Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta

Dammit, IL, you are diluting the significance of this armor change with that ridiculous poll.  This thread is just going to get derailed, and probably already has with all the bickering.

IL, can I start another thread with another, more clearly delinated poll, with better options?  People will read this and wonder WHAT the hell is going on.

IL,

You may as well lock this thread.  Larry has already backed down from this proposed rule.  See this quote from his web site:

Wow… and I thought I had problems.:roll: But, like I said, there is no need for polls. Logic and good argument is far more effective when it comes to me. Democracy/numbers, from which polls draw their substance is a farce, that’s why the greatest country in human history is a republic.

If anyone has noticed, there has been no changes to the page 1 Alpha+2 rules as relates to this issue. This idea went up the flag pole and no one saluted it. Let’s bring it down. Sorry for all the stress I caused. You guys are the best!

LH-i

That “LH-i” at the end is Larry Harris.  This one is done.

I didn’t think it was too bad. I’m not going to criticized what I haven’t tried yet. However, if they are still tweaking the rules, they need to seriously consider bringing back National Advantages. They add much more depth to the game. At least make some official optional ones we can use, because my group only plays with official rules, so it would be nice if Larry gave us something we could use  :-D

As long as national advantages are fair then cool. But they definitely weren’t with revised. The allies had 6 more and theirs were just as good. Russia could dominate Germany with lend lease.

@Imperious:

What garbage reasons are they giving for the armor’s defense value to be reduced to 2???  “Tanks are only better offensively used in combat?”  What tank DIDN’T take part in local counteroffensives during the war, for chr*st’s sake?  Are stacks of tanks moved into recently conquered territories during NCM just too OP right now?  You even increased the cost of tanks to 6 in the first place to compensate, too!  What was so wrong about them being 3/3/2 5 IPCs in AA50?  “We’ve only just now realized that having a land unit with a defense value of 3 is just too powerful…”  Right…

OH MY GOD, this is ANOTHER balancing issue, right?  You’re taking away Germany’s main ability to defend its piles of infantry in Russia by adding this stupid change, and making it easier for Russia to counterattack, right!?!  WHAT A SCAM.  What a half-assed fix!  I look forward to the historical accuracy of this game when I take Moscow with 23 FIG 15 TAC and 35 MECH, all sacrificed in the name of “game balance”.

For once i totally agree with you!

Indeed. Making tanks 3/3 was a great decision. It shouldn’t be changed back. Tanks are just as needed on the defensive as on the offensive. If the German armored division had been moved to the Normandy beaches in time the allies would likely have been repulsed, to name but one example. One could argue that’s an “attack”, but in game terms the Germans would be the defenders then…

Also, as the above poster points out: How are the Germans supposed to hold territory in Russia if their tanks are reduced to 2 defense?

Finally, I’d like to add another option: cost 6, defense 3, attack 3, move 2, ATTACK 4 WHEN PAIRED WITH A TACTICAL BOMBER (OR FIGHTER). Always did find it strange that the PLANE gets better when supported by tanks, wehereas it should really be the other way around…

@poloplayer15:

what was wrong with them at a cost of 6 attack/defense of 3?

Absolutely nothing. Also, the new rule breaks the KISS philosophy that prevented Larry to bring much more needed exilied capital rules

I don’t like how is this developing. Crappy turn order and now this extrange tank rule  :?

I originally thought this was a cool rule because I like special abilities for units, but it definitely sounds like it is good this one got shut down.

Why would you buy them if they defend at a 2. I am keeping 3attack 3 defense. Listen to the soldiers who tried to attack a well positioned tiger. I think they defended at a 5.

I’m happy he backed away from this one. The armour is fine the way it is. If anything, the mech should be improved.

@Imperious:

right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.

Agree

2 move 3 attk 3 def 5 cost

@Imperious:

right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.

I do hope this is sarcasm…

You pay 1 extra IPC for an Infantry on wheels that move with the speed of a tank.  Infantry cost 3.  Tanks are 6.  By your logic, you’re basing this on every 2 IPC roughly equalling 1 attack and 1 defense.  So 4 IPC should be 2 attack and 2 defense?  Sorry, but, not a very good way to look at it.  Take the fighter for example, it’s a 3 attack and 4 defense unit.  The bomber is a 4 attack and 1 defense unit… but costs more than the fighter.  It’s extra because of the move of the unit (and bombard things yes).

If you really want to arm your mech infantry, make use of the artillery (its why we have this unit).  :|

Mobility wins wars good sir, just my 2 cents.

@Imperious:

right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.

I definitely agree with this.  Especially on the blitzing.  I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.

@knp7765:

@Imperious:

right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.

I definitely agree with this.  Especially on the blitzing.  I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.

If mechs got that boost, I would want my Infantry 2-2-1-3.  Get rid of artillery all together.