Tank purchases still DEAD

[ghr2]

@Gamerman01:

@ghr2:

Would you rather be attacking with 10 tanks and 8 mechs or 16 tanks?

Don’t you mean NINE mechs??

let me check my math, hold on

[ghr2]

@ghr2:

@Gamerman01:

@ghr2:

Would you rather be attacking with 10 tanks and 8 mechs or 16 tanks?

Don’t you mean NINE mechs??

let me check my math, hold on

Ya derp, 9 tanks, lol

[gamerman01]

@ghr2:

@Gamerman01:

@ghr2:

Would you rather be attacking with 10 tanks and 8 mechs or 16 tanks?

Don’t you mean NINE mechs??

let me check my math, hold on

84 = 32
66 = 36
9*4= 36
:-)

[gamerman01]

@ghr2:

Ya derp, 9 tanks, lol

No, 9 MECHS  :lol:
Don’t play today, ok?  :wink:

[ghr2]

@Gamerman01:

@ghr2:

Ya derp, 9 tanks, lol

No, 9 MECHS  :lol:
Don’t play today, ok?  :wink:

Sry, I am so sick I can’t think straight.  Anyway, 10 tanks and 9 mechs attack with better odds than 16 tanks.  You need a healthy combination of tanks and mechs if you want to maximize your damage.

[Derek]

@Uncrustable:

The AA guns in this game would not have the ability to shoot at ground units.

ALL grounds units have their own built in AA (else they wouldn’t be downing aircraft on a regular basis)
The AA guns in this game are more a heavy static defense working in concert with dozens of radar installations and aircraft spotters, over a large area. They would not be able to ‘run and gun’ as do most units. They take too much time to setup.

I actually prefer the old AA mechanics, it seems like they were changed as a cheap/easy way to balance G40 and now they include the new AAA units as another way to entice customers.
I really don’t like the IC/bases AA mechanics

One more thing on AA, i really dont like that AA guns do not shoot at enemy flyovers

Let AA guns shoot whenever an enemy plane enters the tt, regardless on if those planes are attacking or not.

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

@Uncrustable:

The AA guns in this game would not have the ability to shoot at ground units.

ALL grounds units have their own built in AA (else they wouldn’t be downing aircraft on a regular basis)
The AA guns in this game are more a heavy static defense working in concert with dozens of radar installations and aircraft spotters, over a large area. They would not be able to ‘run and gun’ as do most units. They take too much time to setup.

I actually prefer the old AA mechanics, it seems like they were changed as a cheap/easy way to balance G40 and now they include the new AAA units as another way to entice customers.
I really don’t like the IC/bases AA mechanics

One more thing on AA, i really dont like that AA guns do not shoot at enemy flyovers

Let AA guns shoot whenever an enemy plane enters the tt, regardless on if those planes are attacking or not.

I thought that was the rule in some editions.

[Derek]

Not since revised I don’t think
It should be like that in all editions
It adds value, gives more reason to be purchased

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Not since revised I don’t think
It should be like that in all editions
It adds value, gives more reason to be purchased

AAA have 1 out of 6 chance to hit anyone aircraft (max: up to 3 aircrafts/ AAA).
I read somewhere that the real effectiveness was around 1/10.
So, giving a preemptive strike to AAA on any aircraft attacking a territory is already a greater advantage that they should have.
Of course, it is quite annoying seeing them on the side after the first cycle of battle. But you should tell yourself it has done more than it would normally.

Maybe, if you accept to give up the preemptive strike on 3 planes on the first cycle and considering AAA as part of the regular phase but still attacking @1 on up to 3 planes.
It could be acceptable (keeping a balance) on the other round to let each individual AAA after first round making 1@1 against an aircraft.

It seems a simple  compromise. I changed my mind. See on the other tread.

[Derek]

No baron this will not turn into spaghetti at the wall

The original AA gun (official rules) was not OP ftw
It just added another element to the game, and AA guns played a larger role in the game
Players had to either plan aircraft routes around AA sites or risk the dice on flyovers
You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

Now AA is just battle fodder and an afterthought, an almost worthless piece on the board

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

No baron this will not turn into spaghetti at the wall   :-D

The original AA gun (official rules) was not OP ftw
It just added another element to the game, and AA guns played a larger role in the game
Players had to either plan aircraft routes around AA sites or risk the dice on flyovers
You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

Now AA is just battle fodder and an afterthought, an almost worthless piece on the board

Hi Uncrustable,
What does mean

OP ftw?

Out of Proportion Fighters Weapon?  :-D

You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

It is still the case even if they are in-built with the new IC.
I don’t understand what you mean.

What was the older rule?
Is it something like during combat move all planes passing over a territory with AA gun get 1@1 shot?
Under non-combat move, there is no AA fire.

I would like to throw spaghetti at the wall…  :roll:
Don’t you?

As I said:

AAA have 1 out of 6 chance to hit anyone aircraft (max: up to 3 aircrafts/ AAA).
I read somewhere that the real effectiveness was around 1/10.

I would like to make an AAA defense (and make it more useful and adding this element on attack) when Planes pass over a territory to get to another.
But 2 AAA @1 for each aircraft means 11/36 chance to kill each aircraft.
It becomes far from historical reality.
Maybe with a 12 sides dice. Each AAA kill on 1/12.
You can easely allow 1 first strike shot and even continuous firing @1 for each AAA after first round.

But to leap from 1/6 to 11/36 for every plane is a huge gap.

Aircrafts cost a lot and on a 1 on 1 basis casuality almost lose more; so they need ground/ocean support.
(StrB = Cruiser (TacB and Fgt) > DD / TT/ Subs/ Arm /AAA/ Art / MecInf /Inf)
Only Carrier and Battleship are really more expensive.

That’s why I think most player prefer the actual rule and accept the fatal “1” and first strike.

If you wish to answer, I suggest to go to the other tread on AA.
This post will be there also.

I don’t want to derail it more than it is.

[Derek]

Baron you over think everything lol
And OP = over powered
Ftw = fukkk the world

You do not need an AA gun to shoot at planes SBRing under current OOB rules
Used to be you have to have anAA gun to protect your IC from SBR

Used to be you had to think about aircraft routes to avoid AA shooting at you

Now AAguns are worthless cannon fodder that no one thinks about buying

And ftw AA guns should not be able to attack that is absurd
All land units have mobile AA within their unit and can shoot down planes under current OOB rules

To me an AA gun represents a territory wide network of strategically placed radar, aircraft spotters and surface to air weapons platforms

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Baron you over think everything lol
And OP = over powered
Ftw = fukkk the world

You do not need an AA gun to shoot at planes SBRing under current OOB rules
Used to be you have to have anAA gun to protect your IC from SBR

Used to be you had to think about aircraft routes to avoid AA shooting at you

Now AAguns are worthless cannon fodder that no one thinks about buying

And ftw AA guns should not be able to attack that is absurd
All land units have mobile AA within their unit and can shoot down planes under current OOB rules

To me an AA gun represents a territory wide network of strategically placed radar, aircraft spotters and surface to air weapons platforms

I have a question for you in the “AA Guns” tread.

[allweneedislove]

Lots of good posts here, was fun to read.
Even thou I disagree with most posts as I was sure that tanks are bad purchases.

But I agree with everyone about cruiser purchases and aagun purchases. They are dead too

[JDOW]

I haven’t read all the posts but I think it can be proven mathematically easily that tanks can be worth being purchased.

Let’s assume a typical German/Russian situation.
Germans attack with

26 inf
9 mech
5 art
9 tanks
4 figs
4 tacs
2 Bombers

Russian defend with
41 inf
4 mech
9 art
3 tanks
2 figs
1 tacs
4 AA

The Germans have 13% odds to win that battle.

Now let’s assume the Germans can add 36 IPC either worth in tanks or in mech to that attack.
If you add 9 mech to this attack the odds for the Germans to win that battle go up to 64%
However, if you add 6 tanks to that attack the odds go up to 69%

So we have mathematical proof that investing into tanks rather than mech can have benefits for attacking purposes.
Thus tanks are definitely NOT a bad purchase by definition compared to mech.

q.e.d. or did I overlook something?

[DessertFox599]

AAA gubs should not be in the game period. Artillery should have the option of either shooting air or land. So you would have some shoot about 90% shoot ground while the rest shoot air.  As for tanks, i always buy aton of tanks and mechs.  infantry and fighters are the best defense whiles mechs tanks and planes if available are the best offense.

[variance]

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

[JDOW]

@variance:

I think a good compromise on the price of tanks would be if tanks cost $6 and mechs cost $4 if purchased separately, but if you buy a tank and a mech together you only pay $9. 
Anniversary sale price

May I ask, why compromises? I believe I have proven above that tanks are definitely worth their money :)

[JDOW]

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

[baron Münchhausen]

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.