I summed this up in case anyone was interested… this includes AAA so it may be a bit skewed.
Japan: 556 +26 income
USA: 203 +17 income
UK: 106 +16 income
ANZAC: 84 +10 income
China: 61 +12 income
6 IPC Tanks and other unit costs
-
@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.
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.
-
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 twoI 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 -
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
We are not complaining about the mech inf, we are complaining about 6 IPC tanks being made obsolete by them.
-
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
-
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…
-
Leave the tanks at 5, Allow mech inf to transport 1 artillery of 1 infantry with it. This would be good.
-
thats a good question actually can I carry two mechs on a transport? or do they fall under the “other” unit rule and I can only carry one and one infantry
-
@Brain:
Leave the tanks at 5, Allow mech inf to transport 1 artillery of 1 infantry with it. This would be good.
That is another acceptable fix.
The central problem is that Mechanized Infantry being a 1-2-2-4 unit makes it near strictly weaker than the 3-3-2-5 Tank, but the Tank is already well balanced with everything else. The solution is to make the Mechanized Infantry balanced. If it turns out that the superior movement is more powerful, then even then, the Tank only needs a marginal decrease.
Ways to improve M-Infantry
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that can transport 1 Infantry with it when it moves two.
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that receives +1 from Artillery
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that can be transported like an Infantry could (hence you could transport a M-Infantry and Tank)Ways to marginally weaken Tanks
Tanks are now a 3-3-2-6 unit
Tanks are now a 3-2-2-5 unit
Tanks are either one of the above but receive +1 when working with a Dive Bomber -
One thing I though of with tanks that would work. Make them 3/2 for 5, BUT have them get +1 to defense from inf. It makes logical sense as armor had a terrible time defending without inf support, and would balance out the cost for Larry.
As far as making strat bombers desireable, first off there cost should be 10, there is absolutely no reason for them to cost more than a fighter when they have worse stats! (3-3 vs 3-4). Yes I know they are a 4 on the attack with some other units, but that still gives them the same points as a fighter. Also, how would people feel if regular bombers were no longer allowed to attack sea units. This makes some sense historically, and I feel would help make the ocean a little more interesting.
-
Interesting, that would mean that Tanks on the tip of the spear with M-Infantry would likely be exposed and fragile, but Tanks within the main force don’t suffer such. Giving M-Infantry the Artillery bonus gives them a similar reward for being within the main force.
-
This way the core of your forces would remain inf with some art, while you would use your armor and M inf to rapidly support where needed. Atleast for G/R front.
-
How about this:
Fighter-bombers and Fighters cost the same. Fighter-bombers are attack 4, defend 2 (I’m guessing 3 is a little high). Fighters are attack 3, defend 4. No restrictions on Fighter-bombers, like tanks or other fighters having to participate in the attack. Fighter-bombers can be used on Carriers just the same as Fighters.
I’m just throwing this out there, haven’t really thought it through… but you’re welcome to point out the flaws. :wink:
-
aww its okay new guy. I cant chew you a new one for trying! Historically fighters and bombers dont cost the same. I like that you have planes that cost 10, 11, 12 IPC. Each with their own benefits too!
-
I don’t know if someone mentioned this but- REMEMBER- in the E40,P40 (G40) games the Battleships and Carriers will take 2 hits- HOWEVER- they have to go back to a naval base to REPAIR- which limits their movement somewhat. This may make these units “slower” than just buying a couple of crusiers or 3 destroyers. I thought this was a clever rule to make room for all naval units to have good roles to play.
At 3-3 the tank probably should be $6 anyway- c’mon the crusier is 3-3???
Tech bomber at $11- yeah- should probably bump the bomber up $2 bucks to $14 then.
By the way, is there a confirmation on any of the costs of the units in the E40/P40 games??? Can someone make a list??
-
$90.00 unless you preorder it I believe.
-
Bombers at 14 means no one buys them, ever.
Cruisers at 12 mean almost the same thing.
And armor at 6 is less cost efficient than mech inf at 4, for attack and defense.
And why would I pay 1 more IPC for a tac bomber that only fights as good as a fighter when with a tank when I could instead buy a fighter.
Time for more math! Woot.
Let us take a combined arms force, we will say 3 inf, 3 armor, and 3 tec bombers. Using TripleA battlecalc and assuming the tec bombers are regular bombers which is better for them because they don’t loose the +1 due to the armor dying, but that is beside the point.
3 inf, 3 arm, 3 tec bombers vs 11 inf win 52% of the time
4 inf, 3 arm, 3 fighters (same cost) vs 11 inf win 54% of the timeDollar for dollar they are about the same on the attack in a mixed group, yet fighters have no restrictions like needing armor, AND they defend better.
End result is for useless unit list:
Cruiser
Armor @ 6
Tactical Fighters @ 11 -
yes but Tac bombers cerianly will change naval combat. and you have to admit tanks at 6 IPC means people wont buy As many of them right?
Suggested Topics
