Unplayable miniatures...

[XAos]

Quote from advanced rules;
" The number of ‘playable’ figures, the ones that are worth their cost is a lower percentage than we would like. For a miniatures game, we need most of our figures to be playable or close to playable since miniatures are both tangible and have a higher real cost than the equivalent in trading card games. There is also the limitation that you have fewer miniatures then a TCG has cards, so each miniature that can’t be played in an army due to costing too many points is more significant. "


They finally realised...:D
I hope they pay attention to that in the War at Seas game. Since with only 5 ships a booster it applies double to that.

[polish_horsy]

hell... price the pieces right and they are all playable. No more SS-PG idiocy.

[XAos]

The problem was that they were underpricing a few units deliberatly. Because they thought it would increase sales.:eek: :rolleyes: :confused:
I guess the sales finally got so low they realised it wasn't a good idea after all.
So long as they "fix" the 21 point Sherman.

[Colonel_Coo]

The problem was that they were underpricing a few units deliberatly. Because they thought it would increase sales.:eek: :rolleyes: :confused:
I guess the sales finally got so low they realised it wasn't a good idea after all.
So long as they "fix" the 21 point Sherman.

Yep,
they were making units with Black Lotus, Time Twister, Ancestral Recal in mind. Hoping, a early power-nine set to fuel play.

[Uncle_Joe]

Fixing the costs has become much more difficult as the number of sets has increased. They have continued to release new units to 'counter' or compete with the older, underpriced units and that means that a whole lot of units would need to be redone now than if they had just bit the bullet back when set3 was being released.

For example, everyone *****es about the Sherman at 21. And compared to the MarkIV and whatnot, it was quite underpriced. Now? Yes, its underpriced compared to those, but what would you make it? 23? Wow...big difference...hardly game changing. 25? At 25, its overpriced, especially compared to the 'newer' tanks like the EP4, StuG, and the Hetzer.

As much as I'd like to see them recost the units, I understand why they probably aren't going to do it. For one thing, people are going to ***** and whine about whatever they do (look at the huge variance on opinions on unit costs) and secondly, they've let it go on too long.

[Colonel_Coo]

Fixing the costs has become much more difficult as the number of sets has increased. They have continued to release new units to 'counter' or compete with the older, underpriced units and that means that a whole lot of units would need to be redone now than if they had just bit the bullet back when set3 was being released.

For example, everyone *****es about the Sherman at 21. And compared to the MarkIV and whatnot, it was quite underpriced. Now? Yes, its underpriced compared to those, but what would you make it? 23? Wow...big difference...hardly game changing. 25? At 25, its overpriced, especially compared to the 'newer' tanks like the EP4, StuG, and the Hetzer.

As much as I'd like to see them recost the units, I understand why they probably aren't going to do it. For one thing, people are going to ***** and whine about whatever they do (look at the huge variance on opinions on unit costs) and secondly, they've let it go on too long.

We've only seen Soldier cards. Just wait for the Tank Cards!

[Qmark]

Yep,
they were making units with Black Lotus, Time Twister, Ancestral Recal in mind. Hoping, a early power-nine set to fuel play.I disagree.
They were pricing units with Chaoslace and Jedit Ojanen in mind, hoping someone opening a 'bum pack' would promtly purchase another - essentially writing of that Easy Eight, and gambling for a T34 in the next booster.

In addition, Wizards/AH knew full well that units like SMLE and Mauser were nigh-unplayable when compared to SSPG and even when compared to MAS and Arisaka, yet they contined to issue more (Free French, etc.), and even worse versions (IHF, Huzagol, etc.).

[Colonel_Coo]

I disagree.
They were pricing units with Chaoslace and Jedit Ojanen in mind, hoping someone opening a 'bum pack' would promtly purchase another - essentially writing of that Easy Eight, and gambling for a T34 in the next booster.

In addition, Wizards/AH knew full well that units like SMLE and Mauser were nigh-unplayable when compared to SSPG and even when compared to MAS and Arisaka, yet they contined to issue more (Free French, etc.), and even worse versions (IHF, Huzagol, etc.).

Oddly Wizards felt the "lace" set (pure, choas, death etc) were going to be a key part of the game. Game mechanics proved this wrong. Kind of like Mechanized tactics.

Wizards is attempted to create a "color wheel" for AAM: Blue = Americans with too much given. Green = Axis minors with nothing of value. Red = Russia with the whole sacrfifice to get ahead.

Infantry need to be superior and inferior to one another. Luckily it not like the real war where 1 German Soldier in 1941 had the combat value of 200 Russian conscripts.

[Qmark]

Wizards is attempted to create a "color wheel" for AAM: Blue = Americans with too much given. Green = Axis minors with nothing of value. Red = Russia with the whole sacrfifice to get ahead.You really think so?
It seems odd to me to divy-up abilities Magic-style in a game with no real resource system and only two real "colors".

[Uncle_Joe]

No, I dont think they made any such attempt at a 'color wheel' myself. In some cases, I think they made certain units 'better' for cool factor (wow, SS? Everyone thinks SS are cool...people should want to buy SS!) or because they felt people might not normally want to play with something (who wants to play the French in WW2? No one, so lets make their infantry better for the same cost).

I also think that they tried to 'encourage' certain build style for the two sides. For example, the Amis historically relied on numbers of armor, artillery, and air support. What do the Amis have? Plenty of all of it and 'aggressively priced' at that. On the other hand, the Germans tended to rely on the tactical superiority of their infantry and leadership. What do they get? The best infantry in the game and the best leader to support them.

As long as the unit mix is small, that could work. But it precludes adding additional units to contention (ie, who is going to be buy US tanks that are less efficient than the Sherman and who is going to buy German infantry that cant compare to the SS-Pgr?). So now they are stuck with adding situational unit, 'useless' units, or other 'aggressively costed' units.

[Colonel_Coo]

You really think so?
It seems odd to me to divy-up abilities Magic-style in a game with no real resource system and only two real "colors".

Yep.

Sacrifice a unit to get +1 attacks. Russia
Induce Fear in enemy soldiers: Russia
Prefer to go second in combat: Russia
Heavy protection for Transport: Russia

Long range attacks that don't put soldiers at risk: USA
Superior Anti-Infantry attacks with tanks: USA
Mechnized Infantry (Jeep, Half-tracks): USA

Inferior Cheap Armor: Japan
H2H values that are awesome: Japan
Good combat throw away pieces (tanks, arisaka, zero's): Japan

Best special Soldiers: USA (para's, Rangers, M1 garand) and German (SS, Para, MG-42, Partisan)
Best Tanks: Germany
Best Anti-tank: Germany

Best slow tanks: UK
Fastest Infantry: UK
Best Overwatch (17;br with armor piercing rounds!): UK
Best flamethrower: UK
Best advanced fighter plane: UK
Best generic fighter plane: UK

[shadowhooch]

Fixing the costs has become much more difficult as the number of sets has increased. They have continued to release new units to 'counter' or compete with the older, underpriced units and that means that a whole lot of units would need to be redone now than if they had just bit the bullet back when set3 was being released.

For example, everyone *****es about the Sherman at 21. And compared to the MarkIV and whatnot, it was quite underpriced. Now? Yes, its underpriced compared to those, but what would you make it? 23? Wow...big difference...hardly game changing. 25? At 25, its overpriced, especially compared to the 'newer' tanks like the EP4, StuG, and the Hetzer.

As much as I'd like to see them recost the units, I understand why they probably aren't going to do it. For one thing, people are going to ***** and whine about whatever they do (look at the huge variance on opinions on unit costs) and secondly, they've let it go on too long.

I think, except for a handful of units that are in the "5" range, most inferior units can be costed downward. Downward would allow for more diverse builds in a 100 point game instead of making things more expensive (fewer possible builds).

So you are right, they have "fixed" most of the units in the newer sets. It's just the old ones that mainly need to be revisited. And no, it will never be "perfect"; but they would be "playable" with a PZIV costed at 25 or lower.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I think the platoon idea is a good solution for overpriced units. They have to team up with others to be more cost effective. This seems more historical as well, because most basic infantry were grouped.

[Colonel_Panic]

We've only seen Soldier cards. Just wait for the Tank Cards!

My thought exactly. I did just that for our large 10 player game, adjusted costs through building of platoons, sections, companies etc, and it was very well accepted by the players, as it also shortened the "unit purchase time", which can be rather lenghty in a 2x2500 point battle.

[fifleche]

Okay, we all know there are some unplayable units. But why are they unplayable? Because they can't compete with elites on an equal-point basis. My solution? Boost abilities of those units to increase their appeal. I personally don't think WOTC will recost units because it would be costly (on us to get the new cards/list) and difficult to implement for them. How to increase the appeal of these units: Give them bonuses!

For example, we cold say that every similar unit can "group together" to form a single attack, adding 1 dice per additionnal unit in the same range bracket. 4x mausers firing at medium range would throw a single 6+1+1+1=9 dice attack! 4 Pak38 firing at a single target in medium range would throw a 12 dice attack! Yes, the elites could benefit from this rule too, but they ALREADY throw enough dices to kill most units anyways! We could limit this by requiring an undisrupted leader adjacent to all the firing units.

The second option would be to limit platoon cards (and thus "volume discounts") to non-elite unites only.

[Cpt. John Miller]

The second option would be to limit platoon cards (and thus "volume discounts") to non-elite unites only.

I should hope so. The last thing we need is an SS platoon at even less cost.
Or a Sherman Platoon. Yikes!:eek:

[EricM 2404]

"4 Pak38 firing at a single target in medium range would throw a 12 dice attack!"

this is a very bad example

40pts x4 Pak38 or 14pts x1 Pak40
they can both get an attack of 12 that way.

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

Interesting suggestions, but none of it takes into account one very important element of this game...the 15-unit limit. To keep the game quick, it's necessary to impose a unit limit. The idea that a whole bunch of non-elite units would equal one elite unit (via merging into a single attack or platoon pricing) doesn't take into account the unit limit and how this restriction prevents non-elite units from ever truly matching elite units. Instead, these solutions would only work for builds which include big pieces of armor that eat up the majority of the build's points and start off with a low unit count. So, I'm not sure any of this is sufficient. I think that changing the basic relationship between how good an elite unit is in comparison to how good a non-elite unit is would be the key to solving the problem.

[Predator666]

I would like to see them make a platoon for the Volksturm and fortress defenders. Those are ones that aren't to playable. Throw in some good pieces and cost it very low.

[Uncle_Joe]

The second option would be to limit platoon cards (and thus "volume discounts") to non-elite unites only.

Absolutely. I echoed the same thought early on. If the whole platoon thing is going to be used to balance out the less popular units, then they need to make darned sure that dont include 'power units' in those sets. Otherwise it is defeating the purpose.

Personally, I thought there was plenty of room for units that boosted the weaker guys. How about something like:

German Veteran NCO:
Init: +2
SA: Leadership: All German infantry (only, not subtypes) add +2 dice to attacks up to a maximum of 8 total dice.

That helps the Mausers and the other weak units (like regular Pgr) but wouldnt do diddly for the SS. Make this guy reasonably cheap and you can now consider playing with non-SS every now and then.

But the platoon thing is the next best way assuming they do it right.

[Bastion]

2 concepts that I like.

The first is that nations have different strengths and weaknesses even to the point that otherwise identical units actually have different costs (or vice versa). But these differences should not exist between allied units (such as the french and english basic infantry--the english should have had some, any, minor SA to equate it to the french). Ultimately strengths and weaknesses would balance out. This would make for some nice differentiation and could even have some historical accuracy.

The second; Since we do have this problem, and I have not thought long and hard about this issue, could they not introduce commanders that specifically refer to a weak (common) unit or weak type of unit to enhance it. Presumably basic english infantry will be around for some time and could even be reproduced. Why not create a commander that boosts that specific unit? No rules change required. I know that would be difficult for every weak unit, but I can certainly think of some good common examples.

[Colonel_Panic]

The second; Since we do have this problem, and I have not thought long and hard about this issue, could they not introduce commanders that specifically refer to a weak (common) unit or weak type of unit to enhance it. Presumably basic english infantry will be around for some time and could even be reproduced. Why not create a commander that boosts that specific unit? No rules change required. I know that would be difficult for every weak unit, but I can certainly think of some good common examples.

This is a very clever idea.

Sergeant
Initiative: +1
Commander Abilities
Combat leadership
Any SMLE infantry within one hex from this unit will get one extra attack die.

Hill Defender
Any SMLE infantry within one hex of this unit will get ++1 coverrolls in hills.

[fifleche]

"4 Pak38 firing at a single target in medium range would throw a 12 dice attack!"

this is a very bad example

40pts x4 Pak38 or 14pts x1 Pak40
they can both get an attack of 12 that way.
:o I was thinking 1940 France. I hate those Char B1-bis! :(

[Colonel_Panic]

:o I was thinking 1940 France. I hate those Char B1-bis! :(
You're doing it all wrong!
Wine and cheese and a nice little Vichy-Regime -)