no fractions. make it easy.
Reduced cost for tanks?

Has any thought been given to reducing the cost of tanks from 6 IPCs to 5 IPCs? At 6 IPCs, tanks are a useless buy. You are better of buying two infantry.
1. INfantry defend at a 3 vs a 1 for a tanks.
2. You need infantry anyways because they must be present to include artillery in your stack.
3. When you attack you roll 2 die for the two infantry instead of 1 die for 1 tank.
4. If you suffer a hit, you lose an infantry. Then on round two you simply roll one die same as the tank would do that absorbed the previous hit.Perhaps tanks at a cost of 5 would allow situations when buying a tank might be a good idea.

Tanks are pretty expensive, but well worth it if you can acquire large droves of them. And by large droves, I mean over 50% of your army’s IPC value, and only if you are clearly on the offensive. To be able to attack an enemy’s major stack, you are definitely going to need a larger value army since infantry are still very efficient on defense. If you go with the 1 tank=2 inf comparison, let’s look at a couple scenarios of an attacker with 150% value over the defender, with LL for consistency.
Straight inf:
30 inf vs. 20 inf—> 20 inf/10 inf
no counterattack
20 inf vs. 10 inf—>15 inf/4 inf
no counterattack
15 inf vs. 4 inf—>13 inf Remaining attacker value: 39 IPCIf the attacker has 2/3 value in tanks:
10 inf, 10 tank vs. 20 inf—>10 inf, 10 tank/14 inf
14 inf vs. 10 inf, 10 tank—>8 inf/5 inf, 10 tank
5 inf, 10 tank vs. 8 inf—> 5 inf, 10 tank/3 inf
no counterattack
5 inf, 10 tank vs. 3 inf—> 5 inf, 10 tank Remaining attacker value: 75 IPC (72 if defender counters the second time, but then you get the TT sooner)You end up with nearly double the remaining unit value left. However, the weaker defense means the defender can attack first to kill a bit more:
20 inf vs. 10 inf, 10 tank—> 13 inf/3 inf, 10 tank
3 inf, 10 tank vs. 13 inf—> 3 inf, 10 tank/ 9 inf
9 inf vs. 3 inf, 10 tank—> 3 inf/1 inf, 9 tank
1 inf, 9 tank vs. 3 inf—> 1 inf, 9 tank Value: 57 IPCBut you still don’t have to replace as much. Finally, tanks allow multinational armies to work very nearly as effectively as singlenation armies. Say France has a similar value army compared to Germany, but is comprised almost 100% tanks, and Britain/America have >50% value of France’s army in infantry, it can function exactly the same as the scenarios above, because the attacker takes on average 0 casualties, and the allied infantry can just move in after the initial attack is made to defend the tanks. (The supporting infantry won’t be able to attack though, so each tank attack will do slightly less damage and require more defensive support to discourage enemy counterattacks)
Of course, these scenarios ignore artillery, so a mix of infantry and artillery will probably take fewer losses than straight infantry, but they will never be able to completely nullify offensive losses like tanks. And unfortunately, games are probably decided by the time someone acquires this many tanks, except maybe the Brits finishing the Ottomans.

I enjoyed reading your response. I will have to give tanks some more thought. I think infantry, artillery, and a fighter are higher priorities than tanks at 6 IPCs a pop though.

I tend to see tanks as a way of breaking a stalemate for a side that have an income advantage, but cannot defeat the enemy with conventional forces. A large stack(5+) can be devastating, 1 or 2 are little use. This foreshadows 1940 when the French had more and better tanks than Germany, but used them in small numbers supporting infantry, while the Germans used mass formations of panzers to smash through the French lines.

Flashman,
I am on round 16 of the latest game. AH had been adding a tank or two over several rounds. Once they had acquired a stack of 5 tanks to pair with the Infantry and artillery, they were able to smash their way to Rome on turn 12. It is turn 16. The central powers have a combined IPC value of 58. The Allies have a combined 108 IPCs coming in. I am thinking it is time to end this game.

I like the idea of $5 armor……in our games we have figured out that once again airpower is key and a better buy than armor…air superiority is important and devastating because it boosts your artillery to defend or attack @4 or less

I like the idea of $5 armor……in our games we have figured out that once again airpower is key and a better buy than armor…air superiority is important and devastating because it boosts your artillery to defend or attack @4 or less
Agreed. That is why I don’t think Armor are priced appropriately. Fighters are always a better buy because air superiority is huge!

The previous post mentioned large quantities. The first or second plane may be a good purchase, but I would rather have a tank than a 7th plane. Also you could use french tanks and British air support to break the Germans.

Our game have 3 different tanks.
cost att def
Light 5 2 2 (4 for USSR)
Medium 6 3 3 (5 for a USSR)
Heavy 7 4 4
Also, all defender and attacker tank can retreat after one round of combat. 
Your rules are great!

I agree in that at 6, tanks are a little expensive. But the main power they of course provide is their ability, not their numerical score. And that ability in this 1round combat WWI game matters. Big time. At 5 they would pay for themselves too easily and be too massable.
My friends and I play with them having a defensive value of 2 at all times. It’s not much of an increase, but it’s something. Tanks have their uses, and they’re a much easier to stomach when they aren’t worthless on defense.
Also, Britain can pretty much decide the Ottomans die (faster) by buying some tanks. They always seem supereffective on that front.

Your rules are great!…
LOL… :roll:

Oh look, a WWI tanks thread where people show up and start posting about WWII tank houserules.
Imperious Leaders draconian house rule policy has ruined WWI house ruling.