Thanks, it just seemed odd to list this as a benefit when you already have the ability. Guess it’s just redundant . I’ve always played with 2 being the max, I’m just teaching a group of people to play next week and came across a play aid online that implied differently, so I reread and questioned my interpretation.
Are Mechs Too Strong?
-
Did you do something to me, YG? Yeah, you son of a b����, you made a series of great videos for newcomers, and now any new people that show up to my table have a decent foundation on which to start. It makes winning every game a little harder.
And I wasn’t projecting any undue crap. I was just saying how the idea is bad in a vehement fashion. Debunking a person’s idea isn’t the same as debunking that person.
As far as this forum not being the place, I was speaking about how the drastic changes, and then all of the resulting impacts and what not, belong on the houserules forum, not really this one.
Fair enough, no hard feelings.
Cheers.
-
You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.
Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.
How to fix that?
1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids. These are dangerous.
2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”. It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion. It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.
Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry. Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.
-
You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.
Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.
How to fix that?
1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids. These are dangerous.
2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”. It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion. It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.
Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry. Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.
Another way would be to increase the number of eligible territories for ICs (sorry… couldn’t help myself)
-
The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.
-
I still think the best solution for mechs are self-propelled artillery for 5 IPCs (no blitz). Thanks to HBG, all the major powers have them available.
-
@Young:
You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.
Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.
How to fix that?
1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids. These are dangerous.
2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”. It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion. It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.
Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry. Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.
Another way would be to increase the number of eligible territories for ICs (sorry… couldn’t help myself)
Producing units in Europe you mean? What other possible territories could there be that don’t already have one?
In the Pacific the problem for the strength of the Allies - the US - is at best 3 turns from impacting the typical operations of Japan in the South Pacific, SE Asia and the DEI with its starting units alone.
By vacating Hawaii, the earliest the US can arrive with 4 units in any location in those regions is Turn 4 (with a J1 DOW).
In either situation, more units can arrive simply by increasing the capacity of ships the Allies use and forces the Axis to not only plan to conquer, but to hold territories from Allied threats.
I do think the US should be able to place the IPC value of its starting units in any ground unitary form they choose at any US complex they wish with no regard for the IC capacity. In short, all those MEC could be reorganized into INF and ART. I never understood why the US had so many MEC to start the game. I see why some are valuable (Alaska), but the starting amount is a bit… well we could say it is overdone.
If you wanted to make a reasonable compromise, you could only allow AA from TT, but units carried on ships could NCM to reinforce newly taken territories.
My proposition would be:
AA can only be conducted by units carried on TT or from aircraft.
Units carried on ships with defensive values can only NCM from sea to land.
TT can carry up to 3 units, but no more than one non-infantry unit.
CV can carry any 2 ground units.
BB can carry up to 2 INF.
CR can carry up to 1 INF.In this fashion, the US could load its starting 3 TT with up to 6 INF and 3 ART and can reinforce the units lost from an AA with units from CV, BB and CR which would enable a more… offensive island hopping battle. Japan would be forced to seriously consider how exposed it wishes to leave its recently conquered islands if the US with no additional investment in ships could start the process of reclaiming islands with effectively strong AA landings. This, all without changing the actual dynamic of combat values of units.
The same could be said for Europe as in my experience successful AA landings that hold the gained territory are subject to the ability of the UK to reinforce and repel the Axis response. By the US being able to bring more INF as reinforcements, Germany cannot simply leave Europe exposed and rely on the Italians to repel all the early small landings. Conversely, the Allies have to wait much longer to land a strong enough force to actually hold Normandy, which plays so much into a hyper aggressive German march towards Moscow, it forces the Red Turtle™ as the only viable option for survival for the Russians.
In effect, Germany may not be able to continue such a large stream of units towards Moscow so early because if the US spends on Naval on US1 in the Atlantic, the US could in theory land in Europe and hold it with the UK’s help and Italy would be unable to repel those landings alone.
In reality, the Allied LimFac in Europe is not combat values or starting units (in general), but in the logistical nightmare of having to spend 70 IPC to simply move 20 units across an ocean. And, that is only the first wave which is in direct proximity of multiple Axis IC (both major and minor). Due to the turnaround or additional IPC investment required for TT to continue a stream of reinforcements, those 20 units are stranded in Europe for the next 4 turns (excluding what the UK could ferry in).
Having the ability to transport more units to reinforce via warship allows the US to both defend the movement of its units across the oceans more effectively, and reinforce territories it does take to withstand counter attacks.
-
Actually if you think about it mechanic are perfect. At fisrt glance some may say “artillery cost 4 attacks and defend 2 and have a special abillity so why don’t mechanic cost 4 attack and defend at 2 at all times?” Well obviously it is because the abillity to move 2 is better than the abillity to support other units by one pip.
So what is the problem here? Well right away we say that Germany and Japan are abusing the use of them. Well it just so happens that they as well as the UK are in a position that needs them. The only reason mechanic appear too strong is for that the Axis use a lot of them AND have an advantage in this game. Axis buying mechs is just sound strategy. The only reason we may think it is unfair is due to the balance of the game being a bit in Axis favor.P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times :-D
-
for their cost, tacs should attack and defend at 4, be able to intercept, be able to strat bomb factories, have a range of 15, and be able to call in the Death Star to obliterate the planet
-
@Charles:
P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times :-D
Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.
-
Fighter combat value points are:
3 off + 4 def + 4 move = 11 points for 10 IPCs.
And can be put on carrier.Tactical combat value points are:
3.5 off+ 3 def + 4 move = 10.5 points for 11 IPCs.
Can land on carrier.
Can make bombing raid on AB and NB.The question is what does worth the Tac Bombing Raid capacity?
1.5 points?
To reach 10.5 + 1.5 = 12 value points against 11 IPCs.
This would make Tac on par with Fighter 11 points for 10 IPCs.Rising Tac offense to 4 makes 11 points for 11 IPCs.
+1 value point for TBR make it on par with Fighter:
12 points for 11 IPCs.
Half value of SBR, 1 vs 2 points, does it better reflect the real strength of TBR vs SBR?Strategic bomber combat value points:
4 off +1 def + 6 move = 11 points for 12 IPCs.
If balanced and on par with Fg, it means SBR on IC capacity worth +2 points.
11 + 2 = 13 points for 12 IPCs. -
@Charles:
P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times :-D
Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.
Fg A3 D4 M4 C10
TcB A3-4 D3 M4 C10
At 10 IPCs, TcB combat values seems more like a mirror image of Fighter’s combat values.
One is for defense, Fg 3/4, TcB is for offense 3-4/3.
Usually, in A&A, offensive capacity cost a little more than the same defense value. -
True. That is why I Say keep tacs at 11 IPCs but make them always attack at 4.
-
@Charles:
True. That is why I Say keep tacs at 11 IPCs but make them always attack at 4.
On a boardgame, pairing with Tank or Fighter is slowing down things a bit.
That is why I prefer your 11 IPCs TacB attacking @4.However, Mech pairing or Inf pairing with Artillery is a more fluid process.
Any idea why?
-
I think Zhukov is right; mechs with artillery plus air support gives Germany the logistics to crush Russia to dust. One solution might be to have mechs only move 2 when paired with a tank, whether blitzing or not. Once the spearhead loses some mechs the tanks would become vulnerable.
-
I would rather give Russia 10 infantry extra than change mechs.
-
Mechs defending at 1 would be quite interesting, it would allow for a more dynamic Eastern front and make it easier for China to take back territories/deadzone against mech buys from Japanese ICs on the mainland.
Mechs are very strong that’s for sure, and they go hand in hand wih a solid Axis strategy, but is that a problem?
-
Fixing (by breaking) the weakest unit(s) in the game isn’t going to fix a general strategic imbalance with the entire experiment. Why are we tinkering with units that people hardly buy? To make them even less appealing? lol
Also, it doesn’t make sense to make unilateral changes that only affect one side or one nation.
Also, it is not realistic for combat units to be transported by warships. This was never done as anything as a stopgap measure. The ship cannot effectively fight when there are twice as many people on board half of whom are only in the way and contributing weight. It cannot be free to maneuver or fight when it is supposed to get extremely near the beach, and it has no amenities (lighters, ramps, cranes etc.) that would be useful for unloading anything heavier than a man could carry.
Soldiers were dropped from destroyers into the surf with whatever they could carry. Within a week they would have been sick, starving and in rags.
Warships can be handily used to carry troops across the ocean, but not directly into battle. It is very rare to hear of a contested landing in history made without specialized landing craft and unsupported by air and sea superiority because no-one would survive.
-
@wittmann:
The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.
This is a good idea, it gives a nod to American logistics.
-
@wittmann:
The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.
This is a good idea, it gives a nod to American logistics.
And Russian Tank put at 5 IPCs.
This can provides more teeth and mobility on the asian front against Japanese MechInf. -
Also, it is not realistic for combat units to be transported by warships. This was never done as anything as a stopgap measure. The ship cannot effectively fight when there are twice as many people on board half of whom are only in the way and contributing weight. It cannot be free to maneuver or fight when it is supposed to get extremely near the beach, and it has no amenities (lighters, ramps, cranes etc.) that would be useful for unloading anything heavier than a man could carry.
Soldiers were dropped from destroyers into the surf with whatever they could carry. Within a week they would have been sick, starving and in rags.
**Warships can be handily used to carry troops across the ocean, but not directly into battle. **It is very rare to hear of a contested landing in history made without specialized landing craft and unsupported by air and sea superiority because no-one would survive.
It depends a lot on what a sculpt and unit figure for.
A lot of support ships not present in A&A were needed to have a working Fleet Task Force.
If you take a moderate approach, it is possible to believe that a few troop transports are amongst the bigger warships and their support ships, hence allowing 1 Infantry (and only Infantry) to be unloaded in NCM.
Transport units would figure for landing barges, and all cargo type transports able to carry Inf and other costlier land units.
From a game POV, I don’t think 1 Inf moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship unit is OP.
Suggested Topics
