Huh. I always thought the opposite. Thanks for letting me know.
Tanks too expensive
-
How about a heavy tank? Move 2, 4-4? It would be like the King Tiger, the Churchill, or the Stalin tank. It would cost 8 ipc, or 7…just a thought. By the way, my extra 5 ipc will go to tech research.
-
@The:
I prefer a 5 ipc tank but I can see the reasoning of 6 since we now have mech infantry. But a 7 ipc tank would be way too much at that point you should just get a man and an art. since they would both hit at a 2 and can absorb two hits as opposed to the tank that hits on a 3 and can only absorb 1 hit. I am okay with 6 ipc tank.
Seconded!
-
I think fighters are too expensive comparied to tanks. loose all your fighters, they are hard to replace.
Not at all! The biggest advantage of fighters over tanks is that you can use the in support of an infantry attack but then withdraw them to safety. Any tanks you use in such an attack would have to stay in that territory (unless you retreat of course, but then make sure you don’t actually end up conquering the territory. This is a good tactic in a limited number of cases only) and hence be vulnerable to a counterattack. You then lose more valuable pieces if your opponent attacks you with infantry + air support.
-
The only thing that makes tanks worth considering is the ridiculous movement allowance. Tanks moved across the world at exactly the same speed as infantry; i.e. the speed of the train that was carrying them.
With sensible land movement rules 2 infantry would always be a better buy than 1 tank.
-
The only thing that makes tanks worth considering is the ridiculous movement allowance. Tanks moved across the world at exactly the same speed as infantry; i.e. the speed of the train that was carrying them.
With sensible land movement rules 2 infantry would always be a better buy than 1 tank.
Thats why in the real war there were much more infantry then tanks.
-
In AA revised 2004 some theories said that you had to invest all your money in infantry instead of tanks.
Those were wrong theories because (and i am not going to explain the math and statistic) investing all the money in tanks allowed Germany to take SU capital in the first round (due between other things the 2 spaces moving capacity) and this severelly cripled SU saving lots of money in not destroyed units for Germany.
Now the tanks are too expensive and those theories about investing all the money in infantry gain sustentability.
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.
-
No. 1 and 2 force you to save 1 or 2.
No what? If you only have 1 or 2 IPC’s left then you save them if your playing by rules that allow you to save 1 or 2.
Do you mean playing by the rules? Really, who doesn’t play with being able to save money? Most likely you, but I don’t know any others.
-
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.
Which version of Spring 42 was this, because your not able to produce more units then the IPC value of the territory and Germany is only worth 10.
-
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.
Which version of Spring 42 was this, because your not able to produce more units then the IPC value of the territory and Germany is only worth 10.
He could build the extra ones in Italy
-
@Dylan:
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 =7Lol! Still the old IPC==attack+defense trick :roll:
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 8-)
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 :lol: Though according to my bean counting, arms are fine at 5, and underpriced at 6. Not to mention cruisers at 12 :roll:
-
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.
-
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…
-
Artillery do not cause mech to hit on a 2 or less, that only is an infantry/artillery pair ability.
-
@SAS:
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Dylan:
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.
-
@Imperious:
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…
-
-
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.
Suggested Topics
