Italy overcosted?

[polish_horsy]

Koln vs. d'Aosta: it seems like the German cruiser is earlier (1939), better, and cheaper... Italy seems to be a bit overcosted in this game wouldn't you say.

The PT boat comparison is more obvious. USA is much better and cheaper.

Bolzano vs. Baltimore: same cost. the USA seems far far better to me.

I don't know but it seems that Italy is maybe 10% overcosted on average. Any comments from those who know more than me about this game?

[Hum_35711]

I agree, Italy is being punished.

[Joisey]

I think their destroyer is over-priced too, although some people seem to think the smoke laying ability is worth the price.

[Jesse_James]

Qucik question...

Was Italy poorly trained in the Navy department? If so then maybe thats the reason?

If not than I guess they are SOL.


My guess is they make them as tournament pieces. Which means Italy is not a good tournament nation.

Like most CCG and minis games they make certain pieces "uber" and the rest make you go "What the crap?"

[TheFoeHammer]

Qucik question...

Was Italy poorly trained in the Navy department? If so then maybe thats the reason?

If not than I guess they are SOL.


My guess is they make them as tournament pieces. Which means Italy is not a good tournament nation.

Like most CCG and minis games they make certain pieces "uber" and the rest make you go "What the crap?"

But it really seems that for a balanced tournament level game they could still make them not have uber stats but be costed correctly in comparison to other units.

[Joisey]

Qucik question...

Was Italy poorly trained in the Navy department? If so then maybe thats the reason?

If not than I guess they are SOL.


My guess is they make them as tournament pieces. Which means Italy is not a good tournament nation.

Like most CCG and minis games they make certain pieces "uber" and the rest make you go "What the crap?"

If so, then this should be reflected in poorer stats, or negative SA's, and therefore lower costs.

[polish_horsy]

well if a ship was bad make it bad. but why the hell would the thing cost a lot? if they were poorly trained then so be it... but why charge as if they were well trained? is this just more of the intentional overcosting so you guys can have fun figuring that out?

[Walgers]

If they were less trained and had weaker shippparts, the Italians had to pay less for their ships then other nations. So Italy players should also pay less.

What about taking two points of each ship? Makes sence to make.

[Almirant Campioni]

The italian navy, regia marina, was the 4th navy during the IIWW. U.K., USA, Japan and italy. The germans have good ships but few, the italian navy have good ships and mariners, and his enemiges, the brithish, say this. But we have the idea that the italian navy similar than the italian army abd its wrong.

See you.

[Cpt. John Miller]

What they lack in price they make up for in cool looking ships. The Italians have the distinction of having the best looking pieces in the game IMO.

[Jesse_James]

What they lack in price they make up for in cool looking ships. The Italians have the distinction of having the best looking pieces in the game IMO.


Who does not like the candy cane ship?

Santa is on their side :)

[Cpt. John Miller]

I guess like all great Italian merchandise(cars, clothes, shoes, furniture, etc.)their navy looks great and costs a lot.;)

[Jesse_James]

Italy has great food too! yummmmmmm

:)

[Reemule]

The Cruisers seem a little expensive, but on the other hand, I think the Big Vinny is a bit cheap.

The Torpedo boats are more expensive for some reason, but I'll always take them. Torps rock.

[Pasalades]

My only grief is with the Torpedo Boat. Everything else seems more or less ok to me. I'm in the Smoke Screen is worth it camp for the Tarigo. The Aosta is comparable to the Atlanta, trading good AA for better gunnery and an extra torp. I'm not sure the Bolzano is quite as good as the Baltimore, but has speed and a the ability to engage more light ships with torpedoes in addition to guns; a certainty since if going second it can drive right into a small ship's square and let fly. The Ambra has a weird SA that I would like more if it didn't have to local to the destroyer to use it. Veneto just seems like the base Battleship they worked off of in development. Nothing special but costed on par. I don't think a WotC pattern of hosing minors applies in this case... except for that poor torpedo boat. I'll drop it's cost in my games I guess. I have 7 of the little buggers.

[Major Adler]

I love the Italian MTBs...not only torpedos...but ASW ability as well...

the V.V. is a great ship for the cost...

if you play historical as I do...the problem is that the Balzano was the only CA in it's class...and the D'Aosta was one of 3 in it's class...the Italians need to have another CA and CL in the next set...and I hope one each of the other two BB classes...

OH YAH...and the SM-79...how could they leave that out!...

[Autarch]

Koln vs. d'Aosta: it seems like the German cruiser is earlier (1939), better, and cheaper... Italy seems to be a bit overcosted in this game wouldn't you say.

The PT boat comparison is more obvious. USA is much better and cheaper.

Bolzano vs. Baltimore: same cost. the USA seems far far better to me.

I don't know but it seems that Italy is maybe 10% overcosted on average. Any comments from those who know more than me about this game?

The d'Aosta has better armor, though I'm surprised this would bump it's cost up over another ship with an earlier year, better guns, torpedoes and an SA...

With the Torpedo boats it would seem the earlier availability would offset the better stats of the PT, but the increase in cost on top of that hardly is justified.

Bolzano's stats are lower across the board. Year of availability is "better" than Balto's, but again, this hardly seems to justify having the same cost.

It's almost as WotC wants players to insist on playing with year limitations in order to get a fair shake if they bring units with earlier availability.

This oddity deserves further investigation.

[XAos]

I think their destroyer is over-priced too, although some people seem to think the smoke laying ability is worth the price.

The Italian DD is overcosted. Anyone who thinks smoke screen justifies that cost, should compare it to HMS.Javalin.

My estimate is that all the Italian ships are overcosted. The CA might have some use because it can reliably run away at speed-3 from "swarm" fleets. Which should keep it out of close range torpedo attacks.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Its axis... therefor the higher price is justified...

[XAos]

Its axis... therefor the higher price is justified...
I have this horrid fear that your correct.:(

Or alternativly, they "needed" to make 50% of the units unplayable & thought players would object less if they ruined all the Italian ships.

[101st_Airborne]

I have this horrid fear that your correct.:(

Or alternativly, they "needed" to make 50% of the units unplayable & thought players would object less if they ruined all the Italian ships.

That's a disturbing thought.

[Count_Ciano]

Okay, I'm actually go out on a limb and suggest that Italy is actually well balanced; costed appropriately for it's ships abilities. It's the OTHER powers that are all "skewed up"! Allow me to elaborate....

Let's look at cruisers, for example. The Bolzano weighs in at 18, has moderate attack and defense values, and an interesting SA that gives this unit some great tactical flexibility. Not bad at all for 18 points. Now let's look at the Baltimore; the same 18 points gets you a "light" battlecruiser type of unit that is WAY too good for it's cost. On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese "Jintsu" class light cruiser, which, for 19 points, gets you a unit with attack and defense stats that appear more consistent with what I would expect a Narvik class destroyer to look like; the long lance is the only thing the Jintsu has going for it. So, using Bolzano as the median, the American cruisers are ridiculously UNDER-costed, whilst the Japanese are very OVER-costed. Between these 2 extremes, the Bolzano looks like a fine unit for 18 points.

And, now, for the Battleships. Vittorio Veneto (aka. Big Vinny :p ), well, the most remarkable thing about "Big Vinny" is just how UNremarkable he is :rolleyes: (if that makes any sense!). For 49 points, Big Vinny has adequate but not outstanding attack values; adequate but not outstanding defensive values; rounded out with extended range 4 and torpedo defense 1.
Overall, what I would expect from a moderately costed BB, doesn't bring a whole lot to the table, but won't hurt to use, either. Now, compared to Big Vinny, just about all the other nation's battleships look fairly costed, that is until we get to the UK. First off, there's the Rodney, a heavy hitter with awesome defense, but a bit of a speed handi-cap, all for 58 points. Now, considering that the Washington has a better main gun attack and speed 2 for 57 points, and the Richelieu has comparable defense plus extended range 5 for 54 points. Although "Big Vinny" looks fairly priced when compared to Washington and Richelieu, the Rodney does not! OVER-costed comes to mind here.

And let's look at the Hood, shall we? At one point less than "Big Vinny", it has comparable attack and defensive stats, same range, but with NO torpedo defense, and the "fatal flaw" SA! The Hood can be a 48 point "gift" even for a lucky rolling opponent fielding a "light" heavyweight like the Scharnhorst or Kongo. Barely worth playing, never mind 48 points! So, therefore, compared to "Big Vinny", all other battleships appear properly costed, whilst the UK looks very "skewed up"!:rolleyes:

Perhaps I"m a little biased, but I think AH actually got the Italians right; it's some of the other nations that are kind of "skewy"!

My 2 pennies! :D

[Rokossovsky]

Expensive costs for the Italians might simulate their fuel shortages as the war wore on.

Vittorio Veneto's armor should be thin. It was completely shut down for some anxious hours after a single hit by a mere British 18" aerial torpedo during Matapan, and the last/best? commissioned ship of the class, Italia/Roma, was BLOWN UP by a German radio-controlled glider bomb or two in Sep43, when the Italian fleet made its dash to Malta and freedom. Even a light cruiser of ours survived one of those. Neither was Warspite destroyed, although it permanently lost the use of one of its turrets after being hit by one.

[Rokossovsky]

Something else: I read somewhere that the Italians had defective gunpowder, so the shells traveled inconsistent distances. Of course, at close range this wouldn't matter, but then you have the problem of weak steel/armor.

[Autarch]

Expensive costs for the Italians might simulate their fuel shortages as the war wore on.



These types of issues have been discussed extensively in A&AM. The designers have stated on several occasions that they DO NOT take into account strategic issues when stating/costing units.

They have, however, admitted to intentional miscosting... :(

[Latro]

These types of issues have been discussed extensively in A&AM. The designers have stated on several occasions that they DO NOT take into account strategic issues when stating/costing units.

They have, however, admitted to intentional miscosting... :(

In that case they did a bad job on ol' Vinny ... both the range and the firepower of the main guns should up there with the best of them.

Too bad.


:cool:

[XAos]

Okay, I'm actually go out on a limb and suggest that Italy is actually well balanced;
...
Perhaps I"m a little biased, but I think AH actually got the Italians right; it's some of the other nations that are kind of "skewy"!

If one unit is too cheap thats just another way of saying other units are too expensive. So when you say Baltimore is undercosted, you are also saying the Italian cruisers are overcosted. A/H claim there is a rock-paper-scissors relationship between BB's-CA/CL-DD's but they are only half right. BB's do not need cruisers to defeat a DD swarm, Patrol bomber or fighters (particularly the wildcat) will do just fine. The net effect is that all the cruisers (with about 3 exceptions) are overcosted. The Italian cruisers are not one of the exceptions.

You compare Vitorio to various other BB's. But somehow miss the Iowa & Yamato. You admit Richilieu has extended range-5. Range-5 is the sole reason Richilieu is playable against either Iowa or Yamato. And Vittoreo has other major weaknesses compared to Richilieu. 1 less vital-armor makes a big difference in this combat system. As does the complete abscence of a tertiary battery. Having 3 shots a turn is why most battleships can defeat DD-swarms.
Any one of those 3 advantages are seperatly worth about 4 less points on the cost of Vittoreo. So Tennessee at 43 points is about par. Vittoreo should be at most 2 points more than Tennesee.

[Count_Ciano]

If one unit is too cheap thats just another way of saying other units are too expensive. So when you say Baltimore is undercosted, you are also saying the Italian cruisers are overcosted. A/H claim there is a rock-paper-scissors relationship between BB's-CA/CL-DD's but they are only half right. BB's do not need cruisers to defeat a DD swarm, Patrol bomber or fighters (particularly the wildcat) will do just fine. The net effect is that all the cruisers (with about 3 exceptions) are overcosted. The Italian cruisers are not one of the exceptions.

Actually, I was illustrating how the Bolzano sits in between 2 extremes in the costing process. As much as the Baltimore is obviously under-costed, the 19 point Jinstu light cruiser is a 13 to 15 pointer at best. Compared to THAT unit, Bolzano, as do just about ALL other cruisers, do not appear over-costed.

You compare Vitorio to various other BB's. But somehow miss the Iowa & Yamato. You admit Richilieu has extended range-5. Range-5 is the sole reason Richilieu is playable against either Iowa or Yamato. And Vittoreo has other major weaknesses compared to Richilieu. 1 less vital-armor makes a big difference in this combat system. As does the complete abscence of a tertiary battery. Having 3 shots a turn is why most battleships can defeat DD-swarms.
Any one of those 3 advantages are seperatly worth about 4 less points on the cost of Vittoreo. So Tennessee at 43 points is about par. Vittoreo should be at most 2 points more than Tennesee.

I suppose there, I was comparing the Vittorio Veneto against units within the 45 to 60 point range. Iowa and Yamato didn't really strike me as a fair comparison, since they are really only playable against eachother. Even Richeliue, with ER5, would have a hard time hurting either one at range. I will admit, I never even considered the Tennessee *smacks forehead:rolleyes: *, I just looked up the stats, and take away the slow-2, Vittorio and Tennessee are basically the same ship. I was comparing Vittorio to the Hood, instead, which made 49 points seem like a fair cost (since the Hood is obviously over-costed).

Nice catch! Ya got me there! ;) Perhaps 45 would be a more apporpriate cost for VIttorio.

Ciao! :D

[Count_Ciano]

In that case they did a bad job on ol' Vinny ... both the range and the firepower of the main guns should up there with the best of them.

Too bad.


:cool:

Agree completely! :cool:

For vertical penetration, Vittorio is comparable to the Iowa's AND Yamato's main battteries. This is in large part due to it's extremely high muzzle velocity. The trade off with that, however tends to be poor deck penetration. So, IMHO, I'm thinking maybe it's shorter ranged attack values could use a boost, off-set with a weak long range attack would be a more accurate reflection of this gun's capabilities.

At least AH got the long range part right. :rolleyes:

Yamato's 18/45 main gun:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

Iowa's 16/50 main gun:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Vittorio's 15/50 main gun:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-50_m1934.htm

Hey! Don't take MY word for it! ;)