Are Mechs Too Strong?

Actually if you think about it mechanic are perfect. At fisrt glance some may say “artillery cost 4 attacks and defend 2 and have a special abillity so why don’t mechanic cost 4 attack and defend at 2 at all times?” Well obviously it is because the abillity to move 2 is better than the abillity to support other units by one pip.
So what is the problem here? Well right away we say that Germany and Japan are abusing the use of them. Well it just so happens that they as well as the UK are in a position that needs them. The only reason mechanic appear too strong is for that the Axis use a lot of them  AND have an advantage in this game. Axis buying mechs is just sound strategy. The only reason we may think it is unfair is due to the balance of the game being a bit in Axis favor.

P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  :-D

for their cost, tacs should attack and defend at 4, be able to intercept, be able to strat bomb factories, have a range of 15, and be able to call in the Death Star to obliterate the planet

@Charles:

P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  :-D

Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.

Fighter combat value points are:
3 off + 4 def + 4 move = 11 points for 10 IPCs.
And can be put on carrier.

Tactical combat value points are:
3.5 off+ 3 def + 4 move = 10.5 points for 11 IPCs.
Can land on carrier.
Can make bombing raid on AB and NB.

The question is what does worth the Tac Bombing Raid capacity?
1.5 points?
To reach 10.5 + 1.5 = 12 value points against 11 IPCs.
This would make Tac on par with Fighter 11 points for 10 IPCs.

Rising Tac offense to 4 makes 11 points for 11 IPCs.
+1 value point for TBR make it on par with Fighter:
12 points for 11 IPCs.
Half value of SBR, 1 vs 2 points, does it better reflect the real strength of TBR vs SBR?

Strategic bomber combat value points:
4 off +1 def + 6 move = 11 points for 12 IPCs.
If balanced and on par with Fg, it means SBR on IC capacity worth +2 points.
11 + 2 = 13 points for 12 IPCs.

@simon33:

@Charles:

P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  :-D

Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.

Fg  A3 D4 M4 C10
TcB A3-4 D3 M4 C10
At 10 IPCs, TcB combat values seems more like a mirror image of Fighter’s combat values.
One is for defense, Fg 3/4, TcB is for offense 3-4/3.
Usually, in A&A, offensive capacity cost a little more than the same defense value.

True. That is why I Say keep tacs at 11 IPCs but make them always attack at 4.

@Charles:

True. That is why I Say keep tacs at 11 IPCs but make them always attack at 4.

On a boardgame, pairing with Tank or Fighter is slowing down things a bit.
That is why I prefer your 11 IPCs TacB attacking @4.

However, Mech pairing or Inf pairing with Artillery is a more fluid process.

Any idea why?

I think Zhukov is right; mechs with artillery plus air support gives Germany the logistics to crush Russia to dust.  One solution might be to have mechs only move 2 when paired with a tank, whether blitzing or not.  Once the spearhead loses some mechs the tanks would become vulnerable.

I would rather give Russia 10 infantry extra than change mechs.

Mechs defending at 1 would be quite interesting, it would allow for a more dynamic Eastern front and make it easier for China to take back territories/deadzone against mech buys from Japanese ICs on the mainland.

Mechs are very strong that’s for sure, and they go hand in hand wih a solid Axis strategy, but is that a problem?

Fixing (by breaking) the weakest unit(s) in the game isn’t going to fix a general strategic imbalance with the entire experiment.  Why are we tinkering with units that people hardly buy?  To make them even less appealing? lol

Also, it doesn’t make sense to make unilateral changes that only affect one side or one nation.

Also, it is not realistic for combat units to be transported by warships.  This was never done as anything as a stopgap measure.  The ship cannot effectively fight when there are twice as many people on board half of whom are only in the way and contributing weight.  It cannot be free to maneuver or fight when it is supposed to get extremely near the beach, and it has no amenities (lighters, ramps, cranes etc.) that would be useful for unloading anything heavier than a man could carry.

Soldiers were dropped from destroyers into the surf with whatever they could carry.  Within a week they would have been sick, starving and in rags.

Warships can be handily used to carry troops across the ocean, but not directly into battle.  It is very rare to hear of a  contested landing in history made without specialized landing craft and unsupported by air and sea superiority because no-one would survive.

@wittmann:

The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.

This is a good idea, it gives a nod to American logistics.

@General:

@wittmann:

The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.

This is a good idea, it gives a nod to American logistics.

And Russian Tank put at 5 IPCs.
This can provides more teeth and mobility on the asian front against Japanese MechInf.

@taamvan:

Also, it is not realistic for combat units to be transported by warships.   This was never done as anything as a stopgap measure.   The ship cannot effectively fight when there are twice as many people on board half of whom are only in the way and contributing weight.   It cannot be free to maneuver or fight when it is supposed to get extremely near the beach, and it has no amenities (lighters, ramps, cranes etc.) that would be useful for unloading anything heavier than a man could carry.

Soldiers were dropped from destroyers into the surf with whatever they could carry.   Within a week they would have been sick, starving and in rags.

**Warships can be handily used to carry troops across the ocean, but not directly into battle.  **It is very rare to hear of a  contested landing in history made without specialized landing craft and unsupported by air and sea superiority because no-one would survive.

It depends a lot on what a sculpt and unit figure for.
A lot of support ships not present in A&A were needed to have a working Fleet Task Force.
If you take a moderate approach, it is possible to believe that a few troop transports are amongst the bigger warships and their support ships, hence allowing 1 Infantry (and only Infantry) to be unloaded in NCM.
Transport units would figure for landing barges, and all cargo type transports able to carry Inf and other costlier land units.
From a game POV, I don’t think 1 Inf moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship unit is OP.

Its not that its overpowered, its not realistic and it goes against the separation of jobs–transports transport and the rest of the units fight.

It also affects the different nations differently; some use warships and some don’t.    If a change doesn’t address a problem, it causes new ones.

If we did allow the warships to carry 1 infantry, I don’t see it as particularly useful even if we assumed that it did address some problem.  If you forward stage the units, that’s ok for defense but as you said, they can’t land during combat.  In that case, the infantry would still need a transport to arrive at some future point in order to project power.

Three pages and the case for change has not been successfully made IMO.

I don’t think Zhukov’s original question has been answered, that is, because of board and positional air strength are mech inf too strong and favor the Axis power’s too much?

The arguments I have read here are all about the nuts and bolts of the pieces and costs within a bubble.

If I am reading the original question/post correctly, the answer would be more like:  When operating in Russia (Nov/Bel/Bry/Ros/Cauc) and East, as well as Sub-Sahara Africa only mechanized inf belonging to the original territory owner may use it’s extra movement point except as part of a paired blitz movement.

This would allow Germany to rebuild it’s front lines up to Ukraine and Poland with fair speed but bog down closer to Moscow and south into the middle east, while Japan would have a 1 hex per move slog across China or Siberia

@PGMatt:

I don’t think Zhukov’s original question has been answered, that is, because of board and positional air strength are mech inf too strong and favor the Axis power’s too much?

The arguments I have read here are all about the nuts and bolts of the pieces and costs within a bubble.

If I am reading the original question/post correctly, the answer would be more like:  When operating in Russia (Nov/Bel/Bry/Ros/Cauc) and East, as well as Sub-Sahara Africa only mechanized inf belonging to the original territory owner may use it’s extra movement point except as part of a paired blitz movement.

This would allow Germany to rebuild it’s front lines up to Ukraine and Poland with fair speed but bog down closer to Moscow and south into the middle east, while Japan would have a 1 hex per move slog across China or Siberia

I kind of dislike conditional rules. Maybe just add more. Chinese and Russian units?

Honestly Charles, I’m not a good enough player to exploit the issues that Zhukov is raising, I was just trying to address the question rather than “are mech inf. too strong/good/value for IPC”  I dont think my proposal is one I would actually want to play with, it’s too complicated for this style of war game.

@taamvan:

Its not that its overpowered, its not realistic and it goes against the separation of jobs–transports transport and the rest of the units fight.

It also affects the different nations differently; some use warships and some don’t.    If a change doesn’t address a problem, it causes new ones.

If we did allow the warships to carry 1 infantry, I don’t see it as particularly useful even if we assumed that it did address some problem.   If you forward stage the units, that’s ok for defense but as you said, they can’t land during combat.   In that case, the infantry would still need a transport to arrive at some future point in order to project power.

The Allied problem in Europe is not so much successfully landing on Normandy, but holding it.

Enabling the Allies to move additional units as reinforcements via NCM does not change the expense of projecting force for an amphibious landing, but it does enable them to secure a territory and develop momentum for the next move.

I wouldn’t get entirely caught up in this - no rules will be changing anytime soon.

As for Mechs being too strong - the strength of the Axis is in mobility and concentrating its power.

Mechs are an enabler in this concept and probably should be struck from Japan’s ability to purchase at all.  That could help slow down Japan immensely on the mainland.

As for the Germans, they wouldn’t abuse Mechs so much and exploit their strength if they were forced to face a two front war sooner.  The entire game is premised on how fast the Allies can force the Germans to make defensive investments.

From my understanding, the earliest this can even happen is around US4-US5 and that is with a 100% Europe investment that will land 10 units per round in Europe going forward.  Unfortunately, the Russians have gone into full retreat by this point in the game and the Germans can “afford” to redirect income back to Europe to repel the early landings.

And…. we haven’t even talked about the Italians running interference on those landings yet.