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?
-
I might rater make mechs into 1/1/2 with a cost of 3 IPC per unit
-
I might rater make mechs into 1/1/2 with a cost of 3 IPC per unit
Alone MEC should be 1/1/2
Paired with ART they are 2/1/2
Paired with ARM they are 1/2/2This makes them valuable as a fast unit to the front lines so you’re paying 4 IPC for the versatility of the unit in speed and pairing options. However, their base numbers alone cannot easily overwhelm your enemy with them unless you support them.
-
Probably in the minority, but I’ve no problems with the cost or capability of mechanized infantry.
-
As many people have heard, The best defence is a good offence. This is probably true. the best way of stopping your enemy from hurting you is to destory his ability to hurt you. In war this would mean sending your army accross the border to burn some cities and destory some armies. However, the ability to destory the enemy in the field and take his cities is not what is most important when you want to conquer the terretory.
However, one thought I have had recently is this: The best offence is a good defence. To conquer terretory is all about going in, taking the area and then holding it. Very few armies in history have been able to prevent an enemy army from moving into some of its own terretory. In general, the aggressor army would move in, try to take some things of importance for the invaded and then holding it against all possible counterattacks. You cannot prevent counterattacks from happening, all you can do is to try to defeat them when they do.
This all makes perfect sence. If the best defence is a good offence, then the best offence has a good defence. You basically need to defeat your enemys plan.
With this backround, the mechs is an extremly good unit. keeping it in w germany give you great ability to counterattack in france, while its speed gives you the fodder for the eastern front to hold the key russian terretories with it. The key teretory IMO is rostov. When you hold rostov and have an italian canoperner, you force the russian back to moscow and make sure the russian has very bad production.
I might rater make mechs into 1/1/2 with a cost of 3 IPC per unit
Alone MEC should be 1/1/2
Paired with ART they are 2/1/2
Paired with ARM they are 1/2/2This makes them valuable as a fast unit to the front lines so you’re paying 4 IPC for the versatility of the unit in speed and pairing options. However, their base numbers alone cannot easily overwhelm your enemy with them unless you support them.
I really like this idea. It would solve alot of the problems with the eastern front. My stack of 40 mechs and 10 tanks (and lots of inf, arts and planes) just lost 5 hits/turn, which makes it much less effective at holding terretory.
-
There is no problem with the Mech Inf., neither with the abillity of it nor the cost.
The mech unit is good as it is.
Global 40 players are facing the problem of strong purchases of a single unit type (Mech. Inf. or Bmbrs).
There is no strategy behind, it is simply following Guderians Plan of:
" Nicht kleckern sondern klotzen" , wich is the english term of MASSPRODUCTION!Why is the cost value of a Mech. Inf. not the problem?
Because if you change it, you also change the dynamic of this game for all nations present.
I find the new BM version as a good solution, but also have to try out the BM (balanced mod. Version) my self.
My Understanding of it is, that it exactly focuses on the right issue.That is:
Allies income.
BM allows you to get more income through the new adressed NO’s.
My two cents.
-
That what my intuitive thinking concluded before reading you.
The MI issue was simply a matter of too low income for the Allies.
Axis must move fast during R1 to R7, after Allies should get the upper hand.From a realistic POV, JTDto any where in Asia is incorrect.
-
The thing to keep in mind re this topic is mechs are relatively new to A&A as a game. As of yet, they haven’t been integrated into the standard 1942 game. The question is “do mechs work as a unit in A&A?”. And I’m not convinced that they do. I think if mechs were introduced into the current standard 42 game it would likely unbalance it in favor of Axis and lead to escalating bids for Allies. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But it can be a bad thing if the inclusion of mech (or alternatively, overly cheap bombers) leads to an optimized strategy that towers over other kinds of strategies. Strategic diversity is part of the delicate question of “balance”.
Make no mistake–I love Global and consider Global the best A&A game bar none, and mechs have been an integral part of Global. However, perhaps there is a case to be made that mechs don’t work for A&A and even Global would be a better game w/o them.
Edit: Realistically, increasing the price of mechs to 5 would probably solve any balance issues related to them. But as others have noted, at that price they probably wouldn’t be purchased very often.
-
You did get me thinking about the other new unit in Global, the naval/air base. Both bases and mechs were made to help navigate the larger board, and I wonder if cutting the price of these facilities would give some relief to the Allies, who are more reliant on them because the US (and UK to a degree) needs to ferry units across the ocean. The US and UK could be more inclined to throw some around, especially in the Mediterranean to protect fleets and facilitate supply lines. Of course the Axis could buy them too, but Japan is probably too busy buying mechs to rage across Asia.
-
Cheaper airbases and harbors would definitely make them more useful, not only for allies but for Japan also, which has reason to put them in at least a couple of places.
There’s a good argument for rebalancing the cost of units across the board, but of course it would have to be playtested extensively to make sure it was playable and enjoyable.
-
Veritas, how about a Balance Mod game? you up for it? :)
-
Personally, I think that mechs ruin the slow marches through the winter to Moscow that the addition of the extra Russian front territories were meant to create.
Going back to the allies weak landings, I think that the inclusion of the marines infantry units would make a good historical and strategy effect on the game. By giving marines the ability to attack @ 2 during amphibious assaults and either letting them take the infantry spot on transports or boosting the attack of inf to 2, both the US and Japan won’t have to carry around illogical artillery and could give the US better opportunity in Europe.
We could also change the Frech liberation to coastal territories as well, maybe some bonus infantry upon landing or capturing.
Sorry if I got too off topic but I like talking about allied improvements that don’t deal with bids
-
Jerold, some of the concepts you mentioned are included in Balance Mod. Marines are included (they attack at 2 during amphib assault, and can load onto cruisers and battleships, in addition to transports). Also, to make landings in Western Europe more meaningful, USA gets +5 when Holland and Normandy are Allied controlled with at least 1 US land unit present. Details about the mod can be found here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0 Give er a try!
-
I think the balance issue might be the correct approach. We all agree that mechs are good units and they are almost exclusivly usefull to the axis. Most people also agree that the axis have a big advantage in this game. So, nerfing mechs is one possible way of balancing the game out. NOs, cheaper air and naval bases might be a different solution. Moving moscow another area back might be a third. or any myriad of other possible solutions.
-
I remember the original A&A days where we had massive stacks of infantry facing each other. Every turn we would add more and more chips to the stack and face gridlock until another player can come around from the backside. I sure like having mobility in G40 and hate solutions to the imbalance that would favor turtling down because the Axis cannot outmaneuver the defenders.
-
Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.
One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.
It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.
-
Not just the nature of the board, Elk, the nature of the War and the planet Earth in the Quaternary!
I think that we have definitely jumped the shark if we are discussing how the possibly the least unbalanced and not particularly desirable unit (though it has its uses; it in in deep competition with the Tac Bomber and the Cruiser) should be rebalanced.
Next thread:
“Are AAA guns overpowered and how should we nerf them in my games because my Russian fighter got killed by one”
-
Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.
One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.
It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.
Suppose you halved the cost of Allied TT to 3 or 4 IPC. Would that change the Allies to be more competitive where we wouldn’t need a bid?
-
It would be interesting to see if we could collect enough stats from games to come to some statistically significant conclusions about unit balance.
We of course already know that tacs and cruisers are almost never purchased. Even if tacs were the same cost as fighters, fighters would still be more useful, and cruisers would have to drop to a cost of 10 or get some inf transport capability to get purchased regularly.
Interestingly I rarely see tank purchases other than by Japan as well. For what was in earlier A&A games a stock unit purchased in bulk, it’s really faded. Now I see more fighters purchased, despite the higher cost.
-
Issue with cheaper transports is Japan can build more of them to reach their objectives, and a lot of them are within striking distance of Tokyo. The American player still has to work harder to project force. Also could make Sea Lion even easier.
-
Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.
One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.
It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.
Suppose you halved the cost of Allied TT to 3 or 4 IPC.� Would that change the Allies to be more competitive where we wouldn’t need a bid?
Probably need to look at that equation in terms of what else the Allies are purchasing with those extra IPC. Since Allies will typically build 3-4 transports per round on average, it would be like giving them an extra bomber or carrier every round, which would probably be too much.
I would recommend that everyone concerned with the OOB balance favoring Axis too much give the Vichy Balance Mod a try. I found it to be a more competitive game than the regular setup.
Suggested Topics
