Posts made by EnoughSaid

@CWO:

That’s correct.  New (“green”) soldiers thrown into combat are initially not very effective.  As they gain experience, and learn how to react correctly to which situations, they become more confident and eventually reach peak effectiveness.  With continuous exposure to combat, that effectiveness gradually declines.  Kept in combat for too long, to the point where they develop things like the “thousand-yard stare,” troops eventually break down completely.  In WWII, in theatres where the ground fighting was continuous, the breakdown point would tend to be reached in about 200 days.  The harsh irony was that, given the typical casualty rate of about 2% per day, soldiers in a hard-fighting infantry unit were statistically likely to be killed or wounded before they reached the 200-day breakdown point.  Hence the need (as Narvik mentioned) to keep bringing new men into a unit to make up for its losses.  So the “veteran infantry” concept would actually apply not to individual soldiers but rather to a unit that has the optimum ratio of experienced men at peak efficiency relative to the new guys who have just joined it and to the burned-out guys who are near the end of their tether.

……you’re really smart.

You suggested a lot of new ideas, but didn’t elaborate on how most of them work.

All in all it sounds like this is a cool and fun idea. But you didn’t give us too much to chew on yet.

@taamvan:

Good morning gents,

I generally agree that the G40 game balance favors the axis.   This is not based on their advantage in pieces, or even economy–it is based on their initiative and their “white player” first mover advantage.  There are no allied strategies that can be pre-supposed to be successful until you see how the game plays out.   And, as you do gain this information, the Axis are better able to adapt and take advantage of this than the Allies are.

I do have several suggestions that make the Allies somewhat harder to beat in the Pacific.

1)  Move the Chinese holdout to Kansu, not Sikang or Szechwan (“Chicom”).  Retaking Yunnan is tempting, but if Japan already has their MIC down, it is probably better to draw them Northwest than South.   If Japan intends to attack Russia, being up north is not a problem for them, but if they have to chase you that direction, it puts them out of position to attack UK Pacific.  If Japan does not have a plan to strike Russia, it will be fairly obvious (abandons Manchuria), and it would then argue for keeping all 18 infantry there to pin down any Japanese troops (and block a retake of Korea, if that happens).
2)  Russia will often have to move their pieces West, but if they don’t, and Japan doesn’t build its MIC in the north, then it cannot possibly defend against Russia, China, UKPac, ANZAC and US.
3)   The primary US goal is to pressurize SZ6 and take Korea, going south puts you way out of position.  Building a Naval Base on Wake or Midway makes it impossible to screen you out from SZ 6.  Even if you lose the battle, you can reduce the threat, expend his kamikazes and follow up.   If his fleet goes south, you can screen it by blocking SZ 21-23and “break him in two” by preventing his separate fleets from all converging back on you. 
4) on J3-J4, Japan will try to make threshold income by taking the spice islands, and this is what will cost them a bunch of their ships.  Fighters on Australia, malasia and NGuinea and US carriers can attack detached fleets.
5) After Taranto, land your planes on Malta, not Syria.  This pulls Italy west instead of East just like Chicom pulls them north not south.  If Italy can cross the oil states, UK Pac is finished.
6) if Japan threatens UK Pac directly, buy only infantry and camp within one space of your capital.  Their goal should be to take over Ceylon and use it as a landing pad.  Screen SZ 37.  But if they don’t, packs of UK mechs and tanks can ward any Japanese stack within range.  You will likely only get to make a single attack to retake Siam, Malasia, Yunnan etc…Make it count.
7) Declare war with UK2-UK3 if this is the only way you can gain your bonuses on a certain turn.   The penalty in the Pac game is that the US loses its bonus, but there is no bonus in the Global setup.
8) you cannot directly bomb Japan into submission or retake it with force.   You have to smash its income by destroying its ability to move in and out of SZ6.

Japan can do everything, and can smash any stack, but they have to telegraph that intention at least one turn ahead.   They can take all the territory they like, the only reply is to trim them back slightly.

Many of the conversations here try to focus on the exact detail of where certain ships and captures will occur on turns 3-6, and how many of those moves can be accomplished simultaneously.    This isn’t very productive, as it tends to exaggerate how thinly Japan can practically be spread, and implies a false sense of certainty about what they will do.   They do have a ridiculous amount of planes–and it actually is quite a good idea to use the Japan Dark Skies strat to kill every Chinese piece even with sacrifices.   You will not be able to focus every US dollar on the Pacific, but you can get pretty close.   Beating either axis player in detail is uncertain, cannot be accomplished by naked gambits or stratagems, and requires patience.

However, I have never seen a scenario where (for example) all the UK air and all the Siberian forces converge on the defense of Moscow.  Everyone says that this is possible and desirable, but it never happens, and Russia falls.   I am not that certain that G40 is all that unbalanced, assuming that the Allies take extreme measures to prevent endgame.  It is simply an unplayably long game (More than 10 turns, tending to 14-16, we did 8 in 12 hours…) that people analyze on the basis of assumptions, the conduct of the early game, and their personal observations and biases.

First off, I want to give a shout out to taamvan. Well said, good sir.

Secondly:

Does anyone else just move the infantry in Korea over to Manhcuria and just… keep all the starting Manchurian infantry there? It’s what I normally do when the Russians stack Amur. 10 infantry and an AA gun is bad odds for the 18 Russian infantry up there. Yes, it leaves Korea open, but I’m generally okay with that because they can’t go anywhere else from there. Stacking Korea allows the Russian infantry to go all the way down the coast and become a real nuisance, so I usually just… write off the 10 infantry in Manchuria as insurance against the Soviets.

I do the same. If the Russians stack all their infantry there, I just leave the 10 inf and AA gun in Manchuria. If they do attack Korea, then I’m fine with it because then I can expand into Russian territory without activating the Mongolians. It only really gets annoying when the USA takes Korea and then the Russians reinforce with all their guys.

Bad odds for the Russians to attack? They’d have a 61% chance of success vs 12 infantry (or 90% in low luck), let alone 10 and a half. Stacking Manchuria with enough to simply hold the Soviets off is a viable plan, but it’s going to take more than that. If that’s all you have, the Russian player SHOULD attack you. If he doesn’t, that’s on him.
Like Nippon-koku mentioned, the Chinese would love to get the Manchurian money and spawn location.

Intelligently reasoned, and wisely said.

But it takes a different kind of player to be good with the allies then it takes to be good with the axis. So even 2 equaly skilled players might both win against eachother with axis all the time not because the game is unbalanced but just because they are just not as good with the allies as with the axis.

ShadowHawk put down my thoughts much more politically than I did.  :-)

I feel the allies have the advantage, which I’m OK with since we did win the real war after-all. I hardly understand where all this Pro-Axis fervor is coming from. You’re worried the Axis will do these “winning strategies”? Then counter them! Screw with your opponents’ plan! Knowledge of your enemies’ intended moves is one of the greatest advantages a commander can ask for.

This is a very abrasive and callous thought, but to be extraordinarily blunt: If you keep losing, maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are?
Try thinking outside the box. Do something different!

For example:
Don’t send the 18 Far East Russians to the west. Coalesce a turn in Buryatia, then move back to Amur and start moving south. Send in a fighter and tac bomber from the west for offensive power - it’s not like the Japanese are going to spend time or money on getting AAA to the mainland.
If you’re lucky, your opponent might think you’re doing the typical retreat to the west you usually do, and will be ill-prepared for discover 20 troops at his doorstep. You can send the planes east turn 2 instead of turn 1 and have the t1 Buryatia infantry move into Yakut S.S.R. if you want to commit to the bluff.
Or, don’t bluff, and send the planes east t1. Then your capable Japan player notices he’s going to have more pressure than he’s used to, and have to plan for it. But then guess what: the advantage is on you, because there’s nothing forcing you to attack. Either you handicap the Japanese by forcing them to use men and resources to defend (making them lose momentum), or you exploit a critical weakness, or you end up killing a bunch of troops on your terms. All work out to your advantage.

While we’re talking about Russia, have them fight like they have some balls! Buy artillery (more!). There’s power in being able to threaten a counterattack even if you never execute. Or, seize weakness when you see it and make that counterattack! Maybe dance around and avoid a fight, or maybe if given the opportunity… can your stack of troops get to Berlin before Germany’s can get to Moscow? Heck, spare a mech and a tank to help out China. Exploit China’s instant mobilization ability. Go on the offensive.

Everyone talks about how Russia always falls. Well, it is outgunned by Germany, but the difference between Russia in 1940 and other A&A games is that the Soviet Union isn’t a punching bag! Unless of course all you do is sit there and take it.

Everyone knows America is the key to Allied victory, right?
So… what the heck are you guys doing?
Go for Rome! Be different!
If Britain did its job, Italy is making less than 20 IPCs a turn. And according to your Axis playbook, it’s busy doing can-openers against Russia. It simply can’t defend against the United States.

In the Pacific, in the wise words of someone around here, have the U.S. “pee aircraft carriers” and land ANZAC planes on them. Let the Brits and Anzac recapture the money islands, just clear the way for them. Buy subs, convoy disrupt the crap out of Japan. Defend what you need to defend and make expansion costly.

There are all sorts of tricks the Allies have at their disposal. I could go on, but each game is different because ultimately, the Allies still play in response to whatever the Axis decide. But here’s the key: that’s fine. Mess with their plan by threatening them enough so that they need to respond to you - and if they don’t? Exploit and win.

Thanks knp. Very well said.

Yup. This rule can even be “cheated”.

All air attacks require a valid potential landing zone. If you purchase a carrier and display that you can build it in a sea zone to give your planes a potential landing zone, but then the planes die (which you might have known would happen beforehand  :wink:), you don’t have to build the carrier there, and may choose to build it somewhere else.
But if 1 plane survived, you still have to build it as originally “planned”.

Braveheart, I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand your question.

I’m not sure this answers it, but:
Surviving scrambled aircraft must land on the territory they scrambled from after the resolution of all combats for the turn (they can’t fight in two battles). You can’t use the scrambling mechanic to move your aircraft to another territory or aircraft carrier.
Unless-
After winning the sea battle that your scrambled fighters fought in, the enemy ground troops still captured the territory they scrambled from. In that case, their normal landing zone is no longer available. They may now move one space in an attempt to find a friendly territory or carrier to land on.

Does that help?

@Herr:

@ghr2:

@Young:

Yes - It’s needed to land the Tac Bomber from Germany, and to help threaten Sealion.

No - The Royal Navy can be destroyed without the Tac Bomber, and that money should be used for more important units.

There is no “Unsure” or “Depends” option as I would hope those voting know by now what their go to G1 purchases are.

Thanks for participating.

I say no, and still use the Tac Bomber.

I totally agree. I’ll land the tac bomber in Holland/Belgium plus one or two other planes and add AA guns from Germany as fodder against a French suicide action from Normandy (which I don’t attack G1).

Me three. I often buy an air base and put it in Holland, which usually deflects any bright ideas UK has for sending it’s 1 destroyer and scottish fighter to kill my damaged battleship, as well as giving excess range to much more than just 2 planes.

You seem plenty smart and on-point to me, pokemaniac.

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?

That’s what I thought you meant. If it replaces the old NOs, then this is overall a marked disadvantage to the Axis (with the exception of Italy). The Axis potential +40 is really forty minus 15-that-you-would-already-have. Making the difference +25 Axis, +45 Allies.

On the other hand, if you don’t do that, then Germany gets +15 for no war with Russia and USA. While UK Atlantic is getting…. +5. Wait, +5 for peace with Japan? Why the heck is UK getting that bonus twice?
Whatever. Anyway, Italy is almost doubling their economy with +10.
So if Axis delay the war, you’re looking at +25 Axis vs +5 or +0 Allies for actionable units until Turn 4. The Allies are still getting their share of units, but they aren’t being used yet.
Then what does it that mean?
Hello to more frequent Sealions. If UK holds out, it probably isn’t in Africa.
Japan also probably takes advantage of the excess money to annihilate China and India… faster.

I’m sorry for not painting a rosier picture. I like the idea. This is just how I see it working out in the present 2 iterations.

Well Mortarman, that seems to shake things up!

I did notice 2 problems, though.

1. "Blockhouse Fortification 0/3/0/8 1940+ "
It’s horrendously overpriced. Why would anyone buy that instead of 4 Whermacht Infantry? It needs an extra ability, such as the ability to soak hits (several, at that price) like capital ships.

2. “Panzer III Medium Tank 2/2/2/4 1939+” is 100% inferior to
“STuG III Tank Destroyer 2/2/2/4 1939+ (Tank Destroyer: this unit attacks are counted against enemy armor DIRECTLY and are rolled on a 3/3, but they only gain this bonus against enemy armor)”

You should post the rest of the lists you have.

A thought to consider on the commander units:
This game already heavily rewards “stacking” units. Adding this unit increases that incentive even more so.

I mean to be pointing this out from a neutral perspective.

Thanks for answering, Kreighund! These rules are a big departure from the other A&A games.

I think we’re getting off topic.

Nippon-koku, please correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m pretty sure the German bomber was just an example. It could have been said with French destroyer. The point was: defenseless transport under attack gets 1/6 chance to escape.
Since I think transports are overcosted at 7, I like it. And it can be exciting, so I like it for that reason, too.

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.

So we agree “tactical bombers” did indeed attack transports frequently. OK.

I think there are various reasons that the real life equivalent of in game Strat Bombers aren’t noted historically for attacking defenseless transports. Transports usually went with escort, so that significantly reduces possibilities.  And they usually had bigger fish to fry. But the hypothetical scenario of a general receiving intelligence that defenseless transports were out at sea and within range of these bombers, and then deciding to send the bomber(s) to destroy it seems quite reasonable to me. As the puny, squishy little transport isn’t going to shoot the armor plated bomber down, it can fly lower to increase accuracy. As the faster pursuer, it can fly over multiple times to ensure the job is done. No munition changes required. Explode-on-impact carpet-bombing still gets it done.

Back to the topic at hand, I think it’s a fun house rule idea. I think transports are overcosted as is, so giving them a little more survivability is cool with me. It doesn’t make much sense, but there’s nothing wrong with that. Afterall, fighters hit battleships just as hard as a cruiser in this game. It’s a game, we’ve already enlisted suspension of belief to play.
I like it.
Thanks for ironing out the details, Baron Muchhausen.

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?