Santa do exist, and will give you 1 new naval unit.

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.

What new naval unit do you fancy

Landing craft
Total votes: 23

User avatar
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:02 pm

Comments noted
DaimlerBenz -Your wishes are certainly being considered. Excellent input, thanks
Imp – thanks, excellent as usual.

Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:04 pm

Why Low Naval Builds?

Post by DonMoody » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:32 am

In my experience, the reason players only build as many naval units as they have to is only partly explained by the higher cost of naval units.

At least as large a factor is that it is control of territories, not sea zones, that gives you income and naval units can not capture territories.
While naval units can help you achieve such an end, land units are required and land units can often do the job without naval units (air units help both but generally are better used supporting the capture of enemy controlled territory).

Even if naval unit variety increases and naval units are less expensive, I will only build the minimum number of naval units needed to do the job.
Of course, if the other side buys more naval units, "the minimum number of naval units needed to do the job" may be higher than if they hadn't bought those naval units.

On an historical note, all major participants had limited shipbuilding capability which, in general, they used about as much of as they could.
All major combatants somewhat increased their shipbuilding capability during the war, with the US having largest increase (at the end of the war, the US fleet was as large as everyone elses combined).

On a similar historical note, with the possible exception of the Alaska class ships the US built, once at war, major combatants did not start construction of new battleships - they only completed the ones they had started before they went to war (and not all of those so started were completed).

Modeling such historical realities is problematic.


User avatar
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:16 pm

Comments noted :)

The Old Soldier
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:10 pm
Location: Cincinnati Area USA

Post by The Old Soldier » Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:00 am

I don't want to sound like a party crasher.... but, really I see no reason to add any more ships. Battleships, Destroyers, subs, transports, aircraftcarriers seem to cover the bases fairly well. I'm a firm believer in more is not better. Simplicity should almost always rule when making a game. That is one reason A&A is such a great game. I do agree a reduction of the cost of ships may influence the game in a good way.

Different production cost for different nations reflect well, without adding new details may be a good solution. If these things have been already covered completely, then please forgive a old soldier.


User avatar
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Naval - unit.

Post by Hefsgaard » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:10 pm

MTB/E-boat or if I cant have that - None.
Things to remember when the dice fly.
Less is more! And KISS.

Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:37 pm

Post by master_cyan » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:00 pm

naval frigter is the only "naval" unit you may consider adding. if you add the naval fighter the should only be one on a ac. the reason is that you have you have small, medium, and large battle boats. just as you have small, medium and large land units. and aircraft carriers project air power to the battle so their no "true battle ships". an attack for a 1 isn't gona do anything for you.
subs, destroyers, battleship fighter
infantry, artillery, tank fighter
"I would not fear a pack of lions led by a sheep, but I would always fear a flock of sheep led by a lion"-alexander the great

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest