AAE and AAP Units in AA

[Guest]

That’s a lot of acronymns! I was wondering what the new units in AAE and AAP are, and what everyone thinks about using them in good ol’ A&A? I vaguely recall things like artillery and destroyers, which sound like good ideas and seem to add more “realism” to the game. Does anyone have a preference for using them or not using them?

[Candyman67]

For Axis and Allies Europe, there is the destroyer and the artillery. The destroyer attacks and defends at a 3. It takes away the subs deadly first-strike capability. The artillery atacks and defends at a 2. However, for each artillery used in an attack, the same amount of inf. is increased to an attack of two. For example, you have 3 art. and 10 inf. in an attack; 3 infantry can attack at two. The rest of the inf. attack at 1.

[TM Moses VII]

Do you know how much each of these units cost?
Is it better to build tanks or artillery?

[waraxis]

Artillery = 4 I.P.C.
Destroyer = 12 I.P.C.

Tanks are better, however Artillery help with your Infantry. It increases their attacks by 1. Each Infantry must be matched to a seprate Artillery piece.
Please excuse my spelling.

[TM Moses VII]

Thannks for answering that question for me. :smile:

[bossk]

If you haven’t already checked out Pacific and Europe, I highly recomend them. They add a nice complexity to the A&A experience that even someone as simple as me can handle.

[Guest]

Thanks guys-Now what does everyone think about adding the artillery and destroyers into A&A? Good, bad, ugly, useless?

[TM Moses VII]

TG and I just recently began to play A&A with destroyers/cruisers. From what I’ve seen, it’s a noticeable improvement to the game - a whole new dimension.

With destroyers you no longer have to worry about spending large amounts of money on carriers and battleships to defend your naval fleet from air attack. Where before 2 transports would have to be escorted by an expansive carrier or battleship, a lone destroyer can serve as enough of a deterrent possible air attacks by an enemy fighter.

Destroyers can add a whole new rule set to the game. Destroyers may seem like insult to injury for u-boats by taking away a sub’s first-strike capability, but destroys are more of a benefit. The way we play, a sub can only be attacked if engaged in conjunction with a destroyer. These rules would make a German u-boat fleet all the more deadly, as it is almost impervious to enemy air attacks.

Customize! Choose what type of destroyers you want! Will it be the inexpensive destroyers from A&A: Iron Blitz or the more powerful ones from A&A: Europe? Better yet, make your own! It’s fun for the whole family. :smile: :smile:

Personally, I just liked the added variety. Naval battles, next to air combat, are much more interesting and fun compared with monotonous ground assaults. From what I heard, destroyers/cruisers played a huge role in WWII, besides sinking u-boats.

---

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-04-18 00:06 ]

[Guest]

WarAxis, you said that tanks are better than artillery, but I have been going over the numbers and it appears artillery are a better buy as long as they have a matching infantry (which they most likely will if you play half competently). Here’s what I have calculated. Assume you have 35 IPCs to spend on a ground force. Let’s look at two plans that both buy 5 INF, but then one plan spends the remaining 20IPC on tanks while the other on artillery.

Tank Heavy Plan (4 ARM * 5 IPC = 20IPC)
-5 INF att. @ 1 and def. @ 2
-4 ARM att. @ 3 and def. @ 2
Total Attack hits: 2.83 avg
Total Defense hits: 3
Total Units: 9

Artillery Heavy Plan (5 ART * 4 IPC = 20IPC)
-5 INF att @ 2 (artillery bonus) and def @ 2
-5 ART att. @ 2 (+1 to INF) and def @ 2
Total Attack hits: 3.33
Total Defense hits: 3.33
Total Units: 10

With artillery you have A)more units, B)more hits on attack, and C)more hits on defense. Furthermore, the artillery force above could beat the tank force above whether it was attacking or defending. So why are tanks so much better? I know I haven’t factored in the tanks movement advantage - is that what makes tanks better? Because that’s the only thing that tanks have over artillery.

[waraxis]

OUCH!!! You might have just killed the idea of using tanks in mass now. I’m not joking!!! Is the tank going to be less of a threat now??? Somebody please make a case for massing tanks.

[Guest]

Maneuverability, which would you rather have early on as the axis? A whole bunch of artillery scattered around germany? With up to three turns between them and the front lines? Or armor which can get there in half the time?

[Yanny]

I find we using these pieces, the game tends to favor the allies even more. Mainly because of the sheer amount of shore bombardment you can face from America and Britain, and Russia’s great use of Artillery.

[the admiral]

we have incorporated all new peices and rules possible onto the original board, and everybody seems to find it is a blast to play, though the games can last even longer than regular old AA. The allies probably do benefit more, however. One way to tip this back is to give the Germans a couple of more subs to start the game. That makes US and UK have to work harder to build up the huge bombarding fleets they will eventually build, and puts more pressure on the russians as a consequense. Always a fun time, and I can’t wait to get the game going tonight!

[TM Moses VII]

Would increasing the cost of artillery from 4 to 5 IPCs help balancing issues?

I remember when we used to play, we made variants for long range artillery using extra AA gun pieces in support of infantry. Each artillery had a range of one (meaning it could fire at adjacent territories), movement of one, could fire up to two times per battle, attacked for 2 (3 if supported with at least two inf), and defended for 3. Additionally it could shell stationary targets like ships and infantry in adjacent territories with one die at 1. The main drawback was that artillery units could not take hits during battle and the opponent had a chance of capturing artillery pieces by rolling a 4 or above for each artillery in the territory he now under his control.

[TG Moses VI]

Artillery based AA guns – ha, brings backs memories :smile:

Of course you still have to factor in limitations at two per side or distribute them equally to both sides at the beginning of the game. Changing units stats and/or adding in new units are the surest way to expand the game into a new field of tactics and dynamics. This frees up a considerable amount of complexity and difficulty of altering the game board itself (too sticky), adding in totally new rule sets (too difficult to learn), or using dinosaurs (too extinct). Interested to learn, if anybody else has variations on different units.