On paper I would say all three experience levels are fairly equal... Yeah vets are sticky but you have to image that every 2 veteran units need to do the same job as 3 regular or 4 inexperienced (roughly)... Were you place any unit and what you do with it matters more ( but vets are more flexible)... Coming from 40k I would still say the game is remarkably balanced. The only thing I would possibly do is look at weapon option cost (with a slight discount for inexperienced units and a slight bump for vets)... Say a vet needs to pay 4 for an smg or 26 for an lmg, whilst an inexperienced needs to pay only 2 and 14 respectively as the weapon is worth so much more in a vets hand yet objectively costs the same to the player.... You could say it's unrealistic but it's what they do for weapon teams anyway so I think it would probably work and the discount on inexperienced units would see so many more of them on the table... The bump would also make people pause a bit rather than look at vets as an almost auto-include...
i agree, weapon option costs are the bigger problem here. As well as availability. -playing both japanese and americans, LMGs are basicly worthless on japanese troops while BARs are absolutely overpowered and cost 1/4th. not even looking at veterancy. -a veteran unit fully kitted with SMGs almost pay nothing for the weapons and wreck everything (both at short range and in melee), while most regular units can only take like 1smg which is again worthless (most of the time). ill never put basic IJA Infantry on vet, because its still just a bunch of rifles. sure theyll live longer, but they dont get any work done tbh. specialized vets are WAY more effective and cost almost the same. maybe 15 points more for 5 SMGs, or 15 points more for 3 BARs
On paper I would say all three experience levels are fairly equal... Yeah vets are sticky but you have to image that every 2 veteran units need to do the same job as 3 regular or 4 inexperienced (roughly)... Were you place any unit and what you do with it matters more ( but vets are more flexible)... Coming from 40k I would still say the game is remarkably balanced.
The only thing I would possibly do is look at weapon option cost (with a slight discount for inexperienced units and a slight bump for vets)... Say a vet needs to pay 4 for an smg or 26 for an lmg, whilst an inexperienced needs to pay only 2 and 14 respectively as the weapon is worth so much more in a vets hand yet objectively costs the same to the player.... You could say it's unrealistic but it's what they do for weapon teams anyway so I think it would probably work and the discount on inexperienced units would see so many more of them on the table... The bump would also make people pause a bit rather than look at vets as an almost auto-include...
i agree, weapon option costs are the bigger problem here. As well as availability.
-playing both japanese and americans, LMGs are basicly worthless on japanese troops while BARs are absolutely overpowered and cost 1/4th. not even looking at veterancy.
-a veteran unit fully kitted with SMGs almost pay nothing for the weapons and wreck everything (both at short range and in melee), while most regular units can only take like 1smg which is again worthless (most of the time).
ill never put basic IJA Infantry on vet, because its still just a bunch of rifles. sure theyll live longer, but they dont get any work done tbh. specialized vets are WAY more effective and cost almost the same. maybe 15 points more for 5 SMGs, or 15 points more for 3 BARs