Tanks and Mech Infantry

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

Mechs for mobility, they can get to the front faster, regular inf if the front is very close to the factory or if ur going hard defense

@ghr2:

But Germany’s air can help give italy cover.

Instead of hitting both z110 and z111, Germany might choose to go for just z110 and sink the French fleet and Yugoslavia.  Look at the med if Germany hits z106, z91, z93, z110 and puts off sinking the z111 crowd til G2 (with 3 subs, cruiser, carrier, planes).  It almost forces UK to do Taranto.  z92 is no safe spot without the French fleet and not enough blockers to prevent a landing in Transjordan. If they hit Taranto the Germans will scramble to save the Italian planes, then Italy counterattacks and might just get NOs for no allied ships in the med and South France/Greece/Gibraltar on the very first turn.

The key to this approach is a G1 build of 1 carrier, 2 subs, save $2.  Don’t use artillery in yugoslavia.  Earn $68 and you will have $70 in hand to build 10 transports if sealion looks good after taranto.

@Baron:

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

Yep, the extra movement is of course a special value, otherwise 9 arty would be the by far most powerful addition to the army :-)

And also yes, a mixture could be the optimum.

I am kind of interested in what people are having trouble with these 18 inf that russia can throw towards japan? I think those 18 inf are a lot less annoying than say giving brittain more troops, though giving china more troops at the expense of russia’s 18 inf might be a good change. I honestly like it when Russia keeps her 18 inf on the japan border or near it (18 inf and 2 aa guns less for germany to kill in moscow). If you weaken russia’s power here too much it might be worth it for japan to attack russia’s north. Maybe a good way to test it would be to make a house rule where russia looses 6 inf in the east and china gains 6 inf, but you can only put 1 inf per territory. I don’t know if letting china have the Burma road from the start of the game would be fair for japan? US going 100% japan for first couple turns might prove impossible for japan to beat it china is now significantly stronger with those 4 extra inf yunan plus the extra money and possibility of buying artillery. I see japan as being much weaker on the land since china will be more than just a pain, but a real threat and japan will have to buy more ground to compensate making japans navy weaker and in turn making US’s navy that much stronger. I haven’t played and extensive amount of games, so what do people think about the pacific side of the board and those 18 russian inf? Are you guys having a hard time beating japan as the allies, or keeping japan in check?

thanks. you are right.
Quote from AAP40 rule book page 13 “In addition, one mechanized infantry unit can move along with each blitzing tank.”
the mec and tnk must be paired and move to same destination as a pair.

Each unit may be paired with only one other unit in the same turn phase, but it may be paired with a different unit in another turn phase.  In Miker49’s example, the tank may be paired with the mechanized infantry in the Combat Move phase, then be paired with the tactical bomber in the Conduct Combat phase.  In Jeffdestroyer’s example, the tank may be paired with the mechanized infantry in the Combat Move phase, then be paired with either the mechanized infantry or tactical bomber in the Conduct Combat phase, but not both.  See the Combined Arms sidebar on page 16 of the Rulebook.

Thanks for the quick response.

Just figured I had to ask based on how (and this is if I remember correctly, of course) marines could be boosted to 3 in amphibious in the original Pacific game when supported by artillery.