@Stough just remember when playing tripleA that ‘1 more turn’ is never 1 more turn…
Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta
-
Yes that is best. I am glad Larry rescinded that idea.
Whew.
-
I didn’t think it was too bad. I’m not going to criticized what I haven’t tried yet. However, if they are still tweaking the rules, they need to seriously consider bringing back National Advantages. They add much more depth to the game. At least make some official optional ones we can use, because my group only plays with official rules, so it would be nice if Larry gave us something we could use :-D
-
Well the rule was not adopted, however i would agree that NA’s were great. I prefer them to even tech since the tech ideas are mostly contrived ideas out of thin air.
-
As long as national advantages are fair then cool. But they definitely weren’t with revised. The allies had 6 more and theirs were just as good. Russia could dominate Germany with lend lease.
-
@Imperious:
What garbage reasons are they giving for the armor’s defense value to be reduced to 2??? “Tanks are only better offensively used in combat?” What tank DIDN’T take part in local counteroffensives during the war, for chr*st’s sake? Are stacks of tanks moved into recently conquered territories during NCM just too OP right now? You even increased the cost of tanks to 6 in the first place to compensate, too! What was so wrong about them being 3/3/2 5 IPCs in AA50? “We’ve only just now realized that having a land unit with a defense value of 3 is just too powerful…” Right…
OH MY GOD, this is ANOTHER balancing issue, right? You’re taking away Germany’s main ability to defend its piles of infantry in Russia by adding this stupid change, and making it easier for Russia to counterattack, right!?! WHAT A SCAM. What a half-assed fix! I look forward to the historical accuracy of this game when I take Moscow with 23 FIG 15 TAC and 35 MECH, all sacrificed in the name of “game balance”.
For once i totally agree with you!
Indeed. Making tanks 3/3 was a great decision. It shouldn’t be changed back. Tanks are just as needed on the defensive as on the offensive. If the German armored division had been moved to the Normandy beaches in time the allies would likely have been repulsed, to name but one example. One could argue that’s an “attack”, but in game terms the Germans would be the defenders then…
Also, as the above poster points out: How are the Germans supposed to hold territory in Russia if their tanks are reduced to 2 defense?
Finally, I’d like to add another option: cost 6, defense 3, attack 3, move 2, ATTACK 4 WHEN PAIRED WITH A TACTICAL BOMBER (OR FIGHTER). Always did find it strange that the PLANE gets better when supported by tanks, wehereas it should really be the other way around…
-
what was wrong with them at a cost of 6 attack/defense of 3?
Absolutely nothing. Also, the new rule breaks the KISS philosophy that prevented Larry to bring much more needed exilied capital rules
I don’t like how is this developing. Crappy turn order and now this extrange tank rule :?
-
I originally thought this was a cool rule because I like special abilities for units, but it definitely sounds like it is good this one got shut down.
-
Why would you buy them if they defend at a 2. I am keeping 3attack 3 defense. Listen to the soldiers who tried to attack a well positioned tiger. I think they defended at a 5.
-
I’m happy he backed away from this one. The armour is fine the way it is. If anything, the mech should be improved.
-
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
Agree
-
2 move 3 attk 3 def 5 cost
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I do hope this is sarcasm…
You pay 1 extra IPC for an Infantry on wheels that move with the speed of a tank. Infantry cost 3. Tanks are 6. By your logic, you’re basing this on every 2 IPC roughly equalling 1 attack and 1 defense. So 4 IPC should be 2 attack and 2 defense? Sorry, but, not a very good way to look at it. Take the fighter for example, it’s a 3 attack and 4 defense unit. The bomber is a 4 attack and 1 defense unit… but costs more than the fighter. It’s extra because of the move of the unit (and bombard things yes).
If you really want to arm your mech infantry, make use of the artillery (its why we have this unit). :|
Mobility wins wars good sir, just my 2 cents.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I definitely agree with this. Especially on the blitzing. I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.
-
@Imperious:
right mech should be a 2-2-2-4 and not boost anything or be boosted by anything and have blitz capability w/o tanks.
I definitely agree with this. Especially on the blitzing. I’ve always thought that mech inf should be able to blitz by themselves.
If mechs got that boost, I would want my Infantry 2-2-1-3. Get rid of artillery all together.
-
If mechs are 2-2-2-4 and can blitz alone there will be 0 reason to buy tanks
Sure they will be because tanks are 3-3 units and infantry defend at 2 so to overcome the deficit you need a greater value and fodder to back up the attack.
Tanks are the best hit and run unit available. If you want to send a bunch of two’s attacking two’s you will likely be trading a 4 for a 3, but if you bring tanks, artillery, and infantry as well as mech you can hit and run while weakening the defender each turn till he falls.
If anything the game teaches that you must have a combined arms component to win battles. Stacks of just one type of unit will cost a player more, except as pure defense per IPC spent which still makes infantry King.
-
This is so ridiculous… A tank is also a formidale defense weapon and this rule doesn’t bring balance it brings ridiculousness to the game.
-
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
-
I think Mech Inf are too powerful at 2-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
I think should instead be 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz.
Well, perhaps not too powerful, but rather too cheap for what they do then. Why buy a tank then? So although I think that a 2 attack value is probably more in line with the actual capabilities of motorized infantry (speed is essential in attacks!), they would be too cheap. 5 on the other hand would be too expensive and for just one more point it would then really be an obviously better choice to buy a tank instead.
Therefore I agree with 1-2-2-4 with independant Blitz (I hardly buy mech infantry, because for the Blitzing capability I buy tanks and in most other respects artillery is the better choice for the same point cost). Giving them an idependant Blitz capability might actually make me invest more heavily in mech. rather than in artillery.
-
remember to consider the mech a 2-2-2-4 unit with no boost from artillery.
Suggested Topics
