In Anniversary edition the tanks cost 5. I always had a house rule to make tanks cost 6 but haven’t played too many games. Do you think this balances the game a little as Axis are usually on the offensive?
PS. I also play with the latest AA rules
Moderator’s edit: Added ‘Anniversary’ to title.
Hi Erocco
think people just go artillery and infantry with tanks at 6 bucks.
Well tanks cost 6 for 1942.2 and Global and people buy tanks in those games. In Anniversary with No’s, Nations income is greater than 1942.2 so I see no issue at all with the cost increase as far as purchases go. Yes you’ll have less tanks on the board specially German and with that I am really interested if that balances the game to a point that no bid is required.
Anybody that would know about the 5 icp tank in AA50 would be Axis roll. Maybe he’ll chime in in a couple of days.
It’s a tricky balance to get right! If anything, I think the territory structure of Anniversary 1941 favors tanks a bit more than the territory structure of 1942 Second Edition. What I mean by this is that in Anniversary, German and Italian tanks pose a huge problem for the Russians – from a base in East Poland, Axis tanks can threaten Leningrad and Moscow and Stalingrad, and if the Italians have 3+ tanks in the area for can-opening, it becomes prohibitively expensive for the Russians to try to screen off any of those factories, so the Russians quickly wind up falling back to Moscow.
That said, I think with tanks at 5 IPCs, there is rarely any reason to buy artillery unless you happen to have 1 IPC left over, and with tanks at 6 IPCs, there is rarely any reason to buy tanks unless you really need the mobility. In all versions of Axis & Allies, Germany starts with more than enough tanks to get the job done. Historically, countries in WW2 tended to field about 500 infantrymen for every tank. In this board game, the ratio for the Axis is more like 2 infantry per tank! Obviously you can make allowances for what a “tank piece” represents – maybe a tank piece just represents a infantry division that happens to have an armored brigade – but I still think that the starting Axis forces are over-stocked with tanks at the beginning of the game.
Sometimes I wonder if there’s a way to make the decision between artillery vs. tank a little “sharper,” so that you can build radically different armies depending on which pieces you choose to emphasize.
For example, instead of increasing tank prices to 6, what about the following piece values:
Infantry: 3 IPCs, 1 Attack, 3 Defense, 1 Move
Artillery: 4 IPCs, 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Move, Boost up to 3 Infantry by +1 Attack each
Tank: 5 IPCs, 3 Attack, 3 Defense, 2 Move, Blitz
The idea here is that with enough supporting infantry, artillery are now much more cost-effective for offensive punch; you can get 4 punch for 4 IPCs, which is the best ratio available in the game…but only if you have enough cannon fodder. If you take casualties and you only have 1 infantry per artillery, then your artillery are no longer cost-effective, and may even perform worse than pure infantry, since they have weaker defense.
Infantry: 3 IPCs, 1 Attack, 3 Defense, 1 Move
Artillery: 4 IPCs, 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Move, Boost up to 3 Infantry by +1 Attack each
Tank: 5 IPCs, 3 Attack, 3 Defense, 2 Move, BlitzThe idea here is that with enough supporting infantry, artillery are now much more cost-effective for offensive punch; you can get 4 punch for 4 IPCs, which is the best ratio available in the game…but only if you have enough cannon fodder. If you take casualties and you only have 1 infantry per artillery, then your artillery are no longer cost-effective, and may even perform worse than pure infantry, since they have weaker defense.
Shouldn’t the Artillery itself also attack at 2? It seems weird to me that it only attacks @ 1 but boosts infantry up to 2. However, the ability to boost up to 3 infantry is a big plus. I like that idea so you can have more infantry in the mix. It always irritates me a little to have a lot of infantry with a few artillery so I end up with a bunch of “1” attackers.
Your inf Defense is to high. I would only buy 1 art for every three inf. Inf are to strong too against a tank.
Maybe try this.
Inf A1/2 D2 C3
Art A2 D2 C4 Boost every 2 inf +1
Arm A3 D3 C5
Attacking
2 inf 33%
1 art 33% = 67%
Defending
1 arm 50%
The inf art combo is still pretty strong. With just a inf 16.6% + art 33.4% = 50% to an arm at 50%.
Historically, countries in WW2 tended to field about 500 infantrymen for every tank. In this board game, the ratio for the Axis is more like 2 infantry per tank! Obviously you can make allowances for what a “tank piece” represents – maybe a tank piece just represents a infantry division that happens to have an armored brigade – but I still think that the starting Axis forces are over-stocked with tanks at the beginning of the game.
Impossible to argue number ratios in a game that doesn’t specify how many men or how many tanks a unit actually represents… you can’t even have an educated guess, because there’s absolutely nothing (that I’m aware of) that says what any unit in Axis and Allies actually represents in manpower or equipment.
Man power to tanks differs from nation to nation. A Platoon for the US military and Soviet military is a very different number. A platoon for US is anything between 10-30 men. For USSR, its nine men plus APC for support. Different numbers, different equipment.
Now as for why tanks are at 6, I think it’s because if artillery and tanks cost the same, what is the point of artillery when tanks hit harder and move faster.
Me neither dont love the Anniversary Tank to cost 5, I think they should streamline the rules so each units have the same cost and values in every A&A games. Less confusing, man.
About the A&A units, I figure they represent how much fighting power and mobility you get from a dollar. That said, I think the designer could have done more, and I think the A&A 1914 combat board is closer to the real thing. Artillery is the King on the Battlefield, and they scored some 70 percent of all casualties during WWII. Maybe artillery should barrage an adjacent territory before the infantry attack, something like the Battleships shore bombardment before amphibious assaults ? Maybe this should be a one time bombardment, and only infantry and Tanks can roll dice several times during a battle.
Tanks are broken too, they can only blitz if the territory is empty. In the real war they did breakthrough the strongest lines, and continue to the next battle, and this happened during a few days, they did not have to wait 6 months before they could shot again, like they must in this game. They should absorb some hits too, like the A&A 1914 Tanks. Tanks didn’t kill a lot of people like artillery did, Tanks made a shockwave that forced the enemy to surrender. Artillery is a slow meat grinder that kill people, and Tanks are a fast shockwave that produce lots of prisoners. The only way to model this in this game is to let Tanks absorb some hits.
I think at least Global game could have two types of combat, like the counter games have. One battleboard for infantry and artillery battles, where artillery do a one time preemptive barrage from some adjacent territory, then infantry and Tanks assault and keep on rolling dice as usual. And a Blitzkrieg table, that are different from the classic trench warfare. No artillery barrage, and Tanks can absorb hits, but Tanks also must be taken as first casualties since they are in the front. But Tanks that survive should be allowed to blitz into next territory, to model the breakthrough and exploit that was key parts of blitzkrieg. Actually, when using the Blitzkrieg battleboard, Tanks should be able to press continue fighting in the first territory, blitz into next enemy territory to join any battle there, or press retreat to any friendly territory, separate from what the other attacking units do. Now this is how Tanks really worked during WWII.
I also agree with Narvik that Art were the main piece. With above value post most would just buy that 1 Art per 3 Inf and thinking with a 5 icp tank would buy more tanks too.
Japan’s tanks were not good so I can’t see a 5 icp tank. This would make Japan a lot stronger on ground.
Only time I saw a 5 icp tank was in one of my 39 games for Russia only due to massive builds late in war with The Stalingrad massive push and victory there. Even this rule for Russian tanks I would have it where you can’t build 5 icp tanks until somewhere on turn 5-7.
Other option if you need to keep that 5 icp tank in game reduce Japan tanks to A2 D3 C6.
@SS:
Other option if you need to keep that 5 icp tank in game reduce Japan tanks to A2 D3 C6.
If you’re trying to be realistic with Japanese tanks, make them A2 D1 C10.
That’s about where they would be in reality to Japanese tank design and cost value. :wink:
@Nowhere:
@SS:
Other option if you need to keep that 5 icp tank in game reduce Japan tanks to A2 D3 C6.
If you’re trying to be realistic with Japanese tanks, make them A2 D1 C10.
That’s about where they would be in reality to Japanese tank design and cost value. :wink:
Ya I am trying to be Realistic to a certain point. I know that but your A2 D1 C10 will never happen in any game.
@SS:
@Nowhere:
@SS:
Other option if you need to keep that 5 icp tank in game reduce Japan tanks to A2 D3 C6.
If you’re trying to be realistic with Japanese tanks, make them A2 D1 C10.
That’s about where they would be in reality to Japanese tank design and cost value. :wink:
Ya I am trying to be Realistic to a certain point. I know that but your A2 D1 C10 will never happen in any game.
WOW, I definitely have to agree with you there SS!!! :-o :-o :-o
I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.
This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:
for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.
The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.
So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.
Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)
7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense
If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.
If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.
Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.
