Tanks too expensive

[HolKann]

To be honest I think tanks should be 7.

Example:
Infantry                has 1 for attack                has 2 for defense                                                          =3 (RWJ)
Mech Infantry        has 1 for attack                has 2 for defense               has 1 extra movement             =4
Artillery                 has 2 for attack                has 2 for defense                                                         =4
Tank                    has 3 for attack                has 3 for defense                has 1 extra movement            =7

Lol! Still the old IPC==attack+defense trick 

Try not to forget that both tanks and infantry can take just 1 hit. For example: 2 inf 1 rtl vs 2 arm, the attacker wins because he's got more hits than the defender. With arm @5 ipc's this is a fair tradeoff, because the lack in raw fighting power (= attack + defense + hit taking capability) is countered by improved mobility. arm @6 is a joke, their role will diminish severely from "good for mobility" to "good for offensive mobility". You can have 2 mechs + 1 rtl for 2 arm, in defense the mechs + rtl clearly are superior, and in offense they still have a small edge. 2 Mechs have got the same mobility as 2 arm, so in that view they're equal. So what could be the advantage of armor over mech? Real fast offense maybe, when it's impossible to have a couple of rtl at the front, arm might be a fast substitute.

I think though, that a good player will keep a handful of rtl at the frontline, supplying them with fast mechs which fulfill the role of canon fodder until the inf arrive. Arm will be bought little, maybe at the start of an offensive when there's no time shacking rtl to the front. Hmm, "the evolution of the frontline", fase 1: arm+mech, fase 2: rtl+mech, fase 3: rtl+inf 

All in all, I think arm is overpriced in global compared to mech. Arm was fine at 5, they shouldn't have fixed what wasn't broken.

If I am understanding you correctly, the tactic is for G to only buy tanks and send them all towards Russia. I've faced against this tactic quite often when playing Revised/42 on TripleA, I usually smile when my opponent decides to use it

The thing about this tactic is that it is supposed to scare the Russian player into defensive mode but if Russia isn't cowed by it then it will start to be a waste of IPCs for the Germans. The Allies can quickly set up their navy and start trading W Europe, E. Europe, Bielorussia, Ukraine and Karelia with the Germans and Germany will have to start spending those valuable tanks instead of infantry to retake those territories or see its production level drop to the same level as Russia. 

I couldn't agree more. There is no "glitch" buying only arm in Revised/42, it's just a bad strat.

Ow, for the beancounter part, guess that includes me Though according to my bean counting, arms are fine at 5, and underpriced at 6. Not to mention cruisers at 12 

[souL]

 You can have 2 mechs + 1 rtl for 2 arm, in defense the mechs + rtl clearly are superior, and in offense they still have a small edge.

So, 1,1,2 is better than 3,3?  I'll take the 2 3s.  As the board grows, so too does the value of the faster unit.  I'd argue that artillery took the biggest hit to playability across the European front (still good invading land though obv).  Art are better when they get into the action more quickly (ie close to production areas, for counter attacks and the like).  If you're needing to get units to an area that's 4 spaces away, inf and art still aren't going to be considered, and at 5 why would you consider them for something 3 spaces away?  It's just 1 game when a tank costs 6, and another when it costs 5.  It's not better or worse.  You'll still see more tanks built than subs.

[HolKann]

So, 1,1,2 is better than 3,3?  I'll take the 2 3s.

It's 1, 2, 2 in offense and 2,2,2 in defense, but you're forgetting the extra hit again! Anyhow, you can't counter mathematics (== the bean counting) with intuition.

As the board grows, so too does the value of the faster unit.

Hmm, didn't think of this before... Maybe you're right, but should the bigger advantage of better mobility not also be reflected in the price of mechs then? Like, mechs being a 1/2 or 2/2 @ 5 ipc's?

You'll still see more tanks built than subs.

Lol, maybe the convoy rules allowing subs to have some economic impact can influence this a bit...

[SAS]

Artillery do not cause mech to hit on a 2 or less, that only is an infantry/artillery pair ability.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Artillery do not cause mech to hit on a 2 or less, that only is an infantry/artillery pair ability.

Yes they do. Check the errata

[Imperious Leader]

Your numbers don't account for the fact that tanks move twice as fast as all the other land units.

Bean counters can account for this and understand this.


Tanks at 5 and getting a 3-3 and moving double speed offer a greater value on average than any other land unit. This is the glitch. Infantry gives you 3 basis points for 3 paid and moves 1

Tanks give you 6 basis points for 5 paid and MOVES TWO.

The best attack is a combination of the two ( actually artillery makes it three) with more heavy reliance of the tanks. If your facing an opponent who is heavy in infantry and light in everything else ( like Russia) This advantage is magnified because he cant attack you and your infantry can protect the tanks as they slice his positions. This is the "glitch" and why tanks are too strong.

In AAE when tanks were 3-2-2-5 this was a major reason why that game was broken, and tanks had a very small advantage back then which was its movement.

[souL]

Not forgetting, just not up to date on the errata.

That certainly changes the landscape, improving the value of the art and the mechinf.  I'm still not sure how badly it hurts the tank and its value THAT much as art/mechinf timing COULD be tricky.  I think it will prove to be an interesting dynamic.  I certainly like art as a defensive piece and there's no doubt it'll find its uses for me.

[WILD BILL]

In Spring 42 I only bought Infantry once for Germany

Turn 1 40 IPCS: 13 Infantry
Turn 2 43 IPCS: 14 Infantry
etc.

Russia were scared.

Doesn't the first part of that statement contradict the second part?

Any way I like the tanks being at 6 ipc. The ground units seem to be at a good cost structure IMO. It will be tough (as always) to get inf/art to the front. As Germany you'll probably be looking to place an IC in Eastern Europe.

[HolKann]

Good arguments

I understand that in AAE, with a lot more ground to cover, the mobility advantage of tanks was vastly improved. However, with the mech now, there's a unit as mobile as an arm for 4 ipc's, even less than 5! If tanks aren't overpriced for 6 (which you guys explained to me), how come mech's aren't overpriced? Because they lack offensive capability? Meaning mobility is better for offensive units than for defensive ones?

Just asking questions, don't know the answers...

[maverick_76]

You could always buy a research token... Those are 5 right?

THIS!

[maverick_76]

And I too believe that tanks increasing in cost is a good thing. But unlike IL I don't think AAE was broken. If you use the US to take over the Atlantic, the UK can build planes and shuck them to Leningrad for the conversion to the Russian equivalent. Two planes a turn and by turn 3 or 4 when Germany is ready to attack you can have 6 planes to defend with as the Russians with meat shields aplenty. 

[Imperious Leader]

Mechanized Infantry at 1-2-2-5 don't seem like a good buy.

I was very surprised that AAP40 which introduced them didn't make them 2-2-2-5, of which i have always used as the basis of my Mech units in house rules.

The other reason why tanks went to 6 was because of these Mech units. Larry didn't want another 4 IPC unit, because it might invalidate the purchase of artillery and tanks at 5 made tanks the preferred choice. Also, he read that AAE had this glitch with the tanks and knew it would return in his new AAE40 if he didn't do anything. So the decision was made to move the tank to 6 and mech to 5. Now each unit has its own place in a purchase decision: 3,4,5,6.

What should have happened is for a 5 IPC mech infantry, you need either a 3-2-2-5 ( which looks like the old tank) or a 2-2-2-5 with artillery bonus getting it to a 3-2.

The other rule that makes little sence is the rule where they cant blitz on their own. They need a tank. Should have been left out IMO.

[WILD BILL]

Good arguments

I understand that in AAE, with a lot more ground to cover, the mobility advantage of tanks was vastly improved. However, with the mech now, there's a unit as mobile as an arm for 4 ipc's, even less than 5! If tanks aren't overpriced for 6 (which you guys explained to me), how come mech's aren't overpriced? Because they lack offensive capability? Meaning mobility is better for offensive units than for defensive ones?

Just asking questions, don't know the answers...

Well for starters if your playing def the battle is probably coming to you so you don't need the mobility as much. The aggressor is the one that needs mobility, and is willing to pay extra (call it a fuel surcharge). Inf cost 3 ipc, mech had to be more because it also moves 2 spaces. I'm good w/mech having the same values as inf, and getting 2 moves for an extra buck. I guess there's a good argument for Mech costing 5 ipc, and also can attack at 2, but you could also call the same unit mobile artillery couldn't you?  

Maybe there should have just been a truck that cost 5 ipc that moves two spaces, and could carry up to two land units (inf or art). Like a land transport that only shuttles your units. Either way you still pay for extra mobility.

[bugoo]

In global games tanks have only ever been purchased for two reasons, speed and lack of build slots.

Well in this there is absolutely no shortage of build slots compared to IPC (like 50th) and the mobility is countered by mechs being better bang for the buck, even when attacking, if backed by air.  The only thing tanks have left is blitz, and while that is useful in a can opener setup, the can opener has been greatly reduced from what I can see.  Sorry mate, tanks ARE overpriced.

As a house rule, my tanks will be a 3/2 two movement for 5, but for each inf paired up there defense is increased to a 3.  Much better IMHO.

Also cruisers are a bit weak for there cost, I'm debating between a 2/3 for 10 with bombard, or a 3/3 for 12 with 3 movement, or adding a transport role like NWO, or possibly a better convoy raiding ability.  Not really sure what to do in there case.

[Dylan the Canadian]

In global games tanks have only ever been purchased for two reasons, speed and lack of build slots.

Well in this there is absolutely no shortage of build slots compared to IPC (like 50th) and the mobility is countered by mechs being better bang for the buck, even when attacking, if backed by air.  The only thing tanks have left is blitz, and while that is useful in a can opener setup, the can opener has been greatly reduced from what I can see.  Sorry mate, tanks ARE overpriced.

As a house rule, my tanks will be a 3/2 two movement for 5, but for each inf paired up there defense is increased to a 3.  Much better IMHO.

Also cruisers are a bit weak for there cost, I'm debating between a 2/3 for 10 with bombard, or a 3/3 for 12 with 3 movement, or adding a transport role like NWO, or possibly a better convoy raiding ability.  Not really sure what to do in there case.

Yeah I don't like that. They have a 50 percent chance of hitting (or more with the Tac)

Like you need something strong on the ground

You can't roll 2's all the time.

For the cruisers same idea. Despite having special abilities Subs and Destroyers can't always roll 2's, Cruiser are more helpful, like for the destroyer do you really need planes to attack something defending on 1?