Does anyone else think tanks are too expensive?

I’m currentley working on an ‘Armageddon’ type of rule set. I decided that in addition to Nuclear rules and other goodies that I wanted zombies. I downloaded the rule book for Zombies and printed it off. It took me about an hour to figure out how to do it without the special cards and tokens. I decided just to put a blank marker under the piece that is a Zombie unit.
Without the cards I have made it so that the Zombies are stationary. Unless, you have the tech that allows you to move one. I decided to treat the chart with the advantages as a research board for my game.
Has anyone else done this?

Also, I wonder if having an 8 VC count makes the Axis advantage overbearing? May have to play with a bid for something like this

@SS:

:-D :-D :-D

@crusaderiv:

I’ve seen the T34 and sub rules somewhere…

Sorry, I completly forgot that you wrote such HR.
So I credit the idea above as yours Crusader.
I was thinking about ATG and this T-34 redux cost came to my mind as another way to provide a counterweight to German’s MI, MArt and Tank.
Then, I looked for a way  to give a special thing to Germany.

I resulted into your HR.
I like it as a small mod which add a lot of historical flavor.
Good idea Crusader!

First of all, we never changed the setup from the OOB setup.  All we changed were the land movement rules to allow two moves into a friendly or already contested space as the second space, and the extended 3-move sea movement from friendly sea bases.  And we added in the economic and political collapse rules.

What that led to was a series of games where one side would engage in cheap moves, like dropping one Italian guy in Smyrna to help push the Ottomans into collapse.  It was making the game stupid so we altered the rules to have the effects of political collapse kick in at the end of the turn, and if out of economic collapse the country could collect money.  This in turn unbalanced the game the other way, by creating situations where Germany was in economic collapse at the beginning of every turn but out at the end of every turn, and so it kept collecting money and had something like 110 IPCs when it got lucky and started its turn able to buy about 3 rounds later.

It also led to situations where countries were in political collapse for three or four turns and then managed to turn things around by getting out before the end of that country’s turn each round of game play.

As a result, we think we hit on the right balance: (1) at the beginning of a country’s turn, before purchasing, it must check for collapse.  If it is in economic collapse, it loses all its money.  If it is also in political collapse, it may only conduct moves that are into spaces that would allow it to stop that collapse in addition to losing all its money.  Then check again at the end of the turn.  If it is still in political collapse, it is out of the game.  If it is still in economic collapse, it collects no money.  If it is out of both, it collects money.  (2) In the event that a country starts its own turn in political collapse twice in a row, it immediately, at the beginning of its turn, is out of the game.

These changes to the rules, based on our playtesting, seem to fix the crazy/“cheap” moves and balance the game better.

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

Opps sorry Missed that one this “morning” your right even having the map right beside me then and thinking it, ya well have a spring 44 scenario without the need for Operation Bagration :-P Belerus should’ve been in that list too. Thanks :-)

@imperious-leader said in ANTI-TANK UNIT:

Ok unit is a 3-2-1-5 unit.

But moves 2 in NCM

if it rolls one in combat, another tank or armor class unit must be taken as loss by defender.

Bingo !

no fractions. make it easy.