And I too believe that tanks increasing in cost is a good thing. But unlike IL I don’t think AAE was broken. If you use the US to take over the Atlantic, the UK can build planes and shuck them to Leningrad for the conversion to the Russian equivalent. Two planes a turn and by turn 3 or 4 when Germany is ready to attack you can have 6 planes to defend with as the Russians with meat shields aplenty.
Mechanized Infantry at 1-2-2-5 don’t seem like a good buy.
I was very surprised that AAP40 which introduced them didn’t make them 2-2-2-5, of which i have always used as the basis of my Mech units in house rules.
The other reason why tanks went to 6 was because of these Mech units. Larry didn’t want another 4 IPC unit, because it might invalidate the purchase of artillery and tanks at 5 made tanks the preferred choice. Also, he read that AAE had this glitch with the tanks and knew it would return in his new AAE40 if he didn’t do anything. So the decision was made to move the tank to 6 and mech to 5. Now each unit has its own place in a purchase decision: 3,4,5,6.
What should have happened is for a 5 IPC mech infantry, you need either a 3-2-2-5 ( which looks like the old tank) or a 2-2-2-5 with artillery bonus getting it to a 3-2.
The other rule that makes little sence is the rule where they cant blitz on their own. They need a tank. Should have been left out IMO.
@Imperious:
Good arguments
I understand that in AAE, with a lot more ground to cover, the mobility advantage of tanks was vastly improved. However, with the mech now, there’s a unit as mobile as an arm for 4 ipc’s, even less than 5! If tanks aren’t overpriced for 6 (which you guys explained to me), how come mech’s aren’t overpriced? Because they lack offensive capability? Meaning mobility is better for offensive units than for defensive ones?
Just asking questions, don’t know the answers…
Well for starters if your playing def the battle is probably coming to you so you don’t need the mobility as much. The aggressor is the one that needs mobility, and is willing to pay extra (call it a fuel surcharge). Inf cost 3 ipc, mech had to be more because it also moves 2 spaces. I’m good w/mech having the same values as inf, and getting 2 moves for an extra buck. I guess there’s a good argument for Mech costing 5 ipc, and also can attack at 2, but you could also call the same unit mobile artillery couldn’t you?
Maybe there should have just been a truck that cost 5 ipc that moves two spaces, and could carry up to two land units (inf or art). Like a land transport that only shuttles your units. Either way you still pay for extra mobility.
In global games tanks have only ever been purchased for two reasons, speed and lack of build slots.
Well in this there is absolutely no shortage of build slots compared to IPC (like 50th) and the mobility is countered by mechs being better bang for the buck, even when attacking, if backed by air. The only thing tanks have left is blitz, and while that is useful in a can opener setup, the can opener has been greatly reduced from what I can see. Sorry mate, tanks ARE overpriced.
As a house rule, my tanks will be a 3/2 two movement for 5, but for each inf paired up there defense is increased to a 3. Much better IMHO.
Also cruisers are a bit weak for there cost, I’m debating between a 2/3 for 10 with bombard, or a 3/3 for 12 with 3 movement, or adding a transport role like NWO, or possibly a better convoy raiding ability. Not really sure what to do in there case.
In global games tanks have only ever been purchased for two reasons, speed and lack of build slots.
Well in this there is absolutely no shortage of build slots compared to IPC (like 50th) and the mobility is countered by mechs being better bang for the buck, even when attacking, if backed by air. The only thing tanks have left is blitz, and while that is useful in a can opener setup, the can opener has been greatly reduced from what I can see. Sorry mate, tanks ARE overpriced.
As a house rule, my tanks will be a 3/2 two movement for 5, but for each inf paired up there defense is increased to a 3. Much better IMHO.
Also cruisers are a bit weak for there cost, I’m debating between a 2/3 for 10 with bombard, or a 3/3 for 12 with 3 movement, or adding a transport role like NWO, or possibly a better convoy raiding ability. Not really sure what to do in there case.
Yeah I don’t like that. They have a 50 percent chance of hitting (or more with the Tac)
Like you need something strong on the ground
You can’t roll 2’s all the time.
For the cruisers same idea. Despite having special abilities Subs and Destroyers can’t always roll 2’s, Cruiser are more helpful, like for the destroyer do you really need planes to attack something defending on 1?
@WILD:
@Imperious:
Good arguments
I understand that in AAE, with a lot more ground to cover, the mobility advantage of tanks was vastly improved. However, with the mech now, there’s a unit as mobile as an arm for 4 ipc’s, even less than 5! If tanks aren’t overpriced for 6 (which you guys explained to me), how come mech’s aren’t overpriced? Because they lack offensive capability? Meaning mobility is better for offensive units than for defensive ones?
Just asking questions, don’t know the answers…
Well for starters if your playing def the battle is probably coming to you so you don’t need the mobility as much. The aggressor is the one that needs mobility, and is willing to pay extra (call it a fuel surcharge). Inf cost 3 ipc, mech had to be more because it also moves 2 spaces. I’m good w/mech having the same values as inf, and getting 2 moves for an extra buck. I guess there’s a good argument for Mech costing 5 ipc, and also can attack at 2, but you could also call the same unit mobile artillery couldn’t you?
Maybe there should have just been a truck that cost 5 ipc that moves two spaces, and could carry up to two land units (inf or art). Like a land transport that only shuttles your units. Either way you still pay for extra mobility.
Yeah, Russian can still build piles of defensive infantry at the same cost, while Germany (assuming it’s banking on conquering most of Russia) will have to fork out for tanks and Mech inf simply because of the anachronistic transport rules. The Soviets meanwhile can just sit there absorbing German attacks and then buy more mobility when it goes over to the attack.
Even with a factory in Kiev Germany will struggle to get enough infantry into the depths of Russia; transport shuttles in the Baltic may be the only serious option, something the western Allies are likely to choke off with their own Arctic convoy campaign.
@Dylan:
Yeah I don’t like that. They have a 50 percent chance of hitting (or more with the Tac)
Like you need something strong on the ground
You can’t roll 2’s all the time.
For the cruisers same idea. Despite having special abilities Subs and Destroyers can’t always roll 2’s, Cruiser are more helpful, like for the destroyer do you really need planes to attack something defending on 1?
It may feel better mentally to be rolling a handful at a 3 then a ton at a 2, but statistically the 2s on average will give more hits, and, since your rolling more will tend to roll closer to average than the 3s will. On top of that, there is a higher threat of a really good roll screwing your opponent. I would never fear attacking 4 cruisers with 4 subs and 2 planes, as I know if the dice really crap on me i can lose the subs and run, but against 6 destroyers I could possibly lose planes on the first roll of those dice.
All Russia has to do is build as many inf/mech pairs as humanly possible, with a few art and fighters sprinkled in if germany goes all out tank happy in E40. Now that may be the general concept behind the change, to reduce tank buys, but now you’ll just see insane quantities of mech inf being purchased. For a good smash russia strat you’ll see germany buy mostly art turn 1&2, followed by mechs and planes.
It may feel better mentally to be rolling a handful at a 3 then a ton at a 2, but statistically the 2s on average will give more hits, and, since your rolling more will tend to roll closer to average than the 3s will.
This is wrong. Rolling more dice with a smaller success probability has more variance than less dice for the same total combat value. One die hitting at 6 will give you a sure hit every round hence, no variance. With six dice hitting at 1 you will score 1 hit on average but you will often get 6 misses or, with extreme luck, you can hit 6 times.
The higher the dice, the higher the chance to get a hit. With more dice of lower numbers, the chance to hit one is lower but you can often hit multiple.
2 tanks on D have a 75% chance to hit. 3 INF have a 70% chance to hit. The INF can get 3 hits, though, if you’re lucky.
Im glad that tanks went up to 6ipcs. At 5 it was just 2 easy for Germany, or anyone for that matter, to mass an army of them. Im hoping the increased cost will make Arty a more viable buy. I so rarely see much Arty bought, people just seem to use what they start and never bother to replace it when they lose it.
Artillery was much more important than Tanks on most battlefields during WW2
Im glad that tanks went up to 6ipcs. At 5 it was just 2 easy for Germany, or anyone for that matter, to mass an army of them. Im hoping the increased cost will make Arty a more viable buy. I so rarely see much Arty bought, people just seem to use what they start and never bother to replace it when they lose it.
Artillery was much more important than Tanks on most battlefields during WW2
Those are very good points actually!
I’ve always wondered why artillery doesn’t fire during the opening fire step, similar to shore bombarding units, a sub’s first strike and AAguns. I suppose you would remove their casualties right away then (similar to the last two things mentioned, unlike shore bombarding units in the latest ruleset. However, they should hit on a 1 then and probably cost a bit more. However, this would be in tune with the actual use of artillery. (cost: 6, attack: 1, defense 1, move 1. Fires during opening fire step. (First attacking art., then (any remaining) defending art. units) Casualties are removed immediately. Alternatively, you could only allow offensive artillery to work this way and defending artillery would still defend on a 2, but NOT fire during the opening fire step. (so: attack: 1, defense 2, move 1).
Of course in more serious strategic wargames there usually isn’t such a thing as “artillery units” since they are considered to be an integral part of infantry and tank units (as A&A used to be for that matter…)
Nevertheless, I think the actual rule works fine as well…
I still buy artillery occasionally mostly with the Soviets to support my huge stacks of infantry when they attack. I also find they are useful when making an amphibious attack as well as other uses when attacking. I think they are still a very useful unit.
OK, i have an issue with this, Germany just buys tanks thing and glitches the game. Especially with IL. Although I was glancing through all the posts and it may be very old. I have not played the newest AA42, but have played revised and normal AA for 18 years or so. With the introduction of artillery in the revised, as far as pure fire power went, men and artillery are by far superior to tanks.
Understand, it is just the math. Nothing else. With the spaces being so close, if Germany just bought tanks, it would be a disadvantage. Russian buying all men and artillery versus Germany buying all tanks, Germany is at a disadvantage.
Again, I have not played the newer 1942 version, but if the set up allowed Germany to win to easily with buying all tanks at 5IPC, then the problem is not with tanks at 5, but with the 1942 setup. Tanks at 5IPC are at a disadvantage in fire power. Although the 2 movement provides some advantage, the lack of fire power is significantly lower. 5 artillery and 5 men buy far massacre 7 tanks. Not just by a little, but by a lot. If you play the odds in different ways, they come out the same. Every time a tank is lost at a attacking or defending power of 3, they get even more disadvantaged compared with an artillery or man loss of 2. The battles starts out with almost even fire power, tanks 21 versus arty’s and men at 20. I have done the probability tests over and over again using different methods. And I don’t mean rolling the dice over and over again.
IL was taking about AAE, where the spaces are far. In global 40, Russia is 30+ territories. Tanks do have an advantage in movement
Now I agree with the idea that tanks at 5 would make armored inf. pointless. However, maybe mech infantry should defend at 3, or maybe attack at 2.
Where I think tanks might make sense in the global game is this. The areas are so spread out, that being able to move an attacking power of 3 two spaces may make a huge difference requiring the buidling of some tanks. Movability may be that much more important. And may be more historically accurate in terms of cost structures for tanks to be that much more expensive. I do not know. Hopefully the manuever aspect of the global game, since it is so spread out, is so important, planes, even at the cost of 10 many make sense. As before, buying aircraft for most of the powers was ridiculous and inefficient. I have played AA40. I buy very few tanks for Britain. But that is only when they go on the offensive whick means the Japan player made some big mistakes. Otherwise, with Japan I do not buy them. The war is decided in the Pacific with the Dutch Indies and the solomon island areas. Once I take those and get the bonuses, the game is decided and we don’t drag it out once I begin invading Australia and pushing against the Chinese.
Caveat: we just started playing with China going first plus getting 1 extra infantry per territory in exchange for Japan getting a double impulse attack on the islands only. I have played with these new rules as the allies only. It seems to make for a much more balanced game, (China was way to weak) and inserts some historical accuracy. I will play Japan with this alternative our next game. I can see how I might buy tanks under this scenario. However, my opponent never bought 1 tank. Although I did win, I am not sure him buying tanks would have made a difference. If I cannot win with Japan when I paly, we will slightly tweak the rules, but probably not by mich. We are considering limiting placement of artillery when purchases at the burma road entrance to China. Only placing infantry on territories Chaina had at the beginning of the turn and placing the US navy in Hawaii except the carrier which cannot move until th eUS is at War.
The last point by Calvin just gave me a “huh” moment. All these post make absolutely no sense. The global or AAE game is not out yet. What the $#%^ is everyone talking about.
Some please explain.
IL was taking about AAE, where the spaces are far. In global 40, Russia is 30+ territories. Tanks do have an advantage in movement
So do Mech.
He was talking about AAE (Axis and Allies Europe) the first edition. And no, Europe 1940 (and the combination with Pacific 1940 for a global game) is not out yet, but we do have the map and setup and a good portion of the rules from DJensen’s previews from his early release copy.@eddiem4145:
The last point by Calvin just gave me a “huh” moment. All these post make absolutely no sense. The global or AAE game is not out yet. What the $#%^ is everyone talking about.
Some please explain.
I am still confused. This is the for the global 1940 game that is not out yet. Yet all the posts are about how to play a game not even out yet. They even appear to be about games that have been played. So I am assuming people are posting about AAE, the old version. But tanks were still 5IPC. I could be wrong. Also I didn’t know you could put AAE AAP the old versions together.
If not, I seems people are talking about the Anniversary addition. Not sure why that is on this post.
