AC+ftrs. DD fires at all units, subs only fires at naval units, so for protection and to negate the sub special
    ability I think a 2-2-8 DD will be a “fair” unit. The current DD could be removed from the game, it is generally unwise to buy
    DD’s, the only exception would be a strange case where u want fleet protection, the enemy has 5-6 subs or more, u have no
    DD’s, then it might be a good move to buy one single DD. Other than in such rare situations, to buy DD will hurt more than it
    helps….

    And I think Larry Harris have said that he didn’t want any new naval units, the DD fits between BB and subs, imo the
    game will not be any better with more naval units than now,
    so I hope for a 3-3 12 ipc DD with naval bombardment for 5th.ed.  8-)


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I could go 12 with AA but only 1 cruiser per sea zone would get AA privileges.

    I could even go Att 3, Def 1, AA Gun 1 round, 1 ship per sea zone, cost 12, off shore bombardment (attack rate).


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    1 cruiser per sea zone would get AA privileges.

    That would not make much sense… but how bout it gets one roll per unit rather than one roll for each attacking unit?

    Also, then id say this cruiser moves 3 spaces

    to summarize:

    attack and defend and move at 3, cost 15, takes one hit, bombards at 3, rolls on die against one air unit hitting at 1.

    Destroyer 2/2/2-8 IPC counters the subs and has the benefit of its hit can be allocated on planes, while the subs cannot. Important distinction and makes destroyers the “infantry of the seas”



  • I think u have (generally) good ideas, Imperious L., but a naval unit which moves 3 spaces…. :roll:
    I hope that’s not gonna happen.
    AA gun on cruiser or DD, that might be interesting, but I can’t say for sure if it’s a good idea.
    What are indisputable facts is that the current DD+bmr+BB have no purpose  in the game, apart from
    those units that u start with, and ofc we wan’t to keep our BB’s  🙂
    In future revisions or variants, we might see more starting units which are really obsolete, but the game
    might not suffer from this. All players want to keep expensive units, and it’s not for sure that even if some
    units are bad investments, we can have fun with starting units, and this also depicts the historical issues.

    What abilities do the current cruiser have? I haven’t played other (official) variants than classic and revised.
    The units in custom scenarios in triplea is not the same as the official ones I guess…?



  • @Lucifer:

    What are indisputable facts is that the current DD+bmr+BB have no purpose  in the game, apart from those units that u start with, and ofc we wan’t to keep our BB’s  🙂

    I could dispute the bmr as not being purchased.  I’ve seen my share of US bombers (even Japanese ones) in revised games.

    You should switch subs for bombers if you’re listing units with no purpose

    @Lucifer:

    I haven’t played other (official) variants than classic and revised.

    Perhaps you should try some variants/house rules that are so structured to make ALL units, tech (and even NAs) involved in the game.  I’m a huge advocate for A&ARe (Enhanced).  I have probably played 100 Enhanced games and can say that every game is different.



  • @Lucifer:

    Imperious Leader:

    Well then… check out Nuno’s posts and a familiar pattern will develop and a smile will be produced> smiley

    Battleships should be 20 IPC , Carriers should be 15 IPC Both should take 2 hits, but carriers should go to defense of 2
    Destroyers should attack and defend at 2 and cost 10
    Bombers cost too much and should be 12 IPC
    Transports should be 10 IPC so that people don’t take them as combat loses as much.

    Yeah, I think the original quote was by Imperious.

    Anyways, I totally disagree with Imperious.  I think those changes are mostly whack.

    Two-hit carriers, then no need to buy battleships.  Decreasing the cost to 15 IPC as well?  Jesus.

    Battleships are already good at 24.  They’re too expensive for casual buys, which makes sense.  I can see a case for reducing battleship cost, but a 20 IPC cost means two US battleships in the Pacific on US1.  Too cheap.

    Bombers are fine at 15 IPC.  There are solid lines of play that use lots of bombers, and I’m not just talking about Superfortresses NA either.



  • Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
    Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
    When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
    and by watching good players in many games.
    Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.
    All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.
    Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
    And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.
    I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
    Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
    All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
    BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
    DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
    Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
    I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
    Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
    but can move 8…
    I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
    Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
    He also said he hates tech!  :mrgreen:
    So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, cruisers moving at 3 would be nice for America if they get Fast Carriers advantage.  Then their carriers can have escorts. 🙂

    So, to get it right, IL, you would like to see 1 AA shot per defending cruiser as opposed to 1 AA Shot per attacking fighter/bomber?



  • @Lucifer:

    Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
    Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
    When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
    and by watching good players in many games.
    Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.

    Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment.  That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game.  Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.

    Also - bombers are NOT bad investments.  There are times and places for bomber buys.  You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.

    All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.

    So you never build navies with UK and/or US?  What’s your Allied win percentage like?  How about those more experienced players you were talking about?

    Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
    And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.

    Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy?  Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good?  I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.

    I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
    Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
    All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
    BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
    DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
    Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
    I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
    Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
    but can move 8…
    I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
    Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
    He also said he hates tech!   :mrgreen:
    So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.

    Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies.  There were others that contributed.  And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.

    As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.

    2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.



  • @Lucifer:

    I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
    Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
    He also said he hates tech!   :mrgreen:
    So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.

    Well the first treatment of tech in first and second edition (and the CD-rom) was horrible.  It was game breaking technological break thrus obtained thru the luck of die rolls.

    HORRIBLE application of a fact of WWII.  Technology was VERY important in the outcome of the war.

    Revised went a long way to making tech better (less game breaking tech, targetting a specific tech means you can only get one tech / turn), but still falls short, IMHO.  Tech dollars should accumulate if a country fails to acquire a tech.

    There’s still too much randomness in the acquiring of the tech.

    Tech should be a part of the game rules.  If you want, both sides can agree to a no-tech game if you wish.  Fixing the tech rules is a better solution.



  • @newpaintbrush:

    2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.

    Agreed.

    I have played with two hit carriers before, but they wouldn’t auto-repair at the end of a game turn.
    They would need to sit a turn at an IC to be repaired.  Same for BBs.

    Also damaged units could not be taken into combat.  Only defend.

    One other thing about the damaged A/C.  They would lose their capability to carry planes until repaired.

    There’s other rules used in conjunction with these, but these are the more important ones.  This are excerpts from a Second Edition Expansion set of rules from a Chicago gaming chain called Gamers Paradise.  We played these rules for YEARS…… until revised came out.



  • @Lucifer:

    ….
    Ofc, sometimes u …

    Sorry, but what does Ofc stand for… couldn’t get a google answer:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ofc

    I like the Old Farts Club link 🙂



  • Ofc= of course…?

    English is not may native language, as u probably have known by now 🙂



  • @newpaintbrush:

    Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment.  That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game.  Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.

    Also - bombers are NOT bad investments.  There are times and places for bomber buys.  You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.

    Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy?  Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good?  I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.

    Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies.  There were others that contributed.  And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.

    As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.

    2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.

    I said that u have to move units to mainland, if u can read…
    Generally the best units compared with cost/ability are tanks, art, inf.
    All u have to do is to get these units to the mainland of afr, europe etc.
    Tactics is another issue.

    3 powers must buy IC or trannies to ship units.
    Apart from that naval units are not useful.
    But, if the opponent kills your fleet then u can’t move units to mainland…
    If the opponent does not attack your lone trans, or 4-5 trans together, it would be stupid to buy protection.
    I don’t regard trannies as naval units. Trans are a necessity to bring units from point a to point b.
    For discussions I guess it’s most convenient also to regard trannies as naval units, but I see trannies the same way
    as I see IC’s. And IC’s are not the same as tanks and infantry…? U can’t kill enemy forces or occupy land TT’s with IC’s.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    So, to get it right, IL, you would like to see 1 AA shot per defending cruiser as opposed to 1 AA Shot per attacking fighter/bomber?

    yes if you also allow movement of 3. If movement is at 2 then id prefer the classic AA gun approach for cruisers.

    Battleships at 24 is horrible. Basically you are wasting money, because Carriers are better. But if BB’s goto 20, then Carriers and BB’s are very close buys overall. Also Carriers are too strong at 3 defense… that like a cruiser value. It should be 2… hence the ipc drop to 15 IPC


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

  • 2
  • 8
  • 3
  • 8
  • 5
  • 22
  • 23
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

69
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts