Japan tank Blitz no more

I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.

This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:

for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.

The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.

So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.

Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)

7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense

If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.

If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.

Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

So far Der Kuenstler’s idea makes the most sense to me. I’m still not totally sold on the idea that one unit can make 2 different attacks in the same turn though. It’s great for attacking but at some time you have to defend that move as well. There’s value in having a front line to protect a capital or expensive units in behind it. I’d be more inclined to accept the “Rollover” option but make it so that units could retreat instead of advancing in another attack. That way you could leave infantry in the newly acquired territory (or nothing in) and retreating your expensive units away from a counterstrike but only if you succeed on the first roll in wiping out the enemy.

yes that’s what we do - you can move forward (or backward) with any units that have movement left. There is a downside of doing 2 attacks - your second land attack will be with all more expensive units that are exposed without infantry support.

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).

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

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

@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 !

@Cmdr:

Where and how to place free infantry for violating the neutral agreement which derived from the cash for doing so.

Oh yes, now I dismember, I mean remember. We are starting a house rule game monday and I want to see a more binding non-aggression pact between Japan and the Soviets.

no fractions. make it easy.