No, you can only place major IC’s on originally owned territory of that power. So Germany could place is on norway since they originally owned it but no other power could since…well it’s Germany’s original territory.
Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta
-
As long as national advantages are fair then cool. But they definitely weren’t with revised. The allies had 6 more and theirs were just as good. Russia could dominate Germany with lend lease.
-
@Imperious:
What garbage reasons are they giving for the armor’s defense value to be reduced to 2??? “Tanks are only better offensively used in combat?” What tank DIDN’T take part in local counteroffensives during the war, for chr*st’s sake? Are stacks of tanks moved into recently conquered territories during NCM just too OP right now? You even increased the cost of tanks to 6 in the first place to compensate, too! What was so wrong about them being 3/3/2 5 IPCs in AA50? “We’ve only just now realized that having a land unit with a defense value of 3 is just too powerful…” Right…
OH MY GOD, this is ANOTHER balancing issue, right? You’re taking away Germany’s main ability to defend its piles of infantry in Russia by adding this stupid change, and making it easier for Russia to counterattack, right!?! WHAT A SCAM. What a half-assed fix! I look forward to the historical accuracy of this game when I take Moscow with 23 FIG 15 TAC and 35 MECH, all sacrificed in the name of “game balance”.
For once i totally agree with you!
Indeed. Making tanks 3/3 was a great decision. It shouldn’t be changed back. Tanks are just as needed on the defensive as on the offensive. If the German armored division had been moved to the Normandy beaches in time the allies would likely have been repulsed, to name but one example. One could argue that’s an “attack”, but in game terms the Germans would be the defenders then…
Also, as the above poster points out: How are the Germans supposed to hold territory in Russia if their tanks are reduced to 2 defense?
Finally, I’d like to add another option: cost 6, defense 3, attack 3, move 2, ATTACK 4 WHEN PAIRED WITH A TACTICAL BOMBER (OR FIGHTER). Always did find it strange that the PLANE gets better when supported by tanks, wehereas it should really be the other way around…
-
what was wrong with them at a cost of 6 attack/defense of 3?
Absolutely nothing. Also, the new rule breaks the KISS philosophy that prevented Larry to bring much more needed exilied capital rules
I don’t like how is this developing. Crappy turn order and now this extrange tank rule :?
-
I originally thought this was a cool rule because I like special abilities for units, but it definitely sounds like it is good this one got shut down.
-
Why would you buy them if they defend at a 2. I am keeping 3attack 3 defense. Listen to the soldiers who tried to attack a well positioned tiger. I think they defended at a 5.
-
I’m happy he backed away from this one. The armour is fine the way it is. If anything, the mech should be improved.
-
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
Agree
-
2 move 3 attk 3 def 5 cost
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I do hope this is sarcasm…
You pay 1 extra IPC for an Infantry on wheels that move with the speed of a tank. Infantry cost 3. Tanks are 6. By your logic, you’re basing this on every 2 IPC roughly equalling 1 attack and 1 defense. So 4 IPC should be 2 attack and 2 defense? Sorry, but, not a very good way to look at it. Take the fighter for example, it’s a 3 attack and 4 defense unit. The bomber is a 4 attack and 1 defense unit… but costs more than the fighter. It’s extra because of the move of the unit (and bombard things yes).
If you really want to arm your mech infantry, make use of the artillery (its why we have this unit). :|
Mobility wins wars good sir, just my 2 cents.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I definitely agree with this. Especially on the blitzing. I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I definitely agree with this. Especially on the blitzing. I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.
If mechs got that boost, I would want my Infantry 2-2-1-3. Get rid of artillery all together.
-
If mechs are 2-2-2-4 and can blitz alone there will be 0 reason to buy tanks
Sure they will be because tanks are 3-3 units and infantry defend at 2 so to overcome the deficit you need a greater value and fodder to back up the attack.
Tanks are the best hit and run unit available. If you want to send a bunch of two’s attacking two’s you will likely be trading a 4 for a 3, but if you bring tanks, artillery, and infantry as well as mech you can hit and run while weakening the defender each turn till he falls.
If anything the game teaches that you must have a combined arms component to win battles. Stacks of just one type of unit will cost a player more, except as pure defense per IPC spent which still makes infantry King.
-
This is so ridiculous… A tank is also a formidale defense weapon and this rule doesn’t bring balance it brings ridiculousness to the game.
-
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
-
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
Well, perhaps not too powerful, but rather too cheap for what they do then. Why buy a tank then? So although I think that a 2 attack value is probably more in line with the actual capabilities of motorized infantry (speed is essential in attacks!), they would be too cheap. 5 on the other hand would be too expensive and for just one more point it would then really be an obviously better choice to buy a tank instead.
Therefore I agree with 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz (I hardly buy mech infantry, because for the Blitzing capability I buy tanks and in most other respects artillery is the better choice for the same point cost). Giving them an idependant Blitz capability might actually make me invest more heavily in mech. rather than in artillery.
-
remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.
-
Tanks defending at 2 and still costing 6 is pretty bad, but now we have to be prepared to fight off the rule ‘change’ of fighters attacking at 3 unless paired with an Infantry as spotter to increase them to 4!
woo-hoo! just being facetious, couldn’t resist! :roll: :-D :-o -
No this:
1. They attack at 2, artillery does not boost them +1 making it a 3.
2. They can blitz without a tank.So what you got is a artillery unit in ( in terms of stats) but moving 2 spaces and not boosting anything. (Net change: trading +1 attack boost for movement +1 )
-
With 2-2-2-4 Mechs that can blitz by themselves;
When buying a tank, you get 50% more punch for 50% more IPCs than a mech. So they are even in that regard.
The difference is, you get MORE mechs for the same amount of money. When you buy tanks you are paying more to do the same amount of damage BUT being able to take less hits, which means you won’t be firing as many times, which means in the long run you are severely handicapping yourself.
NO when you buy a combination of units ( combined arms) and perform hit and run attacks ( e.g. attacking as long as you are trading your infantry, for defenders mechs) you cause more damage than having one type of unit. Also, the added investment for getting threes overcomes any two unit defending allowing for hit and run tactics of weakening the defender till he falls.
It’s not a matter of opinion. If you don’t believe me type “Statisitical analysis” into google and see for yourself.
Yes and if you think a 3 is the same as a 2 if you are doing a hit and run attack, look up Statistical ( correct spelling BTW) analysis and Google that, or read the book on Statistics for Dummies.
Even if hitting and running, I’d take 6 mechs over 4 tanks any day. You get the same odds to hit for the same cost, BUT you can take more hits, and when you take a hit, you lose lower cost units.
Thats just the problem, you are comparing a bunch of one type of unit to another bunch of one type of unit. Combined arms approach/ hit and run of Tanks and Infantry and some artillery do the trick best, and in your ridiculous example which seldom occurs, consider if possible a group of infantry vs a group of mechs, Infantry defending wins, so does that mean you just buy infantry? NO. You need many types of units for a dynamic ability for offensive and defensive options. A stupid bunch of tanks or a bunch of mech with no fodder is a stupid move or buy. Again you need combined arms.
You may think 4 tanks hit more often than 6 mechs, but probability says you’re wrong.
You can make up things that not one person ever said in any post and make it their point, but you may look stupid for assuming the same. Again combined arms approach with hit and run is best not stupid stacks of 50 mechs or 50 tanks.
If you buy a tank (or 2 tanks over 3 mechs, rather), you are paying for nothing better, you only sacrifice hits you can take.
Again i guess you don’t believe in combined arms/ hit and run approach. YOU just buy mech then, well in your next game just buy them and nothing else. You can bring up all the examples of tanks vs mechs all day but if you consider a real combined arms/hit and run approach of tanks, infantry, artillery, and mech as well as planes, you find greater success in your results.
I suppose one possible exception is when you have a ton of IPCs but not enough factory capacity to spend them at, in which case tanks may be acceptable then, but nearly all of the time, buying tanks instead 2-2-2-4 independent blitzing mechs is just stupid if you’re looking to win.
I say a combined arms and hit and run tactics is the best overall but the land units have to be in a perfect ratio and that “just buy mechs never buy tanks mantra” is not the way to go.
using the new values in a battle of Eight 2-2 mechs costing 32 IPC vs. 10 infantry costing 30 IPC, the infantry win on defense 84.5%, so does this mean you should only buy infantry? NO.
Suggested Topics
