Im thinking that with a western front of the US, Uk, and France at least one of these powers could produce some tanks with others pitching in on defense. And don’t forget, two attacks pays for itself. :wink:
And by Middle East I mean amphibious brits
I still don’t see the advantage of 1 tank when you can buy 2 infantry for less.
@AA:
I still don’t see the advantage of 1 tank when you can buy 2 infantry for less.
They are the same and we’ll settle this on Friday :wink:
I’m just now getting to the fourth turn in our game (got it on Tuesday :-D ), so obviously we haven’t yet seen what effect tanks will have on the battles. I think we should play with them as is for a while before suggesting a change though. From what we’ve seen this is a different game then we’re used to. The way the contested territories work your not generally fighting to the death, so absorbing a few hits to keep your army strong will be beneficial as the aggressor the further you get from your capital.
Its hard to just say a tank is twice the cost of inf, attacks the same, but defends horribly so its not worth it. I get that 2 inf would cost the same and both would get to fire in a battle. The net worth of the tank as the aggressor is if the tank is involved in 3 battles that you have also kept 3 inf or art alive. As the aggressor you are probably pretty far from your capital and if you lose inf/art they could be hard to replace at the front lines.
I can see a problem though if you are buying tanks and the tide is turned, or you attack into a territory and it is contested you don’t get the free hit as the defender, and yea it rolls like crap when defending. I will still wait until I’ve seen it in action before I condemn it though.
But i want a formal apology when i prove how useless the old landships are.
Very excited for this game… found out about it just two weeks ago, and should have my game by friday. 2 quick and 1 kind of complicated questions first though…
1. Naval Bases belong to sea zones and territories, not just territories, correct? Ex., France cannot build sea units in zone 8 and 15, but only in zone 15?
2. For amphibious assaults, artillery firing at landing units are first strikes, however battleships are not? Seems odd…
3. Scenario: Germany owns Belgium and France owns Picardy. Neither are contested, and Germany has 2 transports loaded with 4 infantry in sea zone 9, while France has 4 artillery and 1 infantry in Picardy. Can Germany, on its turn, send 10 artillery into Picardy from Belgium, along with the 4 infantry from the sea, and bank on their being at least 1 infantry that survives the artillery bombardment? If so, what happens if they all die? Do the artillery have to retreat? If this tactic is illegal, what if France only had 3 artillery in Picardy, guaranteeing that at least one infantry would make it to shore. Is it legal then?
@The:
3. Scenario: Germany owns Belgium and France owns Picardy. Neither are contested, and Germany has 2 transports loaded with 4 infantry in sea zone 9, while France has 4 artillery and 1 infantry in Picardy. Can Germany, on its turn, send 10 artillery into Picardy from Belgium, along with the 4 infantry from the sea, and bank on their being at least 1 infantry that survives the artillery bombardment? If so, what happens if they all die? Do the artillery have to retreat? If this tactic is illegal, what if France only had 3 artillery in Picardy, guaranteeing that at least one infantry would make it to shore. Is it legal then?
You check for the “at least one required infantry being on each territory you control” at the end of your turn. If you don’t have at least one infantry in a territory you control, you have to replace/demote a unit to an infantry.
@Texas:
Kreighund,
Any chance that there will be an official change for the tank- making it a cost of $5 instead of $6???�� I don’t wanna get ahead of myself but several here think (and those tested the game already think) that the tank is useless as it stands.�� No real purpose of buying it, might as well soak hits with the more powerful infantry or artillery.�� The tank as a unit already seems broken.�� Can you explain futher???
Waiting for a reply on this- thanks. :-)
I think once you see it in action or run the numbers, you will change your mind on the tank.
Here is an example of its effect in combat compared to an equal cost of 2 infantry.� For simplicity, I won’t list the units accompanying these units and the numbers are the sum of all units attack/defense.
Offense 1
1 tank - attack 2
2 inf - attack 4Defense 1
1 tank, 1 inf - defend 4
2 inf - defend 6Offense 2
1 tank, 1 inf - attack 4
2 inf - attack 4Defense 2
1 tank, 2 inf - defend 7
2 inf - defend 6It just keeps adding after that.� The initial investment will weaken you, but the western front will not be one in one round of combat.� Also, say the above was taking place in Lorraine, the infantry saved by the tank are infantry that didn’t have to be purchased and marched 4 spots from Berlin.� The combat is a lot slower in this version, even more so with the large number of spaces between Berlin and Paris.
You seem to be comparing apples to oranges here. Ex.in Attack 2:
1tnk, 1inf= 9IPCs versus 2inf= 6IPC.
This should be 3inf= 9IPC at an attack of 6
vs.
1tnk, 1inf= 9IPCs at an attack of 4plus the extra inf gives you an extra hit, that washes out the tank soaking a hit. With infantry having a much better defense alone at a 3-1 advantage over the tank.
Also for 7IPCs I can buy an infantry and artillery- 2 hit shots with an attack of 6 and a defense of 6 and not to mention the possibility of air supremacy to bump up the artillery up to 7/7.
All that versus 1 single tank at 6IPCs, with equal movement, no air supremacy bonus, attack at 2 and defense at 1 and to compensate all the tank gets is a single soak hit.
I could run some other combos and I do realize that I may be getting ahead of myself but the initial numbers don’t seem to make sense.
Am I really missing something here??? If I am, PLEASE Kreighund or somebody enlighten me… :?
I don’t think you fully understand how tanks work. Of course the IPC values in Attack 2 aren’t equal, that is due to the tank saving a life during the first attack. If you are talking defense, you also have to take into consideration that the tank saved an infantry on offense. So 2 infantry will defend at 3-3, a tank that saved a life on offense is sort of defending at 3-1. Keep in mind, that tank saves a life every attack. You compared it to that extra infantry giving you an extra a hit, while that is true, it is only true for that first round. Your next attack, your tank soaks up another hit, your infantry that soaked up a hit the first round is still dead. Think after 4 rounds of attacks, that single tank has soaked up 4 hits. So after 4 rounds 1 tank worth 6 IPCs is now worth 1 tank and 4 infantry worth 18 IPCs.
Tank absorb 6 dice eyes and attack with 2. Total offencive capability 8.
Defence 1.
Absorbing hits in one round combat is equally or better than giving a hit.
If combat lasted more than one round tank would be compleatly waste to buy.
Goes without saying that tanks must be paired with inf and artillery to survive.
Tanks also very good at fighting neutrals like Norway and Sweden.
You are all going to buy tanks soon enough.
Also I have a question:
Can canadian units go into United States before they US is at war, so they can jump into american transports when at war.
Also can fighters take off from transports.
Yea, I can’t see how you would think tanks aren’t worth their money, I’d think they are quite powerful, maybe een too powerful.
As soon as a tank has attacked twice and soaked up a hit each time he has already saved at least 6 IPC, and has maybe dealt some damage on top of that.
I’d rather imagine, that defending becomes meaningless in the late game, since attacks with many tanks would mean no lost units when attacking. Then it’s all about having enough Infantry to take the hits on defence to save your tanks for the counterattack.
I’m beginning to suspect that the RR as written is a dead letter because:
1. Since it occurs on the Russian turn, the Allies will manipulate it to their advantage, particularly by ensuring it happens before the CPs can take Moscow, thus denying them the advantages of that including obtaining a victory objective.
2. In the light of 1. above, the CP will ensure that the circumstances in which revolution can occur never in fact so so, and that they take Moscow by a direct route instead, thus precluding any chance of Revolution.
I think they’d better think it out again.
I completely agree here. I see no advantage for the CPs to force revolution over capturing Moscow directly. They lose out on a victory city and the IPC bonus. I would say if by triggering the revolution the CPs still kept the advantages it would be worth, but not otherwise.
Krieg, first of all, thanks for all your answers and clarifications.
Perhaps you can clear up an issue from another thread.
If a territory is controlled by an enemy power (their marker is on the tt and they are receiving IPC’s), and the power that originally controlled the tt attacks, but all units on both sides are destroyed, does control revert to the original power, or the occupying power?
My best guess the occupying power, but it would be nice to get official clarification.
@The:
1. Naval Bases belong to sea zones and territories, not just territories, correct? Ex., France cannot build sea units in zone 8 and 15, but only in zone 15?
Correct.
@The:
2. For amphibious assaults, artillery firing at landing units are first strikes, however battleships are not? Seems odd…
Yep. It’s all part of making amphibious assaults very bloody for the attacker.
@The:
3. Scenario: Germany owns Belgium and France owns Picardy. Neither are contested, and Germany has 2 transports loaded with 4 infantry in sea zone 9, while France has 4 artillery and 1 infantry in Picardy. Can Germany, on its turn, send 10 artillery into Picardy from Belgium, along with the 4 infantry from the sea, and bank on their being at least 1 infantry that survives the artillery bombardment? If so, what happens if they all die? Do the artillery have to retreat? If this tactic is illegal, what if France only had 3 artillery in Picardy, guaranteeing that at least one infantry would make it to shore. Is it legal then?
This move is illegal. At least one German infantry must enter Picardy by land.
You check for the “at least one required infantry being on each territory you control” at the end of your turn. If you don’t have at least one infantry in a territory you control, you have to replace/demote a unit to an infantry.
No, that rule only applies to newly mobilized units.
Can canadian units go into United States before they US is at war, so they can jump into american transports when at war.
No.
Also can fighters take off from transports.
No.
If a territory is controlled by an enemy power (their marker is on the tt and they are receiving IPC’s), and the power that originally controlled the tt attacks, but all units on both sides are destroyed, does control revert to the original power, or the occupying power?
My best guess the occupying power, but it would be nice to get official clarification.
From page 19 of the Rulebook:
In the rare event that no units from any power remain in the territory, the original controller of the territory will assume control. If the territory is a minor aligned power, the power that it is aligned with will assume control. If the territory is a minor neutral power, no power will assume control.
Once territories are contested (which happens as soon as an enemy force moves in), they have no “memory” of any previous controller other than the original one. The original controller is the power whose sole emblem is on the territory (neutral territories, aligned or otherwise, have no original controller).
I’ve use an informal rule that the minimum one infantry/demotion rule is enforced at the end of a movement phase as well.
So if someone spots that the rule is violated before combat begins, does the moving player have to take back the units altogether, rather than simply demote a unit?
Movement clarification please: Units leaving a contested territory can only enter other contested territories or friendly territories, that means that units boarding a transport from a contested territory can not be dropped off to participate in a amphibious assault? But they can be dropped off for an amphibious reinforcement? Is this correct?
I think units retreating from a contested territory can’t board transports.
Units leaving a contested territory can ONLY enter other contested territories or friendly territories (transports are neither)
I think units retreating from a contested territory can’t board transports.
Units leaving a contested territory can ONLY enter other contested territories or friendly territories (transports are neither)
It says on page 15 paragraph 3 under land units, “if they are moved by transport, they may also remain at sea” therefor it implies they can be moved by sea from a contested territory but only to be moved into an existing friendly or already contested location
So if someone spots that the rule is violated before combat begins, does the moving player have to take back the units altogether, rather than simply demote a unit?
That’s correct. Of course, the error could also be corrected by moving an infantry unit in, if one could legally get there.
It says on page 15 paragraph 3 under land units, “if they are moved by transport, they may also remain at sea” therefor it implies they can be moved by sea from a contested territory but only to be moved into an existing friendly or already contested location
Correct.
Can can country like UK, activate Portugal? If they can, they will be french units right?
Lets say Russia attacked Mesopotamia round 1 and is contesting it. UK follows up with a force from India transport. UK kills the remaining defenders. Does Russia or UK take the territory?
