@Panther Yes it seems the word “simultaneously” is the key word in the rule book, you wouldn’t be able to send tanks through the newly captured territory since all combat happens at the same time. Thanks for the reply the warm welcome and quick responses everyone.
Tank purchases still DEAD
-
anzac- are you serious or is this a joke. have you ever thought it was a good idea to purchase an anzac tank to go island hoping?
Not a joke. All of those tactics, and many many others, may be optimal under the right set of circumstances. There is no ONE best strategy for all situations.
-
Allweneedislove, imagine what your purchases would be if you were going for Moscow and Calcutta on G5-G7/J5-J7. There are alot of advantages to quickly seizing capitals. Wouldn’t tanks be useful in these circumstances? And later in the game for blitzing? For Germany obviously. But also for Japan–tanks coming out of mainland factories will add extra punch and they’ll also remain useful after taking China/Calcutta.
Surely we can imagine circumstances (eg Sea Lion game, or late game KGF where USA is forced to confront Japan) where Russia needs offense on a front and can’t wait around for artillery. Tanks and mech will be more efficient then planes and mech. The same reasoning goes for UK Pacific and UK Africa. I get that you want alot more mech then tanks for fodder and to add extra weight to defensive stacks, but Russia will need offensive power to take Berlin.
-
Vance is right about the amphib tanks – it’s ironic that the armor’s value in an amphibious assault is like 20% offensive (and, at that, only if the battle goes more than 1 round); since the total # of units is limited by transport capacity, 80% of their value is in the 3’s they give you on defense in holding the newly conquered territory.
-
Allweneed, why did you not respond to my last comment on your other tank RIP thread, but just start a new one?
Fine, I’ll copy paste it here. If Zhukov is arguing with you, you’re wrong. :-)Absolutely. I and my opponents buy tanks regularly.
Recent example:
It was Russia’s turn and I wanted to prevent my opponent from driving in to East Poland with Germany and Italy, because from there he can go north or south.
I bought 6 tanks, 3 for Ukraine and 3 for Nov. He was then unable to get into East Poland and had to go Baltic States instead. I kept him out of the South through round 5, when he resigned.Only tanks can move 2 spaces and attack at 3, which is much more powerful than mech infantry’s 1.
Also, transports can only carry one non-infantry unit. The tank is the best one on offense and defense, so is the best unit even when taking islands.
Also, there are times when you are limited to purchasing 3 units at a factory and you need strength in ground units. Tanks are by far the best.
Also, it takes a tank to allow mech infantry to blitz, 1 for 1. No tanks, no blitzing with mechs. Few tanks, little blitzing with mechs.
Tanks are the only ground unit that can give the tac bomber its attack boost. If your power has lost a lot of fighters as casualties and tacs far outnumber fighters, this is especially significant.
Merely comparing the stats of move 2, cost 6, attack 3 and defend 3 with other units is to ignore an awful lot of considerations. Tanks have many advantages, and are definitely worth the cost of 6, even though it seemed unreasonable when the rule change first came out. -
There are very very few strategies that work MOST everytime. Purchasing units to replace losses is one of them. With that said yes buy tanks I normally only do it to replace losses but they are purchased. and mech + fighter is no where near as effective as inf. + tank the fighter alone makes it the more expensive opition. $9 compared to $14. if you raise that up to another round of buying that way then it’s 2 mechs and 2 fighters for $28. for $28 I could buy 3 inf. and 3 tanks. Same offensive punch. Mine is better on the defense because the plane can’t land in the territory that was just taken thus not part of the defense. I will gladly play and beat anyone that wants to buy nothing but mech. + fighter. and I’ll do it with Inf. + Tank.
I have to reverse opion about mech than you seem to. I think mechs are the waste of cash I’ll take a tank any day. When comparing mechs to inf and art. they look ok but when compared to tank they come up lacking. for $2 I get +2 attack, +1 defense, blitz and a boost to my tac. bombers.
-
Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomber -
Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomberI think mechs are the worst buy but have there place tac bombers are the poor mans str. bomber
-
I do no think I have ever bought a Tac. When they die, they are not replaced.
Mechs work as there are so many territories to traverse and if you have air support to provide the 3s and 4s to do the killing. -
Merely comparing the stats of move 2, cost 6, attack 3 and defend 3 with other units is to ignore an awful lot of considerations.
Yeah alot of the advantages of tanks are ‘intangible’ and difficult to summarize adequately. It’s not just the punch they bring that make them effective, but the fact that the enemy will need to react to them (eg tighten up defensive lines, abandon positions that can be taken by blitzing, combine all forces into one big army in order to prevent being divided and conquered). A mass of art and inf and mech is less likely to be mobile enough to trap retreating armies or pull of feats of dividing and conquering.
As far as the argument that you don’t need tanks because you can buy tacs and figs to come behind the mech……well there is a certain logic to that, but I don’t think it encompasses every consideration… IMO if you want to go for Moscow on G5-G7 then the most efficient purchasing strategy will include some tanks on G2/G3 (and maybe G4). In that scenario, there isn’t time to buy enough art to get max offensive power from the mech. It’s hard to base a strategy on fighter and bomber buys on G3/G4/G5/G6 when I should adjust my purchases to what the Allies are doing in the Atlantic and Africa.
-
Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomberI like em. They seem to be a good buy as long as each is paired with a tank or fighter in offensive deployments. Useful for pretty much every power. But naturally I buy way more fighters then tacts since fighters are more often a fodder unit, and we get to choose aa casualties in 1940.
-
I’m a fan of the mech. Its good to have a ratio of 2 or 3 infantry/mechs for every tank/artillery, with about an equal number of tanks and artillery. It may be hard to get the cannon fodder units up to the front in time without spending the extra $1 for mech instead of infantry but that’s OK. Having more infantry/mech allows the heavy hitters (artillery, tanks, air support) to hit twice or maybe even 3 times as you roll dice for a second or third round. When all the infantry are dead and the artillery are dead or have no infantry to support, then it becomes the tanks and air units job to keep hitting especially the tacs and bombers @4. Depending on the situation it might be preferable not to go all the way, but just strafe and retreat the tanks and air back into a new wave of infantry/mechs. Then if he counterattacks you after you just kill off his infantry he be trading his tanks for your infantry/mechs defending @2. They might choose to withdraw and then you walk in next turn. Sometimes you get into an attrition war trading Belarus, North Ukraine etc. that can gradually wear down the Russian infantry.
-
For the record, Allweneedislove has purchased 3 tanks on G1 and 5 tanks on G2 in a rematch against me where I won the first game.
Seems when the chips are down, even the preacher buys tanks. Lots of them.
-
He’s a good player, so he’ll learn and adapt :-D
Seriously though, this discussion was useful for me, as it led me to re-evaluate my buys and assumptions somewhat. But I still buy tanks–its WW2 after all!
-
:-)
-
I buy lots of tanks, it’s Cruisers that never get purchased in our games.
-
There are enough cruisers at game start that they see a lot of action, though.
Also, if you play with tech, cruisers get a deep discount on shipyards
-
Tanks pay for themselves by occupying more land faster and blitzing. Never buying tank with axis = certain defeat.
-
Tanks play for themselves by occupying more land faster and blitzing. Never buying tank with axis = certain defeat.
Yeah, I am always surprised I don’t see more early Tank buys with Japan. Get yourself quickly to the far end of China so the SBR of Moscow can begin, but nobody ever does. Maybe too many Axis players just assume that the two halves of the board can’t really support each other and overlook it. Especially in games where the Japanese player was willing to take air losses in order to clean out Chinese Infantry behind the lines, you might expect a Blitz follow-up on the next turn, but there never is one.
-
As germany u really dont need more than 10-15 tanks, at that point its more efficient to buy mobile with a strong arty stack. Japan needs some tanks, but fodder is a lot more useful since u have 21 flying tanks as punch.
-
Japan needs tanks if it hopes to threaten Moscow in any meaningful way and to quickly reduce Russia’s income and increase its own. Even if Japan ignores Russia tanks offer the highest defensive value to defend against a counterattack, which is especially important for taking and holding the Burma road from China and the UK Pac. The “flying tanks” can’t land or defend the territories that they help capture.
Suggested Topics
