Has anyone played with the 3/3 tanks from the new AH edition

[Loki]

Supposedly the point of increasing the defense value of the tank was to eliminate the infantry push mechanic described so well in Don Rae's essays. I am curious if anyone has played enough with this new rule to see if it has the intended effect. I am also curious if anyone has played with Don's suggestion of making infantry 1/1 instead of messing witht the tanks.

Both options seem viable but the only way to know for sure is to play test it.

[UKcommander]

I haven't tried the new tank or infatry rule yet, though I might one of these days  .

[Dire Wolf]

I like this rule. I am going to have to sometime play with the 3 attack and 3 defence rule for the tanks. I think though that infantry should attack at a 2 and defend at a 2.

[UKcommander]

On AAP Marines attack at a two on amphibious assaults if you maybe want to try it that way      !

[Loki]

Well anyone who tries it, post back on this thread with their thoughts. As for increasing the infantry to 2/2, in my mind that defeats the whole purpose of making the tanks 3/3, which was to balance the game and make infantry a less desireable purchase. There's a 7 page thread on this discussion here.

The marines rule sounds cool but I don't know how it would translate to the original A&A becaues I think it favors the United States and thus the allies more than the Axis which has the effect of unbalancing the game even further.

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don't know.

[Rommel34]

Ok, well I played the new A&A, where the tanks are 3/3.  I liked it alot, countries favor a mixed inf/tank approach with is much more realistic/fun.  I didn't try inf at 1/1.

As for the Marines, all the other countries get a special too, so it evens out again.

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don't know.

You just, somewhat, described Panzerblitz.  A German special (like the American Marine)

[Desertfox]

Personally, I kind of think they had right the first time. Tanks are offensive weapons and it makes sense that they would have higher attack than defense. Also, infantry in a trench or some kind of defensive position would be more effective than an attacking infantry.

[Loki]

I agree that the values are right from a historical context; however, that's when you have to decide what's more important to you as a gamer: the historical accuracy of a piece's attack and defense value or the balance and playability of the game.

Of course there has to be a balance between those two objectives--it is what makes Axis and Allies so popular--but on this issue, I vote for fun over accuracy every time. Meaning, I'm willing to try out any rule change to see if it changes things for the better.

[UKcommander]

I agree with both of you.  I've tried the new rule now, and for Germany I say, "Yes."  However, Stalin's probably wacking himself.  Personally, I don't like the 3/3 tank that much but, hey, I'm just one person  .

[Guerrilla Guy]

I personally love it! Now your tank are actually worth buying... germany can really use it on the east front

GG

[B. Andersson, Game Master]

I suggest that one try to play with a variant of 1/1 infantry, where the infantry defends on a 2 or less on the first round of combat only. This is a more accurate and realistic rule. But most of all, bring better balance to the game!  

I also suggests that one should consider to reduce the cost of fighters to 10 IPC's! Think about it! Don't ask why, ask why that expensive at the beginning? I say this reduced cost of fighters should be done in consert with the use of 2 hit Battelships! This is really a good one, try it! I have used for my last five games. It's great!!!  

[MuthaRussia]

guys, 3/3 tanks, makes germany undefeayable,  i really hate that one....
alright 7-10 tnks a turn and bam!  USSR is screwed!

[adaptation]

This is my idea on the whole AH new boarD(including the 3/3tank rule)

i played a few games on the AH board(with AH rules),and this is what i noticed:
Germany is the big winner in the 3/3tanks,because Russia can't counter,and tanks are much more useful in the AHboard,cause a mix of inf-art takes 3turn to attack caucasus,while tanks takes 2(4turn to get to russia,while tanks are still 2 if u control west russia).Getting a Factory in India is really good,cause u can get 3 tanks per round who defend at 3.
Russia kinda benifits from this,cause he has 4 tanks at beginning of the game.

[catchnick4]

The 3/3 tanks really help out when you capture a territory and are left with lots of tanks. It gives the ability to hold territories. But on the other side, I used to always have my tanks in reserve instead of on the front lines. That way they could counter - attack with a higher #. It changes your strategy quite a bit. It now gives them the ability to be on the front line and give the other units some help.

[adaptation]

Well, 3/3 tanks ON the AH board makes things better,cause theres more territory,and those 2 movement are really useful.In the Original,3/3 tanks would be damn strong,cause theres less territory,and your much more likely to get a counter attack when you counter a territory.I think 3/3tanks makes things better,makes the infantry stacks less probably.