I'm not savvy enough to post the link but on the Custom Cards board there is a post "The_Lucky_Y's revised Set One Cards!" which suggest there was a discussion way back when on some of these older cards and they were "officially" revalued to increase playability. Someone further down noted this was an old list. This is the only list I've found. Just wondering if these pdf's are generally accepted or just what/ifs?
Agreed, just remember that the Type 97 in Surface Action does not have Alternate Payload, so the revised cost is probably somewhere in the middle.
I have the original Kate at 11. All the early set torp bombers were overpriced to some extent.
I've been working on updating my costing this weekend. What I'm doing is assigning a fixed value that makes sense to every attribute. This includes every SA so it's a helluva lot of work! I'm making progress but tweaking a cost for 1 attribute can lead to over or undercosting for a group of units that seemed OK before - unintended consequences. Most units are within a point or so but there are some that are way off.
Personally would love to see a work sheet on how you figure cost;; could be wrong but i find that tough task.
Costing in this game starting with the designer has always been hard to work around;; ill agree lots of crazy numbers many to low
makes costing a little trickier;; To many units in the half point range and especially with planes no wiggle room.
I think a lot of players see it a little different from one another;; Your Haguro and Myoko if you resat Haguro why should they cost the same
Myoko has a Flag 1: Actually if you left them alone and just switch the names the original costs would make more sense.
Don't see Tone at 19 Scout Plane is a pretty powerful SA i see it more at 20;; I think the more you look to change the more you'll have to change.
Its fun to discuss but i think the game is best played with its faults.
I mostly play historical scenarios that I run at game cons and rarely do a 1-on-1 match w objectives. I think everything should make sense, so if something is off due to power creep, designer preference, etc. I'm trying to correct for that. It's primarily for my own use but I'm more than willing to share it for others that are interested. It is a huge help when costing new/custom units.
Yes, it is a LOT of work - this has been on-going whenever I have time for several /many years!
In my version I removed Flag 1 from Myoko (I don't remember why, maybe it was never a flagship?). It would be a point more w Flag 1. For identical sister ships w the same armament, etc. I stat them the same unless there is reason not to (w diff SA's to distinguish them).
I have Scout Cruiser at 2 pts, maybe it's worth more. I agree that it can give a huge boost in an air heavy game but if you don't have planes it has no value. and Tone could be lost early, if you can use the SA through an entire air heavy game you'll definitely get your points worth and then some. It is a balancing act for sure.
And yes, fractional points would help, esp. with units <15-16 pts.
Same here with the costing. From top to bottom and it's on going with each addition. A long process but worth it. The UK DDs for example can be a mare. Diff classes and refits within and from various card sources make some research necessary. Other things like the fletchers having A3 can make things tough costing in that area and types can overlap, say top end DDs similar to low end cruisers. Cruisers basic stat lines will tend to hammer the DD but will have average SAs while a destroyer at top end will have the best of type abilities.
Could go on forever but a case of getting everything cost competitively and usable for any given fleet aim/type.
"We went out, got our arses kicked, then came back again"