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.
The starting point for tanks should use the new values of 3-3-2-6
so anything house would cost more than 6.
heavy tank: 3-4-2-7
elite tanks: 4-4-2-8
both limited to one build/replacement per turn and total of 6 each on the map per nation.
or you can rebuild destroyed units at -1 cost as long as its the next turn
or you can make a 2 hit step loss elite armor units ( like a BB) at 4-4-2-10, limit 6, one per turn build.
Anything over 3 in AA games must be limited in quantities. A 4 unit on land is a game breaker even if its moving only 2, so you must limit quantities. I know this from playing with them for many years in my house games.
A 4-4-2-8 Heavy Tank won’t make a 3-3-2-6 Tank obsolite, or at least statistically. Here’s why:
We start with the lowest common denominator in IPCs, which is 64 IPCs (6 IPCs x 8 IPCs).
With 64 IPCs, you can either buy 8 Medium Tanks or 6 Heavy Tanks. Interestingly, the attack points for both groups is the same: 24 (Med=8x3=24, Hvy=6x4=24).
However, the Medium Tanks have a clear advantage due to their numerical superiority.
By dividing the number of attack points on each side by 6, we can determin the most likely number of casualties to be inflicted in each round of combat.
I the first round, both sides will inflict 4 hits (24/6=4)
The Medium Tanks are reduced to 4, and are down to 12 attack points.
Heavy Tanks are down to 2, with only 8 attack points.
It’s all over by the second round, where the Heavys inflict one more casualty before they are wiped out.
Victory goes to the Meduim tanks, yet they took heavy losses, 5 out of 8.
Therefor, in the long run, Medium Tanks are the better buy. The more IPCs you spend on Tanks (64 IPCs is a lot, mind you), and the more battles you fight, the more the war begins to tip statisticaly in favor of the player who buys Medium Tanks.
So, considdering this, why would anyone want to buy a Heavy Tank? It all comes down to those extra 1 or 2 IPCs you have left. Do you want to spend them now or later? Many would say “now”, and buy a HT instead of a MT.
Then the solution would be that the unit must have some unique value to it.
Perhaps on a roll of one it can select hit, or on defense it can retreat, or it takes two hits, or the hit is preemptive, or ?
How about this rule?
When a smaller tank is attacking a larger tank it takes 2 hits to destroy the larger tank.
I seem to recall that Shermans had a difficult time destroying Tigers.
@Imperious:
Then the solution would be that the unit must have some unique value to it.
Perhaps on a roll of one it can select hit, or on defense it can retreat, or it takes two hits, or the hit is preemptive, or ?
thats what I have been saying. defends at four, Preemptive roll on defence, costs 9.
When a smaller tank is attacking a larger tank it takes 2 hits to destroy the larger tank.
This is not in keeping with KISS rules. This is because its conditional. It should be the same rule always.
defends at four, Preemptive roll on defence, costs 9.
yes this is better. might even be it.
@Deaths:
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.
Hey, there is a new tech, improved roads, tanks can go three spaces. :-D just kidding!
Preemtive roll is too powerful, even for 10 IPCs. Everything would get slaughtered. With two hits, it’s almost the same as a preemptive roll, just med tanks last longer. I won’t bother with the math…
I don’t think the 4-4 tank needs any special ability. The whole statistical analysis was just to show the historical accuracy of the Heavy Tank in contrast with the Medium Tank. Both historically, and in A&A MT is the better long term buy. I consider this example no different than the 30 IPC example with tanks vs infantry: 5-6 tanks vs 10 infantry. Yes, infantry win, as they should. Just as the Med tank ought not make the infantry obsolite, so the HT ought not to make the MT obsolite. The 4-4-2-8 is good enough. Players will buy it because it’s a 4-4 unit, period. It will kill lots of stuff. Also, the new Fighter Bomber will allow it to attack on a 5! That’s planty good w/o giving it a preemtive hit.
…however, if you must
The Field Marshal Games Heavy Tank for Italy will be an assault gun, basically a mobile heavy artillery. Perhaps HTs could support infantry in attack or something. :|
I agree , Tanks do not need any Pre anything. a 4-4 tank is bad ass enough
@Deaths:
I agree , Tanks do not need any Pre anything. a 4-4 tank is bad a** enough
But then it is just an all around super tank, not a heavy tank. Maybe those stats would be good for an M1 Abrams, but Heavy tanks in World War 2 were generaly best on the defence and thats what this unit should be, not just anther unit for the sake of another unit that does not have any specfic role to fill.
Let me rephrase then, a 3,4,2 Tank is Bad Ass Enough, you still don’t need a Pre anything type of deal.
@Deaths:
Let me rephrase then, a 3,4,2 Tank is Bad a** Enough, you still don’t need a Pre anything type of deal.
Yah but I am afraid that if it costs 8 or 9, and it should cost 9 to show how hard it was to make heavy tanks, then a fighter will almost always be a better buy.
I DisAgree,
A land unit that has a 4 Defense has 1 really big Advantage. It does not have to end it’s move in a Friendly Territory you controlled at the begining of your turn. You no longer have to commit your fighters to those Iffy Defensive positions either. It would not take the place of Med Tanks either Based on Cost Alone. This unit is what you folks sound like you want in a Heavy Unit. A Defensive H. Tank.
8 IPC’s is Just Cost for a 3,4,2 Tank. Expensive ( Your not going to have a stack of these like you would w/ med. Tanks) yet Cost effective if used correctly.
A Down side could be that only 1 fits in tranny, No infantry ride alongs
A Cost of 8 is also the same (or was) as Trans, and Subs. Both Complicated and Expensive units to Build.
Yah but I am afraid that if it costs 8 or 9, and it should cost 9 to show how hard it was to make heavy tanks, then a fighter will almost always be a better buy.
That makes no sense… So by that line of thought, Why Does a Bomber cost 12 IPC’s and a A Cruiser Cost 12 pts?
America pumped out far more Bombers then Cruisers And Yet they Cost the Same. But Obviously one was much “Harder” to build. :roll:
Ok, I agree with you.
cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank
Ok, I agree with you.
cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank
You got it.
cept maybe the transport rule, “Must Ride Alone”
