I don’t have to give it a chance to know it’s a bad idea
lulz I think its going to be fun! espeically with americas massive income and the fact that you cna only fit TWO units on a transport.
Just test the chinese rules and the global setup better than in AA50 (poor testing) and AA42 (zero testing) and I can live with 6 IPCs tanks . For the record, I agree with your argument about the new tank and the cruisers, Craig :-)
If they are adding more zones between Germany and Russia I’m not worried about tanks and mech inf. I’m worried about good old fashioned infantry and artillery. With such distances those units simply won’t be viable except in a defensive role.
agreed.
I agree. IF the distance between moscow and Germany is too huge, even if Infantry is cheaper, you will have a hard time moving them quickly to the front. My guess is : First few rounds buy INF + Fighters/bombers/tac. Then if you manage to break into the russian lines, buy all tank/mech inf to reinforce your infantry :)
On a defensive position, INF > Tank, always. Even in AA50. But, INF < INF + Tank. Balanced army will always win.
lets see the game before going into the price detail
Wrong again do the math, when on defense 12 infantry beats 4 tanks and 4 infantry every time, except in the case of some extremely unlucky dice rolls. You will however have a slight edge on defense. Maybe there is some argument for the tank after all. Okay Yoper you may be right. Are you satisfied?
Here are my two cents worth for the argument.
I think Mech Inf using 2 movement should attack at a 0 or be unable to move in the combat move phase unless paired with an armor or air unit. Mech Inf using 1 movement would attack as infantry. This would prevent all mech infanty forces from replacing armor completely. Or Mech Infantry could be replaced with “trucks” that carry 1 land unit and cost 1 IPC without counting as a unit for placement restrictions at a factory.
Option 1: What if Tanks offered damage resistance. “For each hit applied to an armor, roll a die to see if that hit is absorbed (2 or less)” (or try 3 or less since you have to remove the selected tank if it fails). All hits must be assigned before any absorb rolls are made. Each “hit” tank only gets 1 absorb roll per round, excess hits go on other units first or that tank is destroyed. (such as when the tank is by itself and the opponent scores two hits on it. The first could be ignored if lucky, but not the second.)
Option 2: For each hit applied to an armor, re-roll that that die keeping the new result. This would be stronger as weaker units would have a hard time getting through the armor. If an Inf were attacking, each 1 rolled and applied to an armor would make them reroll and look for another 1 to score the hit, but strong units would still rip through armor, as rerolling a 4 would not be as big of a deal. This may be too over powered. You might give the reroll a 1 better pip to hit result, either -1 to the die, or +1 to the chance to hit. As above each tank would only get 1 reroll per round. Excess hits would be automatic, as when 2 hits are scored on the last tank.(Example: If you rolled 6 hits on 5 units( 4 tanks and 1 Infantry) 1 tank and 1 Infantry are killed regardless of the rolls. The fifth hit would have to be on the Infantry, the sixth hit could not be rerolled as the 4 armor already used their 1 reroll per round. The other 3 tanks would have a chance to live.)
If armor could mitigate damage, their high cost would be right. Giving armor two hits to destroy would be too over powered, but a 33% or 50% (option 1)chance to soak off a hit might be just right for the cost… making 1 armor potentially better than 2 infantry for the same money. Try attacking 6 armor with 12 Infantry if 1/3rd of the hits are ignored on the armor.
Just my food for thought. I agree that armor will likely be built less often unless factory placement restrictions come into play more often.
Is the combined arms capability with a tac bomber (increased die roll) one reason for the price increase to 6 IPC tanks?
I am not sure how that dynamic will play out.
For the same amount of ipc, of course INF will win. Hell, 3 infantry > fighter all day. does that make fighter weak? If you answer yes, then clearly, we have a different conception of this game
I was saying that balanced army will always beat infantry stack (unless you are talking about equal IPC value army). But again, who would attack when guaranteed of losing?
Inf Defends at 2. So a stack of 20 infantry should average 1/3 so 6-7. 10 inf 10 tank should do about 6. Second round, the attacker should still do 6, defender will do about 5. Third round attacker, should do 5 and defender will do like 2-3. Of course, this kind of stat doesn’t work when applying to such huge numbers of dice. But I’m pretty convinced it should be about correct
However you do the math, it means three things:
1: This point is nearly inarguable, tanks are strictly worse than they were in AA50. The only advantages they receive is the ability to attack on 4 with a fighter (This will likely have very little impact), and the ability to carry along a bullet shield two spaces for 4IPCs in the form of MechInf (which may prove more useful).
2: An equal IPC stack of infantry on the attack will win 54% of the time at 6IPCs, and the limit of this figure aproaches 100% as the IPC value aproaches infinity. By only 24 IPCs the odds are 67% in favor of the attacking infantry. If the infantry defend and the tanks attack, the figure is, obviously, even more skewed in favor of the infantry. Thus, if only one space of movement per turn is needed, tanks are strictly worse than infantry.
3: Another two-movement land unit can now be purchased for 66% of the cost of a tank. The MechInf is significantly more cost effective on the defense than a tank, getting the same average number of hits per IPC while costing only 66% as much for 1 wound. Thus, tanks are not useful on the defense in any situation, only in an attacking scenario. The tank does provide an attack value of 3 for 60% of the cost of a fighter, and has twice the firepower per IPC as a mechanized on the attack. However the fighter is much more mobile, is more powerful on the defense, and has the flexibility to participate in naval combat. That doesn’t mean tanks are useless compared to fighters, you can buy a hell of a lot more for the same amount of money, but it does restrict tanks to a much more niche role than before. Tanks are not cost effective for a slow moving attack, infantry are much better for that. Tanks are only effective when you need both to be able to move quickly, and focus on offense much more than defense.
HI, my first post.
I don’t believe in favoring 1 unit over another. I’ve played several different versions of A&A and am the Axis 99% of the time (I like the challenge) Since I play Germany for most of the games, I have experienced my fair share of armored battles on the Eastern front. I’ve found that buying all tanks is ridiculous, as they are expensive to replace and are easily lost when clashing with a Soviet infantry stack. I also found that buying all infantry is not a wise thing also as they take forever to move to the front, and when they arrive their attack power is unreliable. The way I see it WWII was famous for its combined arms assaults, so now my most common buy is 5 infantry, 3 tanks, and 1 fighter. I find that this is a very flexible task force that is good for defense, attack, and counter attack for the reasonable cost of 40 IPC’s. However, this buy is made while tanks cost 5 IPC’s each. In the new game I plan on testing a task force comprised of 3 inf, 2 mech inf, 2 tanks, and one tac bomber, at a cost of 40 IPC’s. Basically what I’m saying is that it’s a good idea to be diverse in your purchases to meet the ever changing tide of battle.
There is no time limit in A&A so slow moving infantry is not a problem. It just postpones things a little. And if you keep buying a piece withbetter odds of survival than your opponent eventually the outcome will be favorable.
This is the same math that Las Vegas banks on.
Well, there is a sort of timelimit, because your allies will die while your slow army advances with the steps of a mouse…… and meanwhile the brits and americans are building up in the atlantic… :)
I will also say I’m glad the price of tanks is 6 now. With the new TAC unit, the mec. inf unit for 4IPC, and a larger map giving fast movement expanded value, the tank has to cost 6. Calculating clean combat odds vs unit costs makes little sense here, infantry must be the best buy there, if you have it combined with some firepower… Tanks will be worthwhile, building only tanks will not anymore…
hi guys,
I am interested in this costing thread. I agree that some units may not be costed right, or may not be playable because of their cost/ benifit ratio.
I don’t know if it has been brought up before but what about recosting the land units kinda like they did with the naval units?
Make standard infantry 2IPC, Mech 3IPC, Tanks ( 3att 3def ) 6IPC and give them 2 hits kinda like battleships with an added rule that if you allocate a hit to a tank the next hit taken during same combat must go to the damaged tank. That would just stop tank stacks from absorbing too many hits before they started getting destroyed.
Welcome to the forum Lowercore, +1 to you, your ideas will need some analysis.
I think giving 2 hit to tanks would make them way too powerful. Unless if its two hits from infantry/art. But then, it would make the game a little bit too complicated.
hmm there are going to be more territories so maybe that means more money? which could support things with an inflated cost
Hmm, it occurred to me that supposing there are a lot more territories in these 1940 games, then perhaps the Tank may regain some of its former value by being able to move two spaces. That way, you can capture more territory more quickly… This could be a factor. Just a thought…
