Polo wrote: Bluecewe wrote:
Polo wrote:I am not sure that integration in the normal decks is a solution.
Care to elaborate?
Sure. I was meaning "integration in the common system of points for slots
For the same reason it is a bad idea to mix big ships and petty riverine ships: as big ships are so powerfull and with all possible weapons (anti-ground, AA, anti marine), the incentive will always be to choose the ships over other stuff.
Why choose 1 card of 1 vet M1A2 when you can have a Kongo (for 35% more of the (unit) price BTW, what a joke, and you get 7440 tons of steel for free with it
) or 2 more powerfull marine planes to try kill a symetrically mighty Udaloy II?
I understand your concerns, but do not believe that they would be borne out in reality. Naval units are useful for naval operations, as you might imagine. They do not, however, displace the traditional role of tanks in ground engagements. Furthermore, on the topic of the different types of ships, it is also the case that in the tank category you may select anything from a small and weak low-point tank to a large and powerful high-point tank. If the most expensive units are the most effective units in every possible situation, we have a much larger problem than the rules which decks abide by - we have a fundamental unit balance problem, but I hope that that is not the case.
Ultimately, it should be necessary for players to decide how they wish to distribute their resources within their force structure, rather than being able to enjoy a naval contingent of constant size regardless of the structure of their ground and air forces. In AirLand Battle, if a player desires a strong air force, they must forfeit having a strong ground force. The same should be the case with naval units, where if a player desires a strong navy, they should have to forfeit strong ground and air forces. Having to make trade-offs in deck structure encourages much greater deck variety, strengthens the role of teamwork in multiplayer teams, and affords greater choice in playstyle.