Huh. I always thought the opposite. Thanks for letting me know.
Tank purchases still DEAD
-
Mech infantry is the rarest purchase in your games outside of AAA??
Wow, you guys are missing out.
Talk to Allweneedislove - the original poster. He LOVES mech infantry (big reason he said tank purchases were “dead”).
Again, he has since changed his mind, because he bought a LOT of tanks on G1 and G2 of our current re-match league game. That’s right, I’m going to keep bringing it up, because when you start a thread and detail out how tank purchases are DEAD (even in capital letters) and then you later buy them up like crazy, you need to EAT YOUR WORDS :-)
-
I like mech infantry. A LOT.
-Buying them with tanks as Germany and you have a quick reaction force to get units to Russia fast.
-Buying a few with Russia is great because they can quickly respond to changing forces on the battlefield- Attacking Iraq, defending from Japan, or reinforcing the Russian stack when Germany makes an unexpected move.
-Buying them with Italy, along with a tank or two- allows them to have good range when attempting to ‘can open’ for Russia.
-Buying them as Japan from an Asian base along with some tanks allow aggressive blitzing across China/Siberia to hit Russia in the rear.
-Buying them as UK India (2-3 total) allows you to take Yunnan or Shan State if Japan is trying for a J3 India attack. May just save you India.
-Buying them as UK Europe in South Africa allows quicker reinforcement of CairoI never buy them as the US or ANZAC. Just don’t need to advance over land quickly anywhere- Just land Inf/Art or Inf/Arm in Europe or Island hopping.
-
Yep
USA starts with about 4 mech
UK India can also use mech/tanks to get to Malaya at times (from Burma or Yunnan) which can be major for the reasons you listed.USA mech can be useful in Western Europe occasionally, or to move across North Africa. Or to get Alaska back??
ANZ mech can get to Western Australia in one move, which is useful once in a great while.
Or if you have taken control of Iran/Iraq and Saudi Arabia and have complexes there like I do :-D
-
mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.
I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.
if you have a stack in rostov, combined of germans and italians (say 8 italians and 60 germans with 15 german and 3 italian planes within reach), then t you are forcing ussr to retreat to moscow. If they dont retreat, They either have to put 50 units in both tambov and bryansk (in which case they could attack anyways) or they have to put their army in tambov and 10-12 units to block bryansk (or other way around). Then you say “thank you” as the germans and send in 4-5 inf + airforce and kill that stack of 10-12 infs. If they dont have enough, then the italians will kill bryansk, and you can take moscow with your mechs + planes.
as japan if I build 3 minor ICs then I usually mainly buy mechs there, so that I can apply preassure as fast as possible to russia, china and india.
another good use for mechs is; as germany, you need often need 30 units in w/germany, if 20 of those are mechs, and you have 10 planes within range, then you are capable of counterattacking any allied landing with 30+ units. it is cheaper to have 1 mech in w/germany doing the same job as 1 inf in w/germany + 1 inf in paris would do.
to advance in AA, you need to be able to defend the newly taken terretory, this is why mechs and infs are the most valuable units.
If the map had been smaller (like in revised), then mechs would have had a far smaller worth)
then your italians can take out their
-
mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.
I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.
You’ll regret buying only mec when your at moscows gates. I combine it so I have 50/50 mec and tank as Germany.
Tanks far better on the offence than mec. -
You know what purchases are really dead?
AA guns. 5 IPC’s is too expensive. Believe it or not, Larry had the price at 6 when he changed it so they could be taken as casualties and only fired at 3 planes, but I talked him down to 5.
It’s still too high. I’m not even sure they would be reasonable at 4.
THREE seems about right! What do you think?
FINALLY!
you guys are always going on about cruisers and tanks, but i’ve been complaining about AA gun cost since the first day i was introduced to A&A (which was revised).
I would still never purchase them at 4, although there might be the odd game or two where Russia purchases just 1 or 2 after losing all of theirs, and Germany has more than 6 air inbound on a perfectly 40-50% odds moscow battle.
But barring that 1 limited situation, they never ever get bought despite being a kind of fun unit (the new version is more fun than the old one anyway).I demand 3 cost AA guns!
-
I buy AA guns sometimes. >,< Only as Russia or India just to spend a couple extra ipcs. LOL.
4 ipc aa guns would be nice. I use my 3s for infantry.
Cruisers should be 11.
3 destroyers or 2 cruisers? 2 subs or 1 cruiser? 2 destroyers or a carrier. The whole 6 - 8 - 12 - 16 thing is redundant. Meanwhile transports go for 7, which is the only odd number naval unit. I am trying to spend my money and not hoard it.
-
mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.
I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.
You’ll regret buying only mec when your at moscows gates. I combine it so I have 50/50 mec and tank as Germany.
Tanks far better on the offence than mec.numbers of units is often more important than combat value, and my main plan for barbarossa is taking the oil, in which case they are perfect.
I dont go for moscow 6/7/8
I go for getting to rostov, taking the middle east while forcing the russians to stand in moscow, then I build arts in stalingrad, rostov and ukraine, and then I attack prolly arounbd round 10-11. difference is, I get the middle east oil much earlier and the mechs are perfect for that. taking stalingrad+cauc + perisa + iraq is worth 24 IPC
If I am going for moscow, then tanks might have a purpose, but I prefer buying 8 art on round 1, then mechs mechs and more mechs. then I can build arts in the ukriane and tank when its too late for arts
oh, and optimal ratio between fodder and punch is usually around 40%, so depending on how many inf/arts you have, 50/50 might be too many tanks for optimal attack capablities
-
The longer you wait to get Moscow- the bigger that Moscow stack will be and the bigger the UK/USA invasion fleet/army will be. I feel like I am racing against time as the Axis. The faster I can take down the Bear, the faster I can focus on the Lion and Eagle.
-
I think the AA should be $3.
-
I think the AA should be $3.
This is the part I don’t get about this conversation. Due to the extremely specialized nature of the AA gun, what are you going to do exactly with a $3 gun that you aren’t doing already with the ones you start the game with? The times you really need more are so rare that the specific price really makes no difference. At $3 why aren’t you buying Infantry over the AA gun?
Unless the abilities of the AA gun get changed it seems like price discussions should be moot.
-
The simplest thing would be to allow AA guns to be moved in the combat phase and used in attack (maybe not at air like in defense, but like an artillery/anti-tank as in German 88s).
-
The only time it makes sense to build new AA guns is when you have an IC that is just about to be attacked by a lot of planes. You buy some AA guns hoping to get a shot at each plane (e.g. Moscow, Calcutta) maybe the dice can save your skin. At $3 this makes sense; at $5 it makes more sense to just buy tanks if you have the money, but often in those situations you don’t have very much money so you buy infantry instead. That’s why AA guns should be $3. Changing the price doesn’t change the mechanics of the game.
-
The only time it makes sense to build new AA guns is when you have an IC that is just about to be attacked by a lot of planes. You buy some AA guns hoping to get a shot at each plane (e.g. Moscow, Calcutta) maybe the dice can save your skin. At $3 this makes sense; at $5 it makes more sense to just buy tanks if you have the money, but often in those situations you don’t have very much money so you buy infantry instead. That’s why AA guns should be $3.
So you change the price of a unit just so a defender can be more of a spoiler? In the scenario you describe it sounds like the defender is in a bad way as it is. Even at $5 there are still some cases where you get a slightly higher chance of defense if you pick the AA gun over the Tank. If you’re defending a major IC, in the vast majority of the cases, you already have the starting AA guns there to give yourself a shot at every plane. For a minor IC, your placement options are limited so you can afford to place an AA gun if you have to.
-
Yes, your placement odds are limited, so perhaps a Tank or Infantry (that has a die roll every round it lives) is better than buying an AA gun that is a one shot deal at 3 planes.
-
Is the aa gun at 5$ never a good buy? Suppose you are playing low luck, and India is being threatened with like 18 planes, and you already have 3 aa guns. Is it better to get 3 more guns (thus guarenteeing 3 aa hits) or buy 5 more infantry? If it’s the latter, there is a good case for reducing the price of aa guns to 4. But I’m not sure the infantry is better since the guns will kill 1-2 more planes AND they will be fodder in the first round of the battle. The infantry will kill 1-2 more planes the first round, but the 1-2 planes could also score an extra hit the first round. It’s a close one.
Without going into a detailed analysis, I’m thinking the 5 infantry is actually a little bit better (even though the aa guns COULD be alot better with the benefit of lucky dice), so yeah the price for aa guns should probably be reduced.
One thing I do like about the new aa gun rules is it is a very elegant solution for the problem of capitals falling too easily.
-
mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.
I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.
You’ll regret buying only mec when your at moscows gates. I combine it so I have 50/50 mec and tank as Germany.
Tanks far better on the offence than mec.numbers of units is often more important than combat value, and my main plan for barbarossa is taking the oil, in which case they are perfect.
I dont go for moscow 6/7/8
I go for getting to rostov, taking the middle east while forcing the russians to stand in moscow, then I build arts in stalingrad, rostov and ukraine, and then I attack prolly arounbd round 10-11. difference is, I get the middle east oil much earlier and the mechs are perfect for that. taking stalingrad+cauc + perisa + iraq is worth 24 IPC
If I am going for moscow, then tanks might have a purpose, but I prefer buying 8 art on round 1, then mechs mechs and more mechs. then I can build arts in the ukriane and tank when its too late for arts
oh, and optimal ratio between fodder and punch is usually around 40%, so depending on how many inf/arts you have, 50/50 might be too many tanks for optimal attack capablities
If you’re up against an advanced Allied player, you will have waited too long. By the time you get around to attacking Moscow, Allies will have Japan well contained and probably control Egypt too, so Axis won’t be able to get the VC win, and will eventually be overwelmed.
This was the problem with Allweneedislove’s original analysis–he probably thought it was optimal to wait till G8 or later to attack Moscow…but by that time Allies can make an impact on other fronts and deny the VC win.
-
While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.
There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India. Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).
-
While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.
There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India. Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).
I definitely agree that if Axis takes Moscow on G8, then they should have an excellent chance of winning the game, assuming they aren’t getting smoked on other fronts, particuarly France and Egypt.
All I’m saying is G8 is not necessarily better than G5, G6, G7 though, particuarly if the 12 inf 2 aa have just arrived, and if the Allies are continuing to fly in aircraft.
Even when Germany can’t take Moscow, tank/mech formations will be able to secure Russia’s hinterland faster, and if Russia decides to try to retreat from Moscow, tank/mech formations are better able to chase them down then pure mech/air.
-
While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.
There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India. Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).
I definitely agree that if Axis takes Moscow on G8, then they should have an excellent chance of winning the game, assuming they aren’t getting smoked on other fronts, particuarly France and Egypt.
All I’m saying is G8 is not necessarily better than G5, G6, G7 though, particuarly if the 12 inf 2 aa have just arrived, and if the Allies are continuing to fly in aircraft.
Even when Germany can’t take Moscow, tank/mech formations will be able to secure Russia’s hinterland faster, and if Russia decides to try to retreat from Moscow, tank/mech formations are better able to chase them down then pure mech/air.
Agreed.
Suggested Topics
