ANTI-TANK UNIT

1-1.png

My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.

CWO Marc I am not talking the Tech, but rather the availability of Sonar for ASW on ships designed for ASW and not the U boat threat but rather U boats attacking in unison.
Another factor with historically accurate concepts has to be playability without getting overly complicated.

IE German assault guns over tanks was lack of resources….and the availability of chassis from outdated tanks like the PZ ll and PZ 38t to create a need in Self propelled Artillery and Anti-Tank vehicles. I assure you that the Tanks were preferred over assault guns. This concept has morphed in house rules to what these assault guns were actually intended to do. A Panzer Division commander would rather be supplied Panthers over JagdPanthers

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

Nice ideas. Thanks for posting. You have probably seen that many here do the same thing.

My experience with AA50 was definitely am armor fest. Basically everyone buys tanks Axis obviously but Allies in equal numbers. At 6 I don’t know that I’d buy them in AA50 over artillery. Not with a nation like Russia or Italy. One thing I will say though, the 5 ipc tank did make the game resolve a bit faster. My 42.2 games tend to last a lot longer than my AA50 games, mainly because of more expensive tanks I think. Since transports are the same, so that’s probably not the reason. AA50 has more money in play, so that could maybe be a reason to think otherwise on the more money=more units=more time logic (though honestly I never really believed that more money slows the game down, might be the opposite even). But tanks at 6 mean more infantry and more deliberate infantry push. I see why the 3/3 tank at 5 is overpowered though, so it’s kind of a tough call. Going back to the classic values would probably be just as hard for me at this point haha

@crusaderiv:

light tank, medium tank and heavy tank is accurate.

You can add self propelled gun (anti tank gun) and heavy artillery (mortar carrier) and you a great selection of unit in your game.

Never thought about this one.
Getting a unit A3 or A4 D3 or D4 but moving 1 space?

Just wondering if an @4 unit at a low cost could be unbalancing the game?

Give credit where due. Good luck

I agree with King of Aces on the Heavy Tank stats: 4-4-1-8. Not sure about the 2-hit idea, but it sounds interesting. I suppose you could simply put a damage marker under it like you do with Capital ships that take the first damage hit but survive the battle.
Also interested in IL’s idea that Heavy Tanks can move 2 in NCM only.
Light tanks should be 2-2-2-5. Giving them 3 on defense is too much.