Japan tank Blitz no more

@Vendetta

Thank you for clarifying!

I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.

This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:

for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.

The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.

So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.

Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)

7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense

If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.

If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.

Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.

@Baron:

About a 5 IPCs Tank, Russia could get a small advantage with it:

@Baron:

Since many talked about the Axis clear advantage.
Did anyone dare to change the cost of Russian Tank in 1942.2 game to fix the unbalance and gives a more historical feel?

Instead of a bid, here is the fix:
Russian Tank T-34
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 5
Blitz

Only Russia have this lower cost of Tank.
This cost reduction worth for the massive Russian Tank production during WWII.

We can give a small compensation to Germany:
German’s U-boat
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 5
Surprise Strike,
Submerge,
Stealth Move,
Cannot hit airplanes,
Cannot be hit by planes, unless Destroyer is present.
This cost reduction is for the increase of German’s Submarine production after 1941.

It will also gives to this two land Powers a substantial unit at 5 IPCs.

For those which understand french, a doc on T-34/76 and T-34/85

Le Char T-34, la force de frappe de l’armee russe - Documentaire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC4siPTFsziTDRlla7XQ_-E8UiLhbxr-M&v=uHc15JT59Ug

That’s an interesting idea.  In a fashion that is basically a limited ‘Improved production Factory’ for Russia and a limited ‘Improved Shipyard’ for Germany a.k.a. Research and Development.  So that could be HR’d into a game, whether or not it uses R&D, as a limited development for these two nations.  Perhaps as an alternative option, Russia could have, instead of the 5 IPC tank, the Advanced Artillery.

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

@Cmdr:

Where and how to place free infantry for violating the neutral agreement which derived from the cash for doing so.

Oh yes, now I dismember, I mean remember. We are starting a house rule game monday and I want to see a more binding non-aggression pact between Japan and the Soviets.

actually I was Japan so I was pretty happy with his decision :mrgreen:

This last post pushed it over the edge.

hahahaha… those are the best moments in the game. I swear, that transport in the E Canadian Sz is a damn fine shot! :evil: