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.

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.

  There is a difference between soldier vs. soldier, tank vs. tank, plane vs. plane and the likes of the A-bomb. 

Well they are all different ways of killing people, that is for sure. But thats why I play A&A, because there are so many different weapons in it. The varity in units is what sperates it from games like Risk, Diplomacy or Conquest of the Empire.
I dont really understand you point about Modern armies not using A-bombs. First off modern armies have nuclear weapons that are much more powerful and accuarte than the Atom bombs dropped on Japan , and secondly weapons change and some become usless like battleships, but that is no reason to not have them in a WW2 game. If I understand your argument correctly your saying A-bombs are to insecnitive to have in an A&A game, but I will disagree with you until you explain to me how it is anymore insesitive than the millions of other acts of violence implide in A&A play.

if we go with Larry on this and that map is a draft from before, there's a whole bunch of money coming to China! wahoo!

Well, given the map, larry misspoke. The chinese terriotries controlled by the chinese at the begining of the game are only worth one IPC each. 16 IPCs though is till alot more than in the past.

god i cant wate any longer for starcraft 2 to come out, these transport planes though I am not to sure about.

Sarcasm's dead.


oh wait, let me try that again, didn't come out right...

Sarcasm's dead!


dang...

lols, your being sarcastic!

 

What has become of the ancient art of sarcasm?

The internet killed it.

I don't know.  The A-bomb, even in a game, seems to sensitive to be part of the game.  I don't know if I want to be dropping an A-bomb on my opponent and then being happy about it.  It would be like adding a gas chamber tech for Germany.  Some things, in MY opinion, are best left out of the game.  I am sure Larry felt the same way when creating his games or we would definitely have seen it as a tech, I would think.  

And besided, once you drop the A-bomb you should win the game, no?

thats a little silly. A&A centers around a repersentation of the killing of millions of people from around the world. Even if you dont have a problem with simulating soldeirs dying, what do think is happening during strategic bombings? Heavy bombers are just the PC name for a-bombs.

Starting IPC count

Austrailia: 9
Canada: 2
China: 10 (+6 burma road)
French: 2
Japan: 26
Netherlands: 11
Soviet Union: 9
United Kingdom: 18
United States: 17/57

Why only 10 for China?
I can see 12 Chinese territories, 1 IPC worth each...

Yah, I am just really bad at counting. Your right.


China  starts with 12 IPCs plus 6 for the burma road.


And I think Canada only gets one, its hard to make out that number though.

Those look great!

Well heavy artillery for me means katyusha rockets,nebelwefer and 155mm long tom.
heavy artillery attack and defend on 3. May choose is target in the first round fo combat.

that just seems like another way to do regulare artillery.

And I agree I would rather have a rocket artillery unit than siege guns, but i think rocket artillery would have a more offenisve nature, not just generaly good.

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.

This game will be amazing! The only thing I see that could be better is that I like the artwork for the Original AAP better. The AAE art style is the best in my opinion. I'm not that keen on this new style. It's definitely better than AAR though.

The original AAE and AAP atwork, does seem the most realistic like a real WW2 map, but A&A isnt exactly the most realistic game and so its better if the map is slightly off looking so that map, peices, and rules, go togehter and are no out of place. I also like the terrian and geography shown on these that were not in the past. And of course it is about 1000 times better than the abstract cluster#@$& that was the AAR board.

Japan would have lost to the Russians just like they did in 39, but even wose they would not be able to capture any of the raw materials they needed to not be a third world country in 3 years.

Italy would have mismanaged her conquests and arab subjects similiar to the turks so although it may have threaghted baku aswell as allied supplies to Russia is would have not been a big a deal as it would have been under competent leadership that the Italians did not have.

Japan winning a major victory at Midway would have severly hurt American efforts, although it might have down well for american propaganda as they could easly paint it as a defensive battle and could rally more support for the cause. Also since it is a naval battle there would have been less causalties so it would have less of a political factor.

The Germans would have messed up sealion even if they had air supeirority, there are not so many beaches in engalnd and the engalnd would have a sizible force fighting for there homeland and being backed by the US that could bottleneck the Germans on the beaches. Plus they still have naval suppeiority.


Losing D-day would have been devistating, espeacialy if it was a long battle and their were tons of British and American causaulties. I get the sence some Americans were already tired of the war and losing so many men would have just incouraged the anti-war camp. It would have been painted as just another european conflict like WW1.
Or anti war groups might say Japan was the right war and Germany was just a distraction, (to draw a paralel to Afgahnistan and Iraq today, )

Ok , so just to clarify, Japan can attack France and China without brining the US into the war and the UK forces can attack Japan without brining the US into the war, but once Japan attacks any of the UK, Dutch, Canadian or Austrailian territory the US is in the war at full production.

Can Austrilian forces attack Japan before the US is in the war like the UK?