Kamikaze are a defensive weapon, which are resolved at the beginning of the combat phase, so the attacking air units have already launched from their carriers are not in danger (unless they are “guest” air units). As such, they will participate in combat even if their carrier is hit, and will have the remainder of their movement to land as normal afterwards.
Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta
-
If the solution is to “just not play with it” why are people even here if they are just supposed to play with whatever rules they feel like?
Because thats how Alpha was created. The OOB was busted and by committee people provided input to form the new setup and rules. The result of the input created what we have now, so it stands to reason that to not play with these changes will influence the rule change back.
Before Revised came out people didn’t like 3-2-5 tanks either. They like 3-2-6 tanks even less. :roll:
-
I kind of like this rule in a way because tanks normally do not fair too well when they get ambushed by AT infantry. The only thing I don’t like about it is that I agree this hurts the axis more than the allies because normally the Soviets use tanks for counterattacks and not for defense. Germans attack with tanks and then the tanks have to hold the territory.
You will either need to slow down the German advance to keep infantry paired with tanks or by quite a bit more mech infantry to keep up with the armor.
If this rule is implemented I would like to see infantry movement increased to 2 if paired 1:1 with mech infantry OR SOMETHING like that to help the axis out.
-
LOL, this is the latest rule change incarnation to come out of Larry’s bullplop 1940 game???
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”.
-
I kind of like this rule in a way because tanks normally do not fair too well when they get ambushed by AT infantry.
But this is not the norm, it is an exception. The most often thing should be represented and not some surprise well dug in prepared defense. 95% of the time the tanks roll over infantry. If somehow infantry are stronger than tanks in WW2 in most situations, then something is terribly wrong and the offensives would be spearheaded by infantry with tanks mopping up the easy stuff.
-
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!
-
While we’re at it, let’s decrease the infantry’s cost to 2 IPCs, cause 3 IPCs per infantry is just TOO much for only 2 defense. We’ll need the extra stacks of infantry produced by this new rule change so our forward stacks have a chance in hell of surviving enemy counterattacks only fighting with 2s from now on. Not to mention, we’ll also need this new rule in that the offensive unit stacks will never get touched, as they’ll be ONLY FIGs/TACs behind the enemy lines of which their numbers will only get larger and larger as the game grinds on. So, basically, if you’re on the offensive, just pray for a lot of 1s and 2s when your infantry stacks defend to have a prayer of decimating the enemy forces… Plus, the attacker will always have the option to retreat his aircraft away, so fat chance of taking any planes down anytime soon! GREAT CHANGE LARRY!
Hmm… what else will go wrong with Axis and Allies by removing the tanks due to nerfing? How about NO BLITZING anymore? If you build no new tanks, then no more racing across enemy territories or threatening enemy capitals, turns before the infantry shows up! We lose a whole mechanic of the game! WOOO WOOO!!! ALSO, since most people will just build stacks of planes now, and YOUR MECH CANNOT BLITZ WITHOUT ARMOR, we’ll just end up building stacks and stacks of one move infantry instead! (Will probably still be useful for getting to the front lines in Russia… maybe. I’m betting we’ll only see infantry, artillery, and FIG builds, especially for Germany from now on. There’s now no point in building anything else.)
Watch the game slowly grind to a crawl as we see giant lumps of infantry slowly congeal together with even BIGGER stacks of aircraft stationed behind them, supporting each new human wave offensive! Hey, IL, you’ll get your wish for that WWI game you’re always talking about in your signature! It’ll be like WWI, except with airplanes! THANKS LARRY FOR ADDING EVEN MORE HISTORICAL ACCURACY THAN EVER TO YOUR OPUS MAGNUS, AAG40!!!
-
I’m posting my responses on Larry’s website. I did not pay over $120 for both AAE40 and AAP40 to see such drastic changes enacted like this, when it is obvious the game creator has no idea how to balance his game, now been released for over a year (AAP40 released Dec 2009). I will play this game for free online and am swearing off the hooch, i.e., never buying a single boxed set again. HE JUST MIGHT CHANGE THE RULES AGAIN.
-
@Imperious:
Before Revised came out people didn’t like 3-2-5 tanks either. They like 3-2-6 tanks even less. :roll:
This should be the biggest reason to NOT have this rule. In Original did anyone even build tanks? at 3-2-2 5 you were better off with massive stacks of infantry, only after creating the walking stack of doom would armor be built to back them up. At 3-2-2 6 they have made tanks even WORSE! They’re 3 defense was the whole reason people built them with Germany, to protect the spearheads before allied(read Jap or Italian) aircraft could land to beef up the defense.
-
In Original did anyone even build tanks? at 3-2-2 5 you were better off with massive stacks of infantry
I did with Russia. ON R1 its a good idea to buy 3 tanks and 3 men, rather than 8 men if you think the German player will stack less than 16 total units in EE.
With Japan tanks were a must to win to take Moscow and Germany needed to buy them to win. Not many ways to win with 1-2 infantry unless you want long games. You need 3 to beat a 2 and fighters at 10 IPC based on the economics of Milton Bradley made it hard. Germany seldom built fighters in that and Russia could never really buy fighters making her starting 2 the most important pieces in the game.
-
I will check on this now.
-
Wow, in ADDITION to the new unfair tank changes rule, I also get to see the slimy, unwashed, despicable underworld of forum politics! Don’t hide the truth, IL, put that poll back up! Many people are going to be unhappy at this change, especially 6 months into the game’s relase!
-
Good catch. I merged both of those topics.
If you still want the poll, post it and i will merge your duplicate thread with this one.
-
Many people are going to be unhappy at this change, especially 6 months into the game’s relase!
ok working on it.
-
Mantlefans poll inserted.
I just don’t want two posts of what larry said making threads. The only different component was that poll, but the posts would be more people saying " i hate it or i like it" and we dont need two threads like that.
-
Extra choices might be interesting.
What other choices you want?
-
Yup, IL, I have to say mantlefan has a point here. You’re trying to make him look ridiculous, with the 4/3 tank. On a topic in which YOU BOTH AGREE ON SOMETHING, it looks suspicious.
Whatever, here is what I was trying to say earlier before the thread got closed…
-
There is 3-2-2-5 with a def boost to 3 as well.
OK i will add it and others.
Other choices are not ridiculous. Some people might even like them.
Also, you can change votes.
-
Tanks are for aggressive players and people who just want to have fun and roll some dice.
1 inf 2 artillery attack at 6 like 2 tanks, offer cannon fodder better than 2 tanks and is 1 ipc cheaper.
Something is wrong with that picture and larry harris wants to make it worse :|. At least in Classic I bought tanks before a major attack (not buy artillery and infantry move it up then attack). tank buys are entirely circumstantial now… They are only bought before an attack on the next round or round after. Which is exactly like classic.
~I voted for 3/2/2/5. I think people don’t buy tanks for the purpose of defending anyway and I want to roll some dice and not have a stare down.
-
I didn’t delete the above post.
You violate no rules with it.
-
Fellow Axis and Allies aficionados:
A call goes out to all WWII history buffs, armchair generals, and in-general board game freaks: Larry has decided that current Armor units are Somewhat Overpowered with a 3 Defense Value, even when the cost was revised upwards to 6 IPCs for the AA1940 game. He has decreed that Armor Units will Now Roll with a 2 on Defense Without an Accompanying Infantry Unit. THIS MUST NOT STAND. This insults everyone here, and our intelligence, our dignity, nay, our very LIVELIHOODS, as WWII board game enthusiasts, is at stake.
Who here does NOT enjoy playing the new Alpha +.2 with the newly reinvigorated Axis powers? Who does NOT enjoy the thrill of attempting and winning Sealion attacks against all odds, or rolling armies of new Panzer divisions into Russia a year ahead of schedule? Well, the pride and joy of the German Wehrmacht, emerging from the legendary genius of General Heinz Guderian, the revolutionary new military equipment that changed the face of modern warfare forever, yes, OUR BELOVED PANZER DIVISIONS, are at stake. We are talking about introducing changes that will forevermore change the face of the WWII boardgame, for YEARS to come, wherein armor will NOT be built by Germany, since it will be “considered a sub-optimal buy”, in the wake of waves of infantry supported by artillery, with massive stacks of planes behind the front lines. SAY IT WILL NOT BE SO! WE SHALL NOT GIVE UP OUR 3/3/2 6 IPC ARMOR UNITS WITHOUT A FIGHT!
SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSED CHANGES BY LARRY HARRIS. He is essentially turning his back on the glory of the armored unit in its heyday, wherein the world saw more combat involving these behemoths than in any war thereafter, wherein anti-tank guns and planes were specially developed for defeating them in combat! WE SHALL FIGHT THESE CHANGES, AND WE SHALL WIN. WHO IS WITH ME?
Suggested Topics
