I call it the “Post-Revised Tank”
Umm, not to brag, but the 6 IPC 3-3 tank was my idea
so it was, +1
I still dont like heavy tanks attacking at 4 though
why are you afraid?
JK
my H tanks work as a 4,4,2,10
seems balanced in cost vs quality ratio
Russia had no issues attacking w/ H tanks.
@Deaths:
Russia had no issues attacking w/ H tanks.
yah thats true, but i dont think that should be represented by a four or less attack. Alot of times it A&A it is good to attack with units that are good on the defence so you can better defend the terriotry. I think this is a pretty good way to reprsent soviet heavy armor because once they started attacking with it, they rarely lost any territroy.
Heavy tanks are definitely strongest on defence, and should not have the blitz ability.
My values are revised to account for movement, which is always 1 territory into combat, 2nd breakthrough move for light and medium tanks, unlimited NC movement for all land units via train.
Inf: 1-2-3
LT: 2-2-4 (breakthrough)
MT: 3-2-5 (breakthrough)
SPG: 1-4-5
HT: 3-4-6 (tech)
Art: 2-2-4
HA: 3-2-5 (tech)
AT: N/A-3-6 (can transport 2 units safely)
RG: 4-N/A-8
Rather than elite infantry such as marines I’d prefer national infantry such as Indian (tan) and Anzac (tan and green).
And armoured trains would be the coolest pieces you can make…
Inf: 1-2-3
LT: 2-2-4 (breakthrough)
MT: 3-2-5 (breakthrough)
SPG: 1-4-5
HT: 3-4-6 (tech)
Art: 2-2-4
HA: 3-2-5 (tech)
AT: N/A-3-6 (can transport 2 units safely)
RG: 4-N/A-8
thats alot of different land units, are you sure they all have a role to play? I have always liked the idea of self-proppeled artillery or assualt guns as Germany and the Soveits used many of these weapons as subtitues for tanks as mobile infantry support weapons, but why are they defending at four, shoudn’t they be good at attacking for there purpose was to advance with the infantry not hide hull down. Also I think your heavy tank just dosnt cost enough to reflect how much harder they were to produce than the medium tanks like the Sherman and T-34.
Well yes it’s realy interresting but i agree.
Too much units.
My axis and Allies pieces
Sea based units
All the traditional units including Cruisers
Land Based
Inf.
Mechanized/ Elite Units
Tanks
H. Tanks
Artillery
Paratroopers
Airforce
Sky Trains for all country’s (paratroopers need a ride)
H Tanks, Paratroopers and Sky Trains are tech Based
Mechanized Inf call Pull Arty during Noncombat
I agree that there are too many units in my list; I’m just comparing possible variations.
I’m not particularly convinced we need even artillery, and with my land movement rules the new “mech infantry” piece is anachronistic. Neither do I want paratroopers, fortresses
As for the cost of my Heavy Tanks, remember that they are a tech, so (apart from Russia) the cost is born largely in development, and they don’t have the breakthrough ability (more powerful than blitzing).
I don’t see people buying heavy tanks at 10 IPCs, however powerful. Give me more fighters every time.
I agree flashman.
Heavy tank must be a tech.
6 IPC for USSR
7 IPC for Germany.
Maybe 8 for USA.
Personnaly, i’m not a big fan of artillery but i think this weapon must be represented.
I used a lot paratroopers and for me it’s a must.
Fortress!= Useless!!!
lucky dice it’s my better defence!!!
Anyway I used this USSR House rules = Russian infantry defend at 3 in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad.
As for the cost of my Heavy Tanks, remember that they are a tech, so (apart from Russia) the cost is born largely in development, and they don’t have the breakthrough ability (more powerful than blitzing).
Well, I guess I dont know as much as I should about this, but i would imagine that you could produce alot more medium tanks than heavy tanks even if you have the tech. Maybe the German over-engineered heavy tanks were an exception but I rebember learning how hard they were to make and were greatly infeior in production ability to the medium tanks like the T-34 which were made so you could produce them in large numbers. Wernt the IS-2 and M26 harder to make than the T-34 and Sherman. Heavy tanks should not obsolete medium tanks, thats just unhisotrical, as medium tanks were still being produced in larger numbers at the end of the war. Also it is not fare to call the KV-1 a heavy tank even though it was technicaly due to its weight. Should the CharB have the stats of a heavy tank?No. Th KV-1 in combat, attacking or defending, was inferior to the T-34. The Russian command beleive this at least. Its production was stoped in 1943 and almost ten times as many T-34s were built
I think 8-9 IPCs is a good price for heavy tanks that defend at four and fire pre-emptivly when defending.
And Flashman, what do you have against paratroopers? I see how you could say it was not used in big enough units for this kind of game, but is was a fairly decsive weapon. If could have stats that are lower than a normal infantry unit to show that it only represents a divsion or two, but then give it a powerful surprise attack ability during airborne attacks. maybe they should select their targets the first round like fighter bombers might do at sea.
I think light tanks are needed to represent early war as well as nations that started out that way or used them more extensively. Japan would be a stretch to have med tanks. Italy used a lot of light and some medium but no heavy tanks. Even the French char-b was heavy but not like the late war tiger II or JS series the Russians had. I like the light , med, and heavy tank idea and the superheavy with Germany. I agree, no blitz on heavy tanks, they were slow.
Where were paras decisive?
At Crete? Arnhem?
Personally, I wouldn’t pay 10 IPCs for a 6-6 land unit. I’d rather have 3 infantry, which has the same defence value and can absorb 3 times the hits. Or an extra fighter, which can attack anywhere, and isn’t going to be left stranded like a sitting duck when I capture a territory.
They were decisive in Norway and Normandy. And although Crete was a desisaster in many ways that inland would have been immpossible to take without them. They are also division size and are at least as worthy to be dedicated peices as artillery.
And i didnt suggest a 10 IPC 6-6 land unit. That just dosnt make any sence. try to respond to what is accually posted.
My point is that paying 9+ IPCs is too much for a tank, however powerful it is. 3 Infantry or a fighter will always be better value.
When I play, most of the actual killing is done by aircraft, with infantry along to absorb hits. I only really buy armour because the anachronistic land movement rules require units which can move to the front line faster.
My point is that paying 9+ IPCs is too much for a tank, however powerful it is. 3 Infantry or a fighter will always be better value.
Well thats simply illogical, your saying that a unit that cost 9 IPCs, no matter the other stats, could never differ or be better than a fighter or 3 infantry. Surly there are many different types of unquie units you can add to A&A.
I wouldn’t pay more then 8 IPC’s for a tank or any other land unit for that matter. I personally would rather have a fighter for $2 more. As Nice as Tanks Are, They can’t attack Shipping. Planes are sweet also but they can’t take territory but they can move out of an area after a attack.
Planes have a total Movement of 4 and the tank, even with Panzer Blitz, is only a 3.
Hypothetically
Your Tank costs $8 and is a 4,4,2. (could even be 3,4,2)
No special abilities unless you are Germany w/ Panzer Blitz, and is restricted to land combat only
Your Fighter cost $10 and is a 3,4,4
Can Aquire Jet Fighters, can escort Bombers, and act as interceptors, can attack on land or in the Sea
Now comparing the 2 units side by side, IMO you get more bang for your Buck with airplanes as far as flexibility.
The H Tank is useful for putting up a nice Defence with out having to commit your air power to do the same job for $2 less dollars.
Each piece has it’s own Niche or roll to fill and are both valuable assets to any ones forces if used correctly.
Both of these pieces are useless without Boots on the ground though. In any attack or defense, Inf. are at the heart of it all.
@Deaths:
Your Tank costs $8 and is a 4,4,2. (could even be 3,4,2)
No special abilities unless you are Germany w/ Panzer Blitz, and is restricted to land combat only
yah but then spending the 8 ipcs on infantry is almost always going to be better. I like the 3-4-2 stats but I also think on the defence it should have suprise attack roll like a sub so it is a good defensive unit but needs infantry for it to survive. Fighters are good for attacking, while these would be better defenders because they are slightly cheaper and get that first strike roll. This unit could also defend a terriotry that was just taken. I think 9 IPCs would be a good price, becuase you dont want new units to be over bought, but i also undestand pricing it at 8.
It seems that the general consensus is that Heavy Tanks shouldn’t be able to blitz, so here are my 2 cents.
Regular Tank
3 Attack
3 Defense
2 Move (may blitz)
5 IPC cost
Heavy Tank
4 Attack
4 Defense
1 Move
6 IPC cost (If the regular tanks cost 6, then these should cost 7.)
Just lower their movement points to 1. I think that these units would definitely be bought and used, but they wouldn’t make artillery or regular tanks obsolete.
It seems that the general consensus is that Heavy Tanks shouldn’t be able to blitz,
I think they should be able to Blitz. you pay a Arm and a Leg for them, and generally when you move 2 spaces, you can almost be certain the first space would be on improved roads.
