6 IPC Tanks and other unit costs

[bugoo]

I just ran some numbers on another post, to sum it up for 24 IPCs you could have 6 mech inf, OR 4 arm.  When attacking with air support it comes out to:

6 mech inf + 1 bomb vs 6 inf = 62% chance of victory
4 arm + 1 bomb vs 6 inf = 62% chance of victory

With mech inf being so much better in defense, why would you purchase armor?  And if art effects mech inf, that is gonna be even worse for the armors.

Also, I feel the tactical bomber will be nearly pointless at 11 IPC other than on carriers.  Why wouldn’t you pay the 1 more IPC for the 2 more ranged bomber, or save a buck and get the better defense of the normal fighter?  I’m not seeing a role here, I know with armor they attack at a 4 but, is it really worth it over the range of the bomber? And I know they defend better than a bomber, but the fighter defends even better and it is cheaper!  I honestly do not know how to fix this other than making it a 3/1 with the synergy bonus and only costing 8?  I really don’t know.

And, in closing, 12 IPC cruisers are just plain dumb.  With bombarding requiring a landing unit per bombard, it is not that powerful of an ability.  Both the sub and the destroyer have better special abilities, and IPC for IPC outperform the cruiser by an insane amount.  For that matter why are all navel units so expensive?  I would recommend the cruiser being changed to a 3/4 unit and remaining at 12, or being reduced to 10.  Even at 10 IPC cost the destroyer slightly outperforms it, and in a mixed unit setting (ie with carriers) the destroyers extra hits shielding your defending 4s make it an even better.

In the end I guess what I am trying to say is each unit should have its own unique, special role that it brings to the game, and some of these knew units are lacking it.  If someone could help show me something i’m missing that would be awesome but this is my opinion:

Inf: Cheap, fodder, best defensive bang for your buck.
Art: Most cost effective offensive unit when supporting inf.
Mech Inf: Like the inf, but faster movement. (please note, I do like this unit and do see its role, just feel its a little OP for the price)
Arm: Currently good all round unit and fast movement.  At 6 IPC I feel they are worthless other than for extremely rich nations with small deployment abilitles (Jap/US).

Fig: Good mobile defense, helps when trading
Bomb: SBRs and insane range, good for keeping navies honest and rapidly projecting power
Tact Bomb: I see the idea, but i’d rather buy 1 fig and 1 bomb than 2 of these, honestly.  If i’m building carriers i’m looking for defense anyway and would rather have 2 figs.

Destroyer: The Inf of the sea, AND they detect subs, win win.
Cruiser: They uh, bombard?  For the cost not worth it, give me a carrier with 2 figs over 3 of these any day of the week.  Better defense, and makes my attacks stronger as the figs fire every round.
Carrier: Project offensive power further than any other navel unit (move figs 3, back 1, carrier 2 for pickup) as well as a good shared tranny defense (UK builds carrier, US lands figs)
Battleship: 2 hit, that is huge.  Granted, unless the cost goes down with the new repair rules they are not nearly as useful.
Sub: Fodder, best attack per Dollar

[wodan46]

@bugoo:

And, in closing, 12 IPC cruisers are just plain dumb.  With bombarding requiring a landing unit per bombard, it is not that powerful of an ability.  Both the sub and the destroyer have better special abilities, and IPC for IPC outperform the cruiser by an insane amount.

Destroyer’s detection ability is relatively weak, because you gain no bonus from having multiple Destroyers in a group, whereas Cruiser bombardment gets better and better.  The Destroyer’s primary ability IS its combat performance, which is in excess of any other naval unit.

Cruisers get better offense and bombardment than Battleships, albeit at the lack of the hit absorption, which is the primary ability of the Battleship, one which has been weakened by the way.

Of course, you could just get Carrier Groups for air support instead.  However, there are three reasons why Cruisers are better in certain cases:
1. Carrier Groups are expensive, most nations can’t afford such a commitment without crippling their land production and/or leaving their fleet vulnerable to Subs, who can snipe the Carriers out from under the Fighters.
2. Fighters get shot down by AAs, before they even get a chance to fire.  Cruiser bombardment doesn’t carry this loss, which is substantial (1.7 IPCs per Fighter per attack on average, not counting the loss of critical firepower unexpectedly)
3. Cruisers fire first, before ground combat even starts.  This is invaluable.

A simple situation in AA50 where Cruisers are useful would be for the UK, if they are attempting to take France.  If they use air power, it gets savaged every turn by anti-air guns, and a determined sub group could knock out the carriers.  If they use Cruisers, every time they invade France, they can pick off 2-4 units before combat even starts.

That said, I think that Cruisers could use a minor boost.  I’d say it’d be best to give them 3 movement.

@bugoo:

Inf: Cheap, fodder, best defensive bang for your buck.
Art: Most cost effective offensive unit when supporting inf.
Mech Inf: Like the inf, but faster movement. (please note, I do like this unit and do see its role, just feel its a little OP for the price)
Arm: Currently good all round unit and fast movement.  At 6 IPC I feel they are worthless other than for extremely rich nations with small deployment abilitles (Jap/US).

Two things to note
1. Mech Inf are NOT boosted by Art
2. Armor now boosts Tactical Bombers

That said, Tactical Bombers are from what I understand likely to undergo change, and thus Armor will as well

[Veqryn]

I am glad you bring up the issue of tanks costing 1 more now (+1 for you too)

i feel that i will not be buying very many or any at all of tanks.  costing 1 more just puts them out of the range of their utility.  Half of a unit’s worth is its ability to absorb hits, and an infantry for 3 ipcs absorbs just as many hits as a tank for 6.

i Would pay for a tactical bomber / fighter-bomber if they removed that stupid restriction that it needs a tank/other fighter with it to get its benefit.  what if my other fighter gets shot down?  its a great idea, but get rid of that dumb restriction

people are going to buy cruisers because of that bombarding ability whenever they need fleet defense but don’t think there will be a naval arms race.  this pretty much only occurs in the atlantic, where it is a given that after a certain number of turns the allies will own the seas.  yes, your destroyers are better in almost every way, but on the 3rd or 4th turn, when there are no more german or italian navy units left, and your fleet is big enough to completely deter an attack by airforce, your navy of destroyers will be near useless, while mine will be providing shore shots for the next 6 turns or whatever til the game ends.  (and yes, in this situation carriers with fighters are superior to both options)

people thought that navy got cheaper with AA50, but the only thing that really got cheaper was the battleship.  everything else still follows larry’s stats as being  1 point of offence/defense per 2 ipcs in cost.  (in AA50 cruisers are 3-3 and cost 12, and in revised they are 3-3 and cost 12.  subs are 2-1 that cost 6, similar to 2-2 that cost 8, which is what destroyers now cost, etc. etc.).  I think that navy should use the prices from the “upgraded shipyard” tech in AA50, as those are just a little cheaper but not by much.

[Veqryn]

@wodan46:

3. Cruisers fire first, before ground combat even starts.  This is invaluable.

you may not know this, but the rule for shore bombardment has changed.
yes, it happens before the combat starts, but it really doesn’t matter since you could just as well say the shore shot happens during the 1st round of combat because:
casualties from the shore shot now get to shoot back before they die (they move to casualty board instead of to the box)

[idk_iam_swiss]

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist. which means the expensive units die first if they hit. Think outside the box guys. Although I do agree mech infantry sound like the smarter buy now that they can blitz just as tanks do. Cruisders are NOT dumb. I can bombard with two cruisers at almost the same cost as one bomber. seriously stop being so revised edition.

[wodan46]

@idk_iam_swiss:

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist.

Not currently, they don’t.  It was stated to be on the “cutting room floor”.

[idk_iam_swiss]

aww lame… youre probably right. IT would make sense if they could though…if they dont let it be a standard rule thena  house rule definatly

[Guest]

@wodan46:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist.

Not currently, they don’t.  It was stated to be on the “cutting room floor”.

Quote your source.

[wodan46]

@Brain:

@wodan46:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist.

Not currently, they don’t.  It was stated to be on the “cutting room floor”.

Quote your source.

@Imperious:

At sea, or during sea battles, it selects its target for the first round of battle. (This rule has been changed and is a concept that was not in the and was left on the cutting room floor). The next rule is the final rule regarding DB below:

[Guest]

Thank you +1 to you

[Gorshak]

This topic was on my mind for a few days since I heard about AAP40 & AAE40 and read here and on on Larry’s Page about it.

I just wanted to start the topic and saw it was already here :)

Tanks as a 3-3-2-6 unit
I can see the rationale behind it with the new mech inf unit.
With mech inf a 1-2-2-4 unit the 5 IPC-tank would be the better buy (especially if art would not support mech inf)

For 20 IPC you would get:
mech Inf: 5/10 and 5 hits
tank: 12/12 and 4 hits

With art support it would depend on how many art would be on the board.

With the new 6 IPC-tank it will be different:
For 24 IPC you would get:
mech Inf: 6/12 and 6 hits
tank: 12/12 and 4 hits

BUT:
Now regular Inf will dominate the tank again (the reason tanks got beefed up in revised):

For 6 IPC you get:
inf: 2/4 and 2 hits
tank: 3/3 and 1 hit

Especially when you consider air support for the inf during attack (that has the tactical advantage of not having to stay in the frontline territory) the best choice would be Inf with aircraft and a few arts. Maybe in a few situation where speed matters more would tanks find their use.

If tanks stay at 3-3-5 they would be better than mech inf, if they will cost 6 IPC then inf will dominate the tanks.

My intuitive solution would be to use the OOB 3-3-2-6 tank and give him a better special ability. I would change Blitz so that if tanks after a batlle still had a movement point they could either stay (as they have to now),  return to a friendly territory (like aircraft) or even attack a second time (be it empty enemy territory or a second battle).

That would definately give the tanks a new punch and would allow real fast Panzerblitz action.
On the other hand, this change would change traditional gameplay a lot.

Air unit situation
I fully agree with the actual situation not giving each air unit its special unique usefulness.
Right now fighter, F-B and Bomber are too similar, almost interchangeable - especially fighter and F-B.

I really like the introduction of F-B, but I would like to have each aircraft have its distinct usefulness:
Fighter: Strong in Air Combat, weak to medium in Ground Combat
F-B: Strong in Ground Combat, medium in Air Combat and weak to medium in Strategic Bombing
Bomber: Strong in Strategic Bombing, weak in Air Combat, medium in Ground Combat, Long Range

I will write my more detailed thoughts on aircraft in a different thread.

[Funcioneta]

I think the main reasons for tanks costing 6 are two:

• With mechs at 4, this cost raise is needed to ensure people buy some mechs (poor man’s tank)

• More important: AA40 has more territories, thus speed of tanks is more valuable than never. Did you saw map of China? If Japan buys only inf & art, they could have problems to reach later chinese territories. You can guess Europe is similar

For the record, I think tanks are getting too popular in AA50, and for a good reason, their speed combined with more territories. Surely Larry saw this and thus chnaged tank cost

I hope the cruiser is not changed to 3-3-2-10, it would be too good

[wodan46]

Good analysis Gorshak. I agree that adding Mechanized Infantry necessitates changing Tanks, because otherwise, Mechanized Infantry gets 1/3 of the mobile firepower of a Tank for 4/5s of the cost.  Upping the Tank’s cost to 6 means the ratio changes to 1/2 the firepower for 2/3s the cost.

The way it works now, they seem to be emphasizing two pairs:
1. Infantry+Artillery, the slow moving but efficient force.  7 IPCs for 4 Attack, 4 Defense, 1 Move
2. Mech Infantry+Tanks, the fast moving but expensive force.  10 IPCs for 4 Attack, 5 Defense, 2 Move

However, Tanks are now pathetically inefficient versus mainline Infantry.  More importantly, they are now completely outclassed by the Fighter.  Fighters cost only 4 IPCs more, but have superior projection and defense.  Furthermore, while the disadvantage of the Fighters is their inability to hold new territory, thus necessitating Armor for quick consolidations, Mechanized Infantry can do so instead.

However, if you upgrade the Tank, it will just surpass the Mech-Infantry again, and we’re back to where we started.  Honestly, I think that Mechanized Infantry unbalance the game, because they deny the Tank the unique ability to attack and hold a territory two away from where they started.

Funcioneta, while I admit that the Tanks mobility is more useful than ever now, with the current costs, Mechanized Infantry+Fighters can do anything that Tanks can do, but better.  Mechanized are better at securing distant territory and soaking hits.  Fighters are better at projecting attack where you wish, without exposing yourself to losing that projection.

@Gorshak:

I really like the introduction of F-B, but I would like to have each aircraft have its distinct usefulness:
Fighter: Strong in Air Combat, weak to medium in Ground Combat
F-B: Strong in Ground Combat, medium in Air Combat and weak to medium in Strategic Bombing
Bomber: Strong in Strategic Bombing, weak in Air Combat, medium in Ground Combat, Long Range

Hmm…
Fighter: Attack=Medium , SBR=None, Interception=High, Defense=High, Move=Medium
F-B: Attack=High, SBR=Medium, Interception=Medium, Defense=Medium, Move=Medium
Bomber: Attack=Medium, SBR=High, Interception=None, Defense=Low, Move=High

Fighter: Attack=3, SBR=0, Interception=1-2, Defense=4, Move=4, Cost=10
F-B: Attack=4, SBR=1d6/2 rounded up, Interception=0-1, Defense=3, Move=4, Cost=10
Bomber: Attack=4, SBR=1d6, Interception=0-0, Defense=1, Move=6, Cost=12

[Veqryn]

honestly, I would rather they KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5 than change it to 3-3-2-6

[Funcioneta]

I don’t like Classic tanks, we need a land unit defending at 3s

I’ll give Larry profit of doubt with 6 IPCs tanks. He is really good doing the game “engine” (rules and such); AA50 rules, saving China, were superb, and even China could been fixed with a proper (I mean more than zero) testing

If he can manage testers do their work this time, this is going to be a almost perfect game. He should ensure they try more strats than ignoring Japan with USA and ignoring USA with Japan  :wink:

[wodan46]

@Veqryn:

KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5

Hmm.

For 20 IPCs
4 Tanks=12 Attack, 8 Defense, 4 Hits
5 M-Infantry=5 Attack, 10 Defense, 5 Hits

For 21 IPCs
3 Artillery, 3 Infantry=12 Attack, 12 Defense, 6 Hits
7 Infantry=7 Attack, 14 Defense, 7 Hits

Interesting.  That actually works a lot better.  Tanks are still clearly the best way of projecting offense, but M-Infantry are better at securing territories.  Artillery/Infantry are the best all around force, but move slower, and Infantry have the best defense/health, but have pathetic attack and move.

Also, M-Infantry are going to be really bad for Invasions, as when transported, they are the same as Infantry, but take up the better slot of the Transport and cost more.

In fact, the full statistics are below:

1 Movement Force
Infantry=1.40 Attack, 2.80 Defense, 1.40 HP
Infantry/Artillery=2.40 Attack, 2.4 Defense, 1.20 HP

2 Movement Force
M-Infantry=1.05 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 1.05 HP
Tanks(Original)=2.52 Attack, 1.68 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(Revised)=2.52 Attack, 2.52 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(1940)=2.10 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 0.70 HP
Tank(Original)/M-Infantry=1.88 Attack, 2.35 Defense, 0.94 HP

[Veqryn]

@wodan46:

@Veqryn:

KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5

Hmm.

For 20 IPCs
4 Tanks=12 Attack, 8 Defense, 4 Hits
5 M-Infantry=5 Attack, 10 Defense, 5 Hits

For 21 IPCs
3 Artillery, 3 Infantry=12 Attack, 12 Defense, 6 Hits
7 Infantry=7 Attack, 14 Defense, 7 Hits

Interesting.  That actually works a lot better.  Tanks are still clearly the best way of projecting offense, but M-Infantry are better at securing territories.  Artillery/Infantry are the best all around force, but move slower, and Infantry have the best defense/health, but have pathetic attack and move.

Also, M-Infantry are going to be really bad for Invasions, as when transported, they are the same as Infantry, but take up the better slot of the Transport and cost more.

In fact, the full statistics are below:

1 Movement Force
Infantry=1.40 Attack, 2.80 Defense, 1.40 HP
Infantry/Artillery=2.40 Attack, 2.4 Defense, 1.20 HP

2 Movement Force
M-Infantry=1.05 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 1.05 HP
Tanks(Original)=2.52 Attack, 1.68 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(Revised)=2.52 Attack, 2.52 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(1940)=2.10 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 0.70 HP
Tank(Original)/M-Infantry=1.88 Attack, 2.35 Defense, 0.94 HP

thx for doing the math

i will miss the 3 defense, but i would much rather 3 offense for 5 ipcs than for 6 ipcs
a gameplay consequence would also be that people would need to secure their conquered territories with units other than tanks since they would have the worst defense per ipc rate, and i think that would make much more interesting gameplay on a larger board than classic (ie, on a board the size of aa50 or pacific/europe 1940)

the more i think about it, the more i like it

[wodan46]

Also, the more I think about, the more I wonder about how effective M-Infantry is in general.  Their defense is less than a Tank, their durability is marginally better, and their offense is weaker than that of Infantry!  In the mean time, they can’t be transported readily and they can’t be boosted by Artillery.  Their only advantage is being a better hit-soak than the Tank, and that only works so long as the Tank either has a cost increase or defense loss from its Revised version.

[cannon fodder]

Does anyone know how mechanized infantry will work with transports?  Is it still 1 infantry and 1 other unit?

@wodan46:

Also, the more I think about, the more I wonder about how effective M-Infantry is in general.  Their defense is less than a Tank, their durability is marginally better, and their offense is weaker than that of Infantry!  In the mean time, they can’t be transported readily and they can’t be boosted by Artillery.  Their only advantage is being a better hit-soak than the Tank, and that only works so long as the Tank either has a cost increase or defense loss from its Revised version.

[Guest]

Are we back to buying all infantry again.