• Smite away, Aldertag. Soon I will have more smites than you. Nothing could make me happier.
    So it’s people like you who like dishing out the smites. I guess I globe you means I smite you.
    Smiting is only a sign that someone does not have the capacity to make an intelligent reply to someone else who has a different opinion, or that they are so self-absorbed with themselves that they think that their opinion is the only one that counts, and will punish anyone who dares to differ in opinion. And it’s people like that who like to smite because they think it will hurt that person. For me it is only a count of how many times people cower to me. So smite away if you will, it is only a sign of inferiority on your part.


  • Oh yeah, I believe 5 is the right cost


  • The problem with a 5 cost is that it would make mechanized infantry not worthwhile. However, with costs of 6 and 4 respectively, neither are worthwhile in my opinion. I would be alright with those costs, but they need to give a new utility to those units, perhaps when used in conjunction. For example, if mech. inf. aren’t supported by artillery, perhaps allow them to be supported by tanks.

  • TripleA '12

    Yep, or… maybe Tanks will have a new special ability that is as yet undisclosed, which may justify their new 6 IPC cost? Hmmm…

    Personally, I like the new cost!  :-) I think it may mean more attacks by Inf & Mech Inf, with the occasional boost by added armour. I would certainly like to try this, anway.


  • More spaces, more valuable the movement of 2. 6 IPC tank seems nice

    And I have seen some people that buys 5 IPCs tank as candy… sometimes even myself  :-D


  • No, all you will succeed in doing is making people buy only infantry.


  • 12 attacking infantry will beat 6 defending tanks almost every time. And 12 defending infantry would have to have extremely bad luck to lose to 6 attacking tanks. Do the math yourself. Raising the cost of tanks to 6 will only make them obsolete.


  • @Brain:

    No, all you will succeed in doing is making people buy only infantry.

    Yes, if you are playing the classic MB 1984 edition, then people would buy infantry for sure.

    Butt in this edition, you may only place like 4 new units in that territory. So with a 4 unit limit, will you still buy 4 infantry and save the rest, or spend all your money on Tanks ?

    Or lets say your factory has been bombed, so you must spend 7 IPC before you can place your first unit. In this case your infantry will cost 10 IPC and your tank will cost 13 IPC. Not a very big difference any more, is it ? Lets say you got the money, do you really want a 10 IPC inf when you can get a 13 IPC tank ?

    And when you need to move your army cross an ocean, a tranny only takes 2 units as cargo. So do you fill your trannies with weak infantry or strong tanks ?

    I think that all the limits do favour purchases of more expensive and valuable units.


  • Infantery is very slow. I’m pretty sure Japan will prefer buying various tanks at Machuria as usual and probably the same will go for SAF or Egypt ICs, if any of these is still a good idea. It will take ages send inf from Germany to Moscow or viceversa, because this map is going to be huge. You will not buy mass of inf as in Classic but also you will not buy tons of tanks as I have seen in Revised and Classic

    So the dilemma is not inf vs tank. The dilemma is mechs vs tanks. My bet is any unit will get its use, you need a mix of all types as in AA50. I’m not worried about general rules and, for that Krieg says, China rules will be at least playable. So my only real concern is setup and value of territories, as well as tech rules (I hope no changes saving maybe a 3rd tech tree). The game has a good ruleset thanks to Larry, all depends on how many money and time want WOTC let to playtesting phase. I hope much more than AA50 and AA42, because, specially the later, both have received a very poor testing


  • I don’t have to give it a chance to know it’s a bad idea


  • lulz I think its going to be fun! espeically with americas massive income and the fact that you cna only fit TWO units on a transport.


  • Just test the chinese rules and the global setup better than in AA50 (poor testing) and AA42 (zero testing) and I can live with 6 IPCs tanks . For the record, I agree with your argument about the new tank and the cruisers, Craig :-)


  • If they are adding more zones between Germany and Russia I’m not worried about tanks and mech inf. I’m worried about good old fashioned infantry and artillery. With such distances those units simply won’t be viable except in a defensive role.


  • agreed.


  • I agree. IF the distance between moscow and Germany is too huge, even if Infantry is cheaper, you will have a hard time moving them quickly to the front. My guess is : First few rounds buy INF + Fighters/bombers/tac. Then if you manage to break into the russian lines, buy all tank/mech inf to reinforce your infantry :)

    On a defensive position, INF > Tank, always. Even in AA50. But, INF < INF + Tank. Balanced army will always win.

    lets see the game before going into the price detail


  • Wrong again do the math, when on defense 12 infantry beats 4 tanks and 4 infantry every time, except in the case of some extremely unlucky dice rolls. You will however have a slight edge on defense. Maybe there is some argument for the tank after all. Okay Yoper you may be right. Are you satisfied?


  • Here are my two cents worth for the argument.

    I think Mech Inf using 2 movement should attack at a 0 or be unable to move in the combat move phase unless paired with an armor or air unit. Mech Inf using 1 movement would attack as infantry. This would prevent all mech infanty forces from replacing armor completely. Or Mech Infantry could be replaced with “trucks” that carry 1 land unit and cost 1 IPC without counting as a unit for placement restrictions at a factory.

    Option 1: What if Tanks offered damage resistance. “For each hit applied to an armor, roll a die to see if that hit is absorbed (2 or less)”  (or try 3 or less since you have to remove the selected tank if it fails). All hits must be assigned before any absorb rolls are made. Each “hit” tank only gets 1 absorb roll per round, excess hits go on other units first or that tank is destroyed. (such as when the tank is by itself and the opponent scores two hits on it. The first could be ignored if lucky, but not the second.)

    Option 2: For each hit applied to an armor, re-roll that that die keeping the new result. This would be stronger as weaker units would have a hard time getting through the armor. If an Inf were attacking, each 1 rolled and applied to an armor would make them reroll and look for another 1 to score the hit, but strong units would still rip through armor, as rerolling a 4 would not be as big of a deal. This may be too over powered. You might give the reroll a 1 better pip to hit result, either -1 to the die, or +1 to the chance to hit. As above each tank would only get 1 reroll per round. Excess hits would be automatic, as when 2 hits are scored on the last tank.(Example: If you rolled 6 hits on 5 units( 4 tanks and 1 Infantry) 1 tank and 1 Infantry are killed regardless of the rolls. The fifth hit would have to be on the Infantry, the sixth hit could not be rerolled as the 4 armor already used their 1 reroll per round. The other 3 tanks would have a chance to live.)

    If armor could mitigate damage, their high cost would be right. Giving armor two hits to destroy would be too over powered, but a 33% or 50% (option 1)chance to soak off a hit might be just right for the cost… making 1 armor potentially better than 2 infantry for the same money. Try attacking 6 armor with 12 Infantry if 1/3rd of the hits are ignored on the armor.

    Just my food for thought. I agree that armor will likely be built less often unless factory placement restrictions come into play more often.


  • Is the combined arms capability with a tac bomber (increased die roll) one reason for the price increase to 6 IPC tanks?

    I am not sure how that dynamic will play out.


  • For the same amount of ipc, of course INF will win. Hell, 3 infantry > fighter all day. does that make fighter weak? If you answer yes, then clearly, we have a different conception of this game


  • I was saying that balanced army will always beat infantry stack (unless you are talking about equal IPC value army). But again, who would attack when guaranteed of losing?

    Inf Defends at 2. So a stack of 20 infantry should average 1/3 so 6-7. 10 inf 10 tank should do about 6. Second round, the attacker should still do 6, defender will do about 5. Third round attacker, should do 5 and defender will do like 2-3. Of course, this kind of stat doesn’t work when applying to such huge numbers of dice. But I’m pretty convinced it should be about correct

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts