Tanks too expensive

To me rail lines would be cool but then we would have to enact rules that would allow you to destroy the rail lines, etc. I think the way it is now does a good job of showing how tough it is to invade Russia. Germany actually got to withing 15 miles of Moscow but the Russian winter pretty much stopped everything in it’s tracks, and the Russians then counterattacked with winterized units, something the Germans did not have. So in a sense the rails did help move units through Europe but once you got to inland Russia units pretty much had to walk or travel by vehicle to go anywhere.

i understand the mech infantry/tank explanation but i dont like the price hike….russia should get 5 ipc tanks once at war

Couple things I’ll add, after reading all of this thread.

What about when you are taking a territory at all costs?  You hold back one ground unit.  Only one ground unit attacks better than a 2.  It’s best to have a tank in that situation than any other ground unit.

HolKann, do you not know that mechanized infantry can’t blitz, except on a 1:1 ratio with tanks?  Tanks are still the only unit that can blitz, and you need a tank for every mech infantry you want to move through.

In P40, I only buy an occasional tank with Japan.  A very refreshing change from the freaking retarded result of 5 IPC tanks that attack and defend at 3, since Revised.  We’ve all seen it.  Japan building like 10 tanks a turn every turn and sending them at Russia.  The JTDTM strat.  Larry hated that strat too.  That’s why China kept getting bigger and more infantry, and he kept adding territories to East Russia each version.  Now with tanks costing six, you will never, ever see 10 tanks a turn being built by Japan and sent to Moscow.  YAYYYY!!!

Oh, you know what?  You guys all forgot something else.  Tac bombers attack on a 4 when paired with……  a TANK!  Not infantry, not artillery, not mech infantry.  One more thing I nearly forgot.  The mechanized infantry tech allows each mech infantry accompanied by A TANK to attack at 2.  I will be buying more tanks even at 6 when I get this tech.

I’m a mathematician of sorts, too, and I understand all the math arguments various people have put out there, but I think they’re all flawed.  The fact remains, that mobility and attack power creates more options and threats to your enemy, and this can’t really be boiled down by a formula.  Artillery can’t keep up with the mech infantry to help them attack at a 2.  I’m a lot more worried about a bunch of tanks that can go several different directions, and blitz, and attack at 3, and potentially be supported by tac bombers firing at a 4 then a bunch of mech infantry attacking on a 1 that can’t blitz or be supported as effectively by tactical bombers.

It would suck if tanks cost 5 in this 1940 version, in my opinion.  6 restores them to the more rare, exciting, powerful unit that they should have been all along.

@Flashman:

The concern here is that the vital Russian tts are so far away from German production centres that Germany is forced to buy 2 space movement units because it simply takes too long for infantry & artillery produced in Germany to reach the front lines.

If train movement rules were used (which is how all these units actually travelled) then Germany would have no problem buying a reasonable balance of units.  It is the silly movement allowance that makes Germany (and Japan if it pursues an Asian mainland strategy) so dependent on tanks and mech, while Russian can still buy the cheaper units and sit tight until the western Allies turn up in numbers.  This is regardless of combat odds; the Axis problem is in getting the units where they need to be in sufficient time to make their numbers count before the Allies are fully mobilised.

The Germans would be glad of units that have no combat value whatever but can move 3 spaces a time so they can be used up as casualties in order to protect the armoured spearhead.

This is a very good post!

World at war has rail movement as well as many other nice rules. The map and quality of the units (that is, the ones that come with the game; I always use the Axis adn Allies ones) are definitely worse, but as I said a lot of nice and historically more accurate rules (in general). There are definitely also exceptions…

I agree with the price change. Giving you a 50% chance of hitting on BOTH sides is pretty big. A cruiser can do the same amount on the naval side of the game and they’re 12! Be thankful tanks aren’t 12  :-P

@gamerman01:

Couple things I’ll add, after reading all of this thread.

What about when you are taking a territory at all costs?  You hold back one ground unit.  Only one ground unit attacks better than a 2.  It’s best to have a tank in that situation than any other ground unit.

HolKann, do you not know that mechanized infantry can’t blitz, except on a 1:1 ratio with tanks?  Tanks are still the only unit that can blitz, and you need a tank for every mech infantry you want to move through.

In P40, I only buy an occasional tank with Japan.  A very refreshing change from the freaking retarded result of 5 IPC tanks that attack and defend at 3, since Revised.  We’ve all seen it.  Japan building like 10 tanks a turn every turn and sending them at Russia.  The JTDTM strat.  Larry hated that strat too.  That’s why China kept getting bigger and more infantry, and he kept adding territories to East Russia each version.  Now with tanks costing six, you will never, ever see 10 tanks a turn being built by Japan and sent to Moscow.  YAYYYY!!!

Oh, you know what?  You guys all forgot something else.  Tac bombers attack on a 4 when paired with……  a TANK!  Not infantry, not artillery, not mech infantry.  One more thing I nearly forgot.  The mechanized infantry tech allows each mech infantry accompanied by A TANK to attack at 2.  I will be buying more tanks even at 6 when I get this tech.

I’m a mathematician of sorts, too, and I understand all the math arguments various people have put out there, but I think they’re all flawed.  The fact remains, that mobility and attack power creates more options and threats to your enemy, and this can’t really be boiled down by a formula.  Artillery can’t keep up with the mech infantry to help them attack at a 2.  I’m a lot more worried about a bunch of tanks that can go several different directions, and blitz, and attack at 3, and potentially be supported by tac bombers firing at a 4 then a bunch of mech infantry attacking on a 1 that can’t blitz or be supported as effectively by tactical bombers.

It would suck if tanks cost 5 in this 1940 version, in my opinion.  6 restores them to the more rare, exciting, powerful unit that they should have been all along.

Good post!

I agree with the price change.  Ever since initially analyzing the game after my brother-in-law got Spring 1942 last year I’ve been surprised that tanks were so relatively cheap.  It was only once I started to realize that extra units is better than extra punch that I saw that it wasn’t as bad as I initially thought, but I’ve still always thought that tanks for 5 IPCs a piece was a bargain to be taken advantage of if you could afford it.

Basically, in all previous versions (at least the more recent AAR, AA42, and AA50), you bought infantry rather than tanks only because you needed more units and that was the only reason, but if you had the income buying tanks was obviously so much better.  So once Japan’s economy got big enough, they don’t buy infantry anymore, just tanks.

Now we might have a slightly more realistic ratio of tanks on the board and the cost just makes more sense for all the power tanks give you.  Tanks weren’t not as prevalent in WWII as most Axis and Allies games would suggest with the number of tanks on the board compared to other units.  A unit that has a 50% hit rate attacking and defending, can move an extra space, blitz through unoccupied zones, and boost the attack power of the new tactical bomber air units CANNOT cost only 5 IPCs without being overpowered; 6 IPCs is still pretty much a bargain.

@SAS:

I agree with the price change.  Ever since initially analyzing the game after my brother-in-law got Spring 1942 last year I’ve been surprised that tanks were so relatively cheap.  It was only once I started to realize that extra units is better than extra punch that I saw that it wasn’t as bad as I initially thought, but I’ve still always thought that tanks for 5 IPCs a piece was a bargain to be taken advantage of if you could afford it.

Basically, in all previous versions (at least the more recent AAR, AA42, and AA50), you bought infantry rather than tanks only because you needed more units and that was the only reason, but if you had the income buying tanks was obviously so much better.  So once Japan’s economy got big enough, they don’t buy infantry anymore, just tanks.

Now we might have a slightly more realistic ratio of tanks on the board and the cost just makes more sense for all the power tanks give you.  Tanks weren’t not as prevalent in WWII as most Axis and Allies games would suggest with the number of tanks on the board compared to other units.  A unit that has a 50% hit rate attacking and defending, can move an extra space, blitz through unoccupied zones, and boost the attack power of the new tactical bomber air units CANNOT cost only 5 IPCs without being overpowered; 6 IPCs is still pretty much a bargain.

Still think tactical bombers giving a bonus to tanks instead of vice versa, would have made more sense…

@Koningstiger:

Still think tactical bombers giving a bonus to tanks instead of vice versa, would have made more sense…

Does it make a difference?  Since they have to be paired one-to-one does it matter if it takes the tank’s 3 to a 4 or the Tac’s 3 to a 4?  Either way you end up with a 4 and a 3.

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks, simply down to their manoeuvrability, and ability to avoid counter-attack?  For the same money you can get 5 tanks with 2 moves max and the danger of being left stranded on the front line, or 3 fighters than have greater range and can land in well defended areas.

The main reason people always bought Japanese tanks, again, is because they were the only Japanese land unit that could hope to reach Moscow before everyone else’s did. It’s the time taken to move rather than the combat values and bonuses.

Rail movement deletes this imbalance without making the game a purely production war, as units cannot rail into battle and so there is always a natural delay; but only for one turn.

@Flashman:

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks

Absolutely.  Even when tanks were 5 (AA50) I was sensing that fighters were too cheap.  It’s interesting that in the original A&A, infantry were 3, tanks were 5 (defended at 2) fighters were 12, carriers were 18, bombers were 15, and battleships 24.  And there was unlimitied production.  So infantry was king.

Now with carriers down to 16 (from 18) and absorbing 2 hits (although defending on a 2 instead of a 3) and fighters down to 10, and mobility more important than ever, it’s interesting.

Fighters being able to attack all targets, only costing 2 more than a destroyer, granting bonuses to Tac bombers, providing by far the cheapest fleet defense, being able to attack and return to a safe landing place, getting 5 movement from airbases, being able to scramble, escorting and intercepting SBR’s, and what else am I forgetting?  Oh, launching from aircraft carriers and being able to land where-ever those carriers can get to, often with THREE movement points……  Not to mention the jet fighters tech, the long range air tech…

Yes, I think we should be talking about how fighters are too cheap, not how tanks are too expensive!  :lol:

@Flashman:

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks, simply down to their manoeuvrability, and ability to avoid counter-attack?  For the same money you can get 5 tanks with 2 moves max and the danger of being left stranded on the front line, or 3 fighters than have greater range and can land in well defended areas.

The main reason people always bought Japanese tanks, again, is because they were the only Japanese land unit that could hope to reach Moscow before everyone else’s did. It’s the time taken to move rather than the combat values and bonuses.

Rail movement deletes this imbalance without making the game a purely production war, as units cannot rail into battle and so there is always a natural delay; but only for one turn.

Don’t forget that sometimes you actually DO want to leave strong units in just conquered territories in order to hang on to them. Since fighters are not allowed to remain in such territories, tanks are the obvious unit of choice for this purpose.

@gamerman01:

@Flashman:

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks

Absolutely.  Even when tanks were 5 (AA50) I was sensing that fighters were too cheap.  It’s interesting that in the original A&A, infantry were 3, tanks were 5 (defended at 2) fighters were 12, carriers were 18, bombers were 15, and battleships 24.  And there was unlimitied production.  So infantry was king.

Now with carriers down to 16 (from 18) and absorbing 2 hits (although defending on a 2 instead of a 3) and fighters down to 10, and mobility more important than ever, it’s interesting.

Fighters being able to attack all targets, only costing 2 more than a destroyer, granting bonuses to Tac bombers, providing by far the cheapest fleet defense, being able to attack and return to a safe landing place, getting 5 movement from airbases, being able to scramble, escorting and intercepting SBR’s, and what else am I forgetting?  Oh, launching from aircraft carriers and being able to land where-ever those carriers can get to, often with THREE movement points……  Not to mention the jet fighters tech, the long range air tech…

Yes, I think we should be talking about how fighters are too cheap, not how tanks are too expensive!  :lol:

I recall that the reason fighters were made more affordable was that too few of them were being bought (people bought tanks instead). IIRC, this was explicitely mentioned in the booklet that came with A&A revised outlining the changes that had been made and why.

You do support your points excellently, I have to admit and going over them all, you cannot help but notice that fighters are indeed formidable units! I guess I will have to decide for myself whether or not tanks are too expensive now (or fighters too cheap) after having a reasonable number of plays of AAEurope40 / global40 under my belt. So far it’s still a lot of speculation to me, well explained and underpinned as it may be.I do understand the reasoning behind tanks having gone up one point, because there’s one thing I do know: with mech. infantry costing 4 points and tanks costing five I never ever would have bought additional mech. infantry.

As for the destroyers, don’t forget that you need them to more succesfully deal with enemy subs!

@gamerman01:

@Flashman:

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks

Absolutely.  Even when tanks were 5 (AA50) I was sensing that fighters were too cheap.  It’s interesting that in the original A&A, infantry were 3, tanks were 5 (defended at 2) fighters were 12, carriers were 18, bombers were 15, and battleships 24.  And there was unlimitied production.  So infantry was king.

Now with carriers down to 16 (from 18) and absorbing 2 hits (although defending on a 2 instead of a 3) and fighters down to 10, and mobility more important than ever, it’s interesting.

Fighters being able to attack all targets, only costing 2 more than a destroyer, granting bonuses to Tac bombers, providing by far the cheapest fleet defense, being able to attack and return to a safe landing place, getting 5 movement from airbases, being able to scramble, escorting and intercepting SBR’s, and what else am I forgetting?  Oh, launching from aircraft carriers and being able to land where-ever those carriers can get to, often with THREE movement points……  Not to mention the jet fighters tech, the long range air tech…

Yes, I think we should be talking about how fighters are too cheap, not how tanks are too expensive!  :lol:

I agree when you consider how many IPC’s exist in Global, it seems like it’s so easy for one power to tip the scales very easily and get up to 80 or 90 IPC’s a turn.  They could by 8 or 9 fighters one turn and move them to defend vital locations very easily.

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

@Seven_Patch:

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

When defending a land territory, I’d go for the fighters… :-D

@gamerman01:

Absolutely.  Even when tanks were 5 (AA50) I was sensing that fighters were too cheap.  It’s interesting that in the original A&A, infantry were 3, tanks were 5 (defended at 2) fighters were 12, carriers were 18, bombers were 15, and battleships 24.  And there was unlimitied production.  So infantry was king.

Now with carriers down to 16 (from 18) and absorbing 2 hits (although defending on a 2 instead of a 3) and fighters down to 10, and mobility more important than ever, it’s interesting.

Fighters being able to attack all targets, only costing 2 more than a destroyer, granting bonuses to Tac bombers, providing by far the cheapest fleet defense, being able to attack and return to a safe landing place, getting 5 movement from airbases, being able to scramble, escorting and intercepting SBR’s, and what else am I forgetting?  Oh, launching from aircraft carriers and being able to land where-ever those carriers can get to, often with THREE movement points……  Not to mention the jet fighters tech, the long range air tech…

Yes, I think we should be talking about how fighters are too cheap, not how tanks are too expensive!  :lol:

But that is how it is in real life, whoever has the best airforce is the strongest military in the world. It was during this period that America became the kings of the skies and since then we have been the most dominant force on Earth. I feel the way the game is now that we are pretty close to a balanced purchasing system. I won’t even play the original A&A anymore because of how skewed it is towards infantry and subs.

@Koningstiger:

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

Yeah I’d say it depends on your application. Overall, fighters are the better buy, regarding more expensive units, no matter what… A thought process that started for me in AA50.
Now that we have airbases, multiple air techs, scramble rules etc… fighters/tac bombers are the most versatile units in the game. This plethora of options really outweighs the usefulness of a tank (for 6 IPCs) or any surface warship. While battleships are an intimidating sight, and a status symbol, fighters and a carrier are actually the most powerful agents of AA military might.

The fighter’s overall usefulness far exceeds that of a tank. The only bad things about fighters is that their loss is felt a bit more poignantly than a tank (10 IPCs vs. 6) and they cannot occupy enemy territory that turn like tanks can. I am curious to see how German approach to the game changes now that aircraft are distinctly better than tanks and tanks are more expensive. It used to be (for me) that Germany would buy tanks and little else. Their fighters would dwindle during the game, as they were picked off, and they essential became golden bullets, to be used in the most important battles of the turn and defending key territories. Perhaps that will flip-flop slightly. Will tanks now become less of the German hammer and more the thoughtful allocation of limited Armor? I know that in AA50, for Germany, it remained that the German advance against Russia was entirely based on Armor. Infantry were too slow and not powerful enough to be useful. Which makes me think that mechanized infantry will cause yet more dispairity in tank purchases.

@LHoffman:

@Koningstiger:

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

Yeah I’d say it depends on your application. Overall, fighters are the better buy, regarding more expensive units, no matter what… A thought process that started for me in AA50.
Now that we have airbases, multiple air techs, scramble rules etc… fighters/tac bombers are the most versatile units in the game. This plethora of options really outweighs the usefulness of a tank (for 6 IPCs) or any surface warship. While battleships are an intimidating sight, and a status symbol, fighters and a carrier are actually the most powerful agents of AA military might.

As it should be which is really cool for A&A to get right.

So when you start comparing Battleships and loaded Carriers it makes sense that the cost of aircraft has to go hand in hand with the cost of the BB.

2 BB = 40 IPC 8 attack total 8 defense total 4 hits to destroy both BB
1 CV, 1 FTR and 1 TAC = 37 IPC 7 attack total 9 defense total 3 hits to destroy but aircraft have 4 movement and if you have two fighters then you increase the defense to 10.

There are pros and cons to both but if you increase aircraft IPC costs you have to increase BB IPC cost.

So those 3 IPC are buying you

Ok, here it is. In AAREVISED. When they introduced artillery, Germany had a good reason to buy a good mixture of men, artillery, and tanks. If not, if they bought all tanks, unless they were playing against a Russian player who was worse than me, they lost. And planes were never purchsed unless in some extreme circumstance or again, playing off of other players lack of stragety. Tanks buy all others (except Japan) were rare and bad purchases. The odds largely favored men and artillery.

The points I have read about regarding Japan and tanks in the Revised version and before was not a problems of Tanks being to cheap, but by a horrific China and East Russia map that was obviously horrific. Unbelievable it took this long to correct.

I have played AAP40 a lot and see planes as a lot more usable the way they should be. To win a war you have to have great air power. If you are not buying as many tanks as planes. Something is wrong. I may be exaggerating a bit, but not  by  much.