Tank purchases still DEAD

[Yavid]

@Gamerman01:

Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomber

I think mechs are the worst buy but have there place tac bombers are the poor mans str. bomber

[Witt]

I do no think I have ever bought a Tac. When they die, they are not replaced.
Mechs work as there are so many territories to traverse and  if you have air support to provide the 3s and 4s to do the killing.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

Merely comparing the stats of move 2, cost 6, attack 3 and defend 3 with other units is to ignore an awful lot of considerations.

Yeah alot of the advantages of tanks are ‘intangible’ and difficult to summarize adequately.  It’s not just the punch they bring that make them effective, but the fact that the enemy will need to react to them (eg tighten up defensive lines, abandon positions that can be taken by blitzing, combine all forces into one big army in order to prevent being divided and conquered).  A mass of art and inf and mech is less likely to be mobile enough to trap retreating armies or pull of feats of dividing and conquering.

As far as the argument that you don’t need tanks because you can buy tacs and figs to come behind the mech……well there is a certain logic to that, but I don’t think it encompasses every consideration…  IMO if you want to go for Moscow on G5-G7 then the most efficient purchasing strategy will include some tanks on G2/G3 (and maybe G4).  In that scenario, there isn’t time to buy enough art to get max offensive power from the mech.  It’s hard to base a strategy on fighter and bomber buys on G3/G4/G5/G6 when I should adjust my purchases to what the Allies are doing in the Atlantic and Africa.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomber

I like em.  They seem to be a good buy as long as each is paired with a tank or fighter in offensive deployments.  Useful for pretty much every power. But naturally I buy way more fighters then tacts since fighters are more often a fodder unit, and we get to choose aa casualties in 1940.

[Guest]

I’m a fan of the mech.  Its good to have a ratio of 2 or 3 infantry/mechs for every tank/artillery, with about an equal number of tanks and artillery.  It may be hard to get the cannon fodder units up to the front in time without spending the extra $1 for mech instead of infantry but that’s OK.  Having more infantry/mech allows the heavy hitters (artillery, tanks, air support) to hit twice or maybe even 3 times as you roll dice for a second or third round.  When all the infantry are dead and the artillery are dead or have no infantry to support, then it becomes the tanks and air units job to keep hitting especially the tacs and bombers @4.  Depending on the situation it might be preferable not to go all the way, but just strafe and retreat the tanks and air back into a new wave of infantry/mechs.  Then if he counterattacks you after you just kill off his infantry he be trading his tanks for your infantry/mechs defending @2.  They might choose to withdraw and then you walk in next turn.  Sometimes you get into an attrition war trading  Belarus, North Ukraine etc. that can gradually wear down the Russian infantry.

[gamerman01]

For the record, Allweneedislove has purchased 3 tanks on G1 and 5 tanks on G2 in a rematch against me where I won the first game.

Seems when the chips are down, even the preacher buys tanks.  Lots of them.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30122.0

[Zhukov44]

He’s a good player, so he’ll learn and adapt  :-D

Seriously though, this discussion was useful for me, as it led me to re-evaluate my buys and assumptions somewhat.  But I still buy tanks–its WW2 after all!

[gamerman01]

:-)

[Young Grasshopper]

I buy lots of tanks, it’s Cruisers that never get purchased in our games.

[gamerman01]

There are enough cruisers at game start that they see a lot of action, though.

Also, if you play with tech, cruisers get a deep discount on shipyards

[Guest]

Tanks pay for themselves by occupying more land faster and blitzing. Never buying tank with axis = certain defeat.

[Eqqman]

@ErwinRommel:

Tanks play for themselves by occupying more land faster and blitzing. Never buying tank with axis = certain defeat.

Yeah, I am always surprised I don’t see more early Tank buys with Japan.  Get yourself quickly to the far end of China so the SBR of Moscow can begin, but nobody ever does.  Maybe too many Axis players just assume that the two halves of the board can’t really support each other and overlook it.  Especially in games where the Japanese player was willing to take air losses in order to clean out Chinese Infantry behind the lines, you might expect a Blitz follow-up on the next turn, but there never is one.

[ghr2]

As germany u really dont need more than 10-15 tanks,  at that point its more efficient to buy mobile with a strong arty stack.  Japan needs some tanks, but fodder is a lot more useful since u have 21 flying tanks as punch.

[Lieutenant Stove]

Japan needs tanks if it hopes to threaten Moscow in any meaningful way and to quickly reduce Russia’s income and increase its own. Even if Japan ignores Russia tanks offer the highest defensive value to defend against a counterattack, which is especially important for taking and holding the Burma road from China and the UK Pac. The “flying tanks” can’t land or defend the territories that they help capture.

[Guest]

Tanks purchases still USEFULL :)

[ghr2]

you tend to hold territories better when you bleed the enemy down quickly.  Tanks are not very cost efficient when one can use inf and air to kill them.  Yes they defend well, but are be killed very easily.  You never really need to defend any territory since your aim is to bleed the enemy down.  For china, u can have a very efficient stack move closer and closer, and eventually, the air and your stack wipes them out.  If they try to counter, they will not likely have good counter attacking odds, and u cause him to divide/lose some units that he really can’t replace as well as you.  Same case with India.  Your india kill is all about the amount of fodder u can throw at it since your planes can very easily get in range.  I very rarely buy 3 tanks a turn out of mainland factories as Japan anymore since I cant have nearly the same effect, buy spending 12 instead of 18 for 3 mechs.

[Eqqman]

@ghr2:

you tend to hold territories better when you bleed the enemy down quickly.  Tanks are not very cost efficient when one can use inf and air to kill them.  Yes they defend well, but are be killed very easily.  You never really need to defend any territory since your aim is to bleed the enemy down.  For china, u can have a very efficient stack move closer and closer, and eventually, the air and your stack wipes them out.  If they try to counter, they will not likely have good counter attacking odds, and u cause him to divide/lose some units that he really can’t replace as well as you.  Same case with India.  Your india kill is all about the amount of fodder u can throw at it since your planes can very easily get in range.  I very rarely buy 3 tanks a turn out of mainland factories as Japan anymore since I cant have nearly the same effect, buy spending 12 instead of 18 for 3 mechs.

You don’t need that many and probably not even 3 every turn.  Just enough to quickly get to NW China to open the landing grounds for SBR, or to blitz behind the Russian Siberian stack into all the empty territories they have.  Very easy to do if you simply allow Russia to acquire Mongolia via treaty; Tanks will wreak havoc on their ability to guard the Siberian front.

[gamerman01]

Egg, if you can spare Japanese bombers to go to NW China to SBR Russia, America and the allies aren’t doing their job right

[Lieutenant Stove]

If there’s any unit I would say is “dead” it’d be the cruiser. At least tanks have increased movement to justify a higher cost.

[gamerman01]

Every unit has its niche and is worthy of purchase in certain situations, even if not very common.

The worth of cruisers and their cost of 12 has been discussed ad naseum in various threads