6 IPC Tanks and other unit costs

[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.

[bugoo]

Now i’m going to show why I feel cruisers suck at 12.  Navy exist for one of a few reasons, and in none of these situations is a cruiser worth it.

1. To destroy an enemy navy.

Now i’m not even going to bother going it to this, but every single sea unit out performs the cruiser on the attack.  Honestly subs even defend better than these guys do.

2. To protect a shuck, as in dropping off large numbers of units in a relatively safe location.

In this situation the only concern is protecting your trannies for the least amount of IPCs.  For this lets do a simple 'how many bombers would it take to sink 120 IPCs worth of this boat.  This is an exaggeration to prove a point.

It takes 11 Bombers to get 59% odds on 15 Destroyers, or 132 IPCs worth
It takes 10 Bombers to get 62% odds on 6 Battleships, or 120 IPCs worth
It takes 10 Bombers to get 47% odds on 3 carriers, 6 figs, and 2 destroyers (to round it out)
It takes 9 Bombers to get 58% odds on 12 Cruisers, the worst performer.
So destroyers are the best, battleboats 2nd, and carriers 3rd, cruisers only beat out subs in defending trannies.

3. To take territory.

In this situation you may say, hey this is why my cruisiers rock.  It is also where I say, my carriers rock.  There are two reasons to take a territory, to trade it, and to kill enemy units/capital.  When trading, bombard shots are very dicey, fighters not so much.  Oh yes there is the dreaded AA gun, but I have very rarely seen an AA gun on a territory that is being traded.  As far as taking a territory, you can get 3 bombards @ a 3 for 36 IPCs. Or you can get 1 carrier with 2 fighters for 34 IPCs.  The carrier is better at defending your transports, AND those fighters not only roll an attack at a 3 each and every round, but can be taken as casualties to make your drop stronger.  But oh noes, the dreaded AA gun is in Berlin!  This may be true, so lets up the numbers to 3 carriers for 6 fighters.  You will lose 1 on average, so by round 2 you took 10 attack rolls at a 3.  With your bombards you would get 9 cruisers for that cost, or 9 attack rolls at a 3.  As the combat progresses, the carrier/fighter combo continues to outperform your bombardments!  Now yes I know AA gun rolls are dicey, so are bombard rolls.

4. Suicide drop to kill enemy units with the bombard.

First off this is a stupid idea.  You will loose more IPCs worth of units than your enemy unless combat progresses into round 2 and you only loose half your drop on the first round, in which case once again fighters outperform the drop.  But in the crazy zany situation where you want to do this, the battleship is a better option.  The cruiser gives you 1 bombard point per 4 IPC spent, the battleship 1 per 5.  Cruiser looks like the victor, but, the battleship gives you 1 shot at a 4 per unit dropped.  This means if you drop 1 inf, 1 art with 2 bombards from a battleship, odds say you kill 2 units at end of first round.  Assuming you killed inf, you spent 7 IPCs (not counting the ships) to kill 6 IPCs, almost worth it!  Cruisers come out to killing around 4.5 IPCs worth per 7 spent.

Trust me guys, try destroyer/carrier combos in your next game and see how they work out for you.  Cruisers are as pointless as 6 IPC armors will be, or as 15 IPC bombers once were.

[wodan46]

@Brain:

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

Which is interesting given that they have no such power.

@bugoo:

But oh noes, the dreaded AA gun is in Berlin!  This may be true, so lets up the numbers to 3 carriers for 6 fighters.  You will lose 1 on average, so by round 2 you took 10 attack rolls at a 3.  With your bombards you would get 9 cruisers for that cost, or 9 attack rolls at a 3.  As the combat progresses, the carrier/fighter combo continues to outperform your bombardments!  Now yes I know AA gun rolls are dicey, so are bombard rolls.

The vital aspect is that Bombard resolves before units fire, which means that you don’t simply inflict losses, but you deny them a chance to inflict them as well.

Lets compare a Cruiser to a Fighter when attacking France (which WILL have an AA gun).
Cruiser has a 1/2 chance of inflicting one loss, usually just 3 IPCs, and eliminating that unit before it can fire is usually a 1/3 chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Hence, each Cruiser deals 1.5 IPCs worth of damage and blocks 1.0 IPCs worth of damage.

Fighter has a 1/6 chance of being shot down, causing 10 IPCs worth of losses, and then has a 5/12s chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Each subsequent round, it has a 1/2 chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Hence each Fighter on average incurs 1.66 IPCs in losses and inflicts 1.25 IPCs in damage first round, 1.5 IPCs in damage each subsequent round.

Cruiser: 2.5 IPCs, weighting it by 10/12s gives 2.083 IPCs
Fighter: -0.41+1.5x IPCs, where x is the number of rounds beyond the first.

Hence, for Fighters to be worth it, combat has to last at least 3 rounds.  Also note that the Cruiser carries no risk of suddenly having a weaker air/sea force, which could leave one exposed to a counter-attack.

Granted, the fire first has been removed, and as such, they should probably lower the Cruiser’s cost to 10.  But in AA50, it was understandable.

[Veqryn]

wouldn’t it be cool if they made mech infantry into a 2-1-2-4 unit?  it would be like the submarine on land hahaha

i do not like the ideas for blitzing though, I believe combat should end all moves and that odd rules about first round of combat are too weird and hard to balance in general

i think larry said that mech infantry will receive a boost from artillery, but don’t quote me on that

you may think mech infantry is not that good, and you are right, but it will still be bought and will still fill a very specific role:

after purchasing infantry and artillery for a few rounds, and having them move towards the front line, you will begin purchasing mech inf and tanks for a few rounds, and if timed perfectly will catch up to the infantry and artillery just in time to launch one massive attack

edit:

oh and with regards to brain’s comment about “are we back to buying all infantry?”
in a way, yes, you will see much more infantry being purchased even by powers that are supposed to be on the offensive
BUT artillery has permanently altered the landscape by providing the most cost effective way to attack people: if used properly it is a 3-2-1-4 unit
so at a minimum, you will see people buying mostly infantry, with an artillery are two

I am though very worried about the consequences of a tank that costs 6
i am not that worried about mech infantry though, as i kind of regard them as a novelty and little more, however the game needs tanks and the game will not function without a balanced 2 move attacking unit

[idk_iam_swiss]

mechs are 2-2-2-4 right? I think mechs in anything are better than artillery and infantry. for the same price as an artillery I get a cheap unit that can blitz? count me in!

[bugoo]

Uh wodan, bombard works that way in AA50, units killed get to fire back.

And yes, you will see huge defensive stacks now, both on land in the form of inf/mech inf, and in the sea with 2 hit carriers.

[Canuck12]

I’m with swiss. Everyone seems to be analyzing the attack/def numbers for the Mech inf to death. Its easy to say “infantry are statistically a better buy” on paper, in a battle. But when you’re finishing off Russia and you’ve got to move 7 territories to get there (as you might with a bigger europe) these half-tank half-infantry might actually be put to pretty good use.

There is way more to this game than numbers and you never know when a little bit of canon fodder that can sneak in from 2 spaces away might come in really handy.

[bugoo]

We are not complaining about the mech inf, we are complaining about 6 IPC tanks being made obsolete by them.

[Veqryn]

@idk_iam_swiss:

mechs are 2-2-2-4 right? I think mechs in anything are better than artillery and infantry. for the same price as an artillery I get a cheap unit that can blitz? count me in!

no

mechs are 1-2-2-4

[idk_iam_swiss]

aww my mistake. so for one IPC more I get infantry that have tank movement? I think that might actually balance out the new cost of a tank. but for 10 IPC that means italy is going to be stuck purchasing mostly infantry and artillery. 10 IPC gets you one tank and one mech…

[Guest]

Leave the tanks at 5, Allow mech inf to transport 1 artillery of 1 infantry with it. This would be good.