Are Mechs Too Strong?

[regularkid]

Veritas, how about a Balance Mod game? you up for it? :)

[JeroldTheGreat]

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

[regularkid]

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!

[Kreuzfeld]

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.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

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.

[SubmersedElk]

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.

[taamvan]

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”

[Spendo02]

@SubmersedElk:

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?

[SubmersedElk]

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.

[General Veers]

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.

[SubmersedElk]

@Spendo02:

@SubmersedElk:

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.

[taamvan]

People keep focusing on unit rebalance, technology rebalance, SBR, rebalance or perhaps economic rebalance (through NOs and Vichy) but none of those things are the problem the way that I see it.

The dynamic problem is that in making the game have so many fun options and flexibility, the game designers have given the Axis too much initial advantage to work with and that Russia is too weak to withstand a focused assault

1. by experienced adversaries
2. regardless of luck
3. or the exact way the Allies or Axis play that assault out.

If you make Russia stronger, it becomes too strong for Germany to have any options (they must attack Russia and all the Axis must help).

But based on our last few games, if you thought the German and Italian “can-openers” and SBRs and air stacks were too much to handle, the German and the Italian AND Japan “eastern 3 way can-opener” and “early, unstoppable, cannot be scrambled against and before and after you repair SBRs” makes the game devastating and not really capable of being “patched” in my opinion.