With regard to the minors: the addition of a Ratanacosindra-class armoured* gunboat would wrap up the ships of the Thai navy. Add the Ki-43 "Oscar" fighter and the Ki-30 "Ann" light bomber and/or the Ki-21-IIb "Sally3" heavy bomber and you've got pretty much the whole bowl of pad thai. FWIW, the Naresuan was the other Taksin-class CL, so it's already covered.**
*snooty English spelling because they were built in England. ** or do a Vesuvio card for the Italians.
A cruiser, even if hypothetical, goes further to that end than a ww1 destroyer or destroyer escort.
1947 is well beyond the cut off
To me that is a different issue. When we are talking about old ships and DE's there isn't much danger of unbalancing the game. The issue with those is they are "scenario" units that will not be useful in competitive tournament play. In other words, they will sit in the tackle box 99% of the time. That doesn't unbalance the game, it just doesn't provide anything useful for competitive gamers. We need both kinds of units in a deck, but preferably more on the competitive side because those are the units that get play.
However, it is the competitive power units where game balance can be affected and we have to be much more careful with developing those cards IMO.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
There's still a few capital ships for the ABC nations but I know that "what if? ABC theatre of war" WaS units has zero enthusiasm from the bulk of the card committee.
Theres no reason to gear minor hypothetical units to be super competitive. They provide a more stalwart unit for objective capture. That is the sell.
I think its the 'historical' units that break things like USS Ward
I definitely agree on not trying to make the minor nation units (or any small units) something they weren't meant to be. It is too much of a stretch for most of them (though certainly not all.) When a "historical" unit like USS Ward is broken it is only because the development team failed in their job. I don't think there is anything inherent in being "historical" that means it has to be broken. The reason that happens is when "historical" is being overly pushed by a fan. USS Ward could nave been done with an SA that reflected her actions at Pearl Harbor without being ridiculous.
I don’t know how one gives something to the competitive players without upsetting game balance, at least a little bit. I don’t think you can do both.
I agree. What I try to look for are units that break the current status quo of existing power builds and open up new options. This can be done without totally upsetting game balance. What I notice is people getting angry when a new unit takes the wind out of their current favorite power build. That is not the same as unbalancing a game. That is rebalancing a game and there is an important difference.
I don't think very many people would argue the USN air/carrier combination from 1943 onward is totally overwhelming (very rare to beat without unnaturally lucky dice rolls). However, the answer was not to create an equally newly broken fighter with VA10 and 10AA plus boosts that simply creates a new, higher level of almost unbeatable unit. Yes, I have seen just one or two Me-262s leave the opponent's USN air build as a pile of little blue aircraft on the side of the game map. A couple of times in fact. Although that can be temporarily satisfying, it just created an environment where it is foolish to bring any air at all in a build. We tried to address the USN "air cheese" issue back in Deck A with the Sam and Grace. However, extreme conservatism ended up with the Grace at least a point too high, and the Sam with AA one point lower than it merited. The Sam also should have been given a 1944 entry date as well. Game balance before history. (Manufacturing started in late 1944, but a severe earthquake destroyed the factory. And a lot of other aircraft factories in the same region.) The Sam and Grace ended up seriously defanged and not nearly as game rebalancing as they should have been IMO. Instead we get a nearly invincible "Superman" aircraft that wipes air out of the game completely.
There's still a few capital ships for the ABC nations but I know that "what if? ABC theatre of war" WaS units has zero enthusiasm from the bulk of the card committee.
This should be of interest. I have it in my wish list to remind me when it is printed.
Man there are some neat capital ships still out there for the U.S. and U.K.
If they are done right what would be the harm of letting them flow? Are we saving them for Deck Q? (A reasonable strategy)
Sometimes I joke about it btw, but I'd really love a Walcheren bombardment 1944 Warspite or a Narvik version with a u-boat killing float plane. Either would be a different unit.
Even if they are near duplicates gimme cards for all the other big gun ships that really existed!
Man there are some neat capital ships still out there for the U.S. and U.K.
If they are done right what would be the harm of letting them flow? Are we saving them for Deck Q? (A reasonable strategy)
Sometimes I joke about it btw, but I'd really love a Walcheren bombardment 1944 Warspite or a Narvik version with a u-boat killing float plane. Either would be a different unit.
Even if they are near duplicates gimme cards for all the other big gun ships that really existed!
I was reacting more to the Warspite with "u-boat killing float plane." No. No. No. Too many ways that goes wrong. Warspite minus a turret doesn't elicit the same visceral reaction in me.
The Royal Navy isn't lacking for ASW options without giving them an iron jawed map spanning destroyer that also murders cruisers and threatens capital ships. Also, the Warspite sculpt is gross, and it should be discouraged from play on aesthetic grounds alone.