6 IPC Tanks and other unit costs

[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.

[idk_iam_swiss]

ugh. I hate players that do that. the games arent fun. and you kill the chance of ANY new players playing when you play that way.

[Guest]

I don’t like it either. I was just making a statistical point.

[idk_iam_swiss]

I Play for fun, not to win.the best games are the ones you enjoyed regardless of who won.

[Guest]

That is where you and I are different. I always play to win

[wodan46]

One possibility would be to keep the new 6-Tanks and 4-M-Infantry, but add a Blitz rule

Blitz: During the first round of combat, Mechanized Infantry and Tanks fire before other units do, and casualties are removed before other units can fire.

Doing that might make both M-Infantry and Tanks on par with Infantry, Artillery, and Aircraft, at least by the standards of previous maps.

There is the open question of how much bigger the map is, and whether or not units would actually need to use that mobility.  If so, that can justify the M-Infantry and Tank, which are balanced relative to each other, being weak compared to Infantry/Artillery.

[Gorshak]

What do you guys think of this rule for land units:

Infantry and Artillery
just as usual.

Mechanized Infantry
1-2-2-4 Blitz, +1 if paired with Artillery

Tank
3-3-2-6 Blitz, +1 if paired with Dive Bomber

Blitz (for both Mech Inf and Tank)
In addition to the normal blitz, the unit may - after a victorious battle with the first movement point - spend the second movement point to either move to a friendly territory or attack another enemy territory. These second round of movements/battles are conducted only after all regular battles are completed.

I’m not sure about this idea.
On one hand it does not change the unit values (I don’t like changing them too much) and makes each unit still have its use and worth.
On the other hand it adds a whole new layer of complexity with a possible second round of combat.

But I do like the idea of fast Tank advances deep behind the enemy front. It will allow the attacker to seize weakly defended hinterland at the cost of exposing his precious and expansive armored/mechanized units to enemy counterattacks.

[wodan46]

That might work.  Mechanized working with Artillery allows it to compensate somewhat for its pathetic offense, Tanks and Dive Bombers both getting +1s makes them an extremely powerful attack engine.

With the defense oriented Mech Infantry, you actually have the manpower to do a second attack, allowing you to push forward twice in a turn, something that is quite useful, but you can only do it with the more expensive ground units.

Doing so pushes both the M-Infantry and Tank to the “useful” range without changing their costs.  Granted, it completely changes the nature of ground combat, as you have twice the threat range.

[Guest]

i think that the mech infantry is mainly for getting infantry to the front lines

[bugoo]

As far as armor and mech inf go I feel the absolute best solution is the 3-2 tank for 5 IPCs.  However, even keeping the armor at 3-3 for 5 is doable if you than give the mech inf its own role.  For example, allow mech inf to act as artillery for inf, or allow them to boost armors to a 4 on the attack.  Esp if you let them boost inf I can see that as being potentially huge for G and Russia (the two who should be using them!). Also, I feel they should take the inf slot in a transport allowing you to move 1 arm and 1 mech inf in a single trannie.

Actually, now that I think about it, let mech inf boost tanks defense to 3, move tanks to a 3-2 unit, and you will have a combined arms thingie going right there.  Or just let inf period boost armors to a 3 (normal or mech), it even makes sense as tanks function significantly better with inf  around.