• '16 '15 '10

    Pondering the reason why Axis strategies seem to be improving faster than Allied strategies (resulting in escalating bids for Allies), I keep coming back to the mobility of mechanized infantry on a map where Eurasia is a huge, contiguous continent, where it is possible to blitz inaccessible places like China, Africa, Siberia, etc.

    The main weakness of AA50 was that tanks (at $5) were way too strong.  The increased map size of AA50 relative to Revised made them even stronger than in Revised (where they had been improved to 3/3 to make for more dynamic offensive play and less defensive stacking).

    So the decision to increase tanks to $6 was well-grounded.  However, mechs may be too cheap at $4.  Even though a mech attacks at only 1 (w/o artillery support), the defensive capacity of the mech is just too much.  If Germany and Japan had only tanks at their disposal, then it would be easier for Allies to counterattack tank stacks driving into Eurasia.  However, when Axis powers can buy mechs at 4$, defensive stacks deep inside Eurasia are too strong and too mobile.  Axis can use its positional advantage to exploit the excessive strength of mechanized infantry by conquering Eurasia.

  • 2021 2020 '18 '17

    They certainly are not too strong, in fact they are quite weak.

    1/2/2 for 4
    3/3/2 for 6

    the second choice is way better.  However;

    1/2/1 for 3
    1/2/2 for 4

    These two choices do not seem so bad.  $1 for one movement is a pretty cheap deal.  So why are they neither underpowered nor overpowered?

    Because you have to produce them.  There are very few on the board at the beginning of the game.  Infantry are clearly superior for many situations, but they are painfully slow, so the offense is not one of them.  If you want an offensive unit, $3 is too expensive for an infantry with 1 attack.  If you want a defensive unit, it is perfect.

    the board is covered in infantry to start the game–the cost of all of them is $0.    If you want to pay $4 for “good” infantry vs $3 for something fairly useless, then it IS a bargain.  I do mostly buy mechs with Germany, UK Pac, etc.  For America they are useless…yet very numerous?

    Another example is the cruiser;  it is nothing but halfway between a battleship and destroyer, making both battleships and destroyers more efficient for the purpose.    But the reason that the cruiser still has an independent reason to exist is that there are already a ton of them on the board to start the game.    Even if you never buy a cruiser (and you shouldn’t), there will be some on the board and their rules and effectiveness have to be judged based not on their cost, but their position and whether they survive or not.

  • 2021 2020 '18 '17

    two other minor points

    1. infantry take the ‘free’ space in the transport, so one could argue that for any amphib nation, there is no comparison between the two units at all (because they take up different combat allocations and spots).

    2)  You only get to produce 3 or 10 units–the “slot” has its own cost.  This would argue for buying fewer more expensive units, because there is a ‘cost’ (repair, MiC, upgrading, choosing a different build) to placing any unit when you are limited in how many you get to place.  So to apply this example; Japan often buys 3 armor at its MIC’s because that is the cheapest most effective choice.  The mech is therefore not better, because you cant under any circumstances place 5 of them rather than 3 tanks.  You get only 3 choices (think ANZAC), so each choice uses a slot.  ANZAC can never build 7 infantry even with 21 income.

  • Sponsor

    I would allow them to pull one artillery unit per mech infantry during non combat movement only, and I would charge 5 IPCs each.


  • Since the allies are defending they only need to build inf-art where the axis need mechs.

    5 mechs VS 4 inf 2 art.
    You cannot attack with the mechs and you cannot defend either.

    They are needed to add bulk to the army but at the pretty hight price the allies can produce cheaper units for the same or better results.

    And like others said they take the spot of a tank or art in a transport and take a slot in the production of a factory, something that is better used for a tank if you got the money.

    Making them more expensive but allowing them to ferry art to the front might be to powerfull. Even for non combat i would preferr to have art with my stack of inf and arm together with the mechs then just mechs. But would make it 2 complex for most players ( some hardly grasp the basic mechanics )

    They are fine as they are, just leave them be.


  • @Young:

    I would allow them to pull one artillery unit per mech infantry during non combat movement only, and I would charge 5 IPCs each.

    turns them into a completely different unit

    Their current purposes is as mobile defensive fodder, and at their current cost they are good in that role. At a cost of 5, you may as well throw in one more IPC and get the real deal and buy a tank, because that’s already too expensive for land fodder.

    A better approach to the problem you are trying to solve there would be to create a mobile artillery unit and make that unit cost 5. With a move of 2 but no blitz ability there would be a role for them without having them dominate the game.

  • '15

    Another way to look at it is this:

    So even if 4 IPCs is too cheap, 5 IPCs would put them into solidly useless territory. 1/2/2 for 5, or 3/3/2 for 6. It’s just not an option to move the price from 4. At all. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that tanks are too cheap, and if they do, it would surprise the hell out of me. You cannot raise their price.

    Is 4 IPCs too cheap for their attributes? I don’t particularly agree with this, but let’s just go with it and see where it leads us.

    How do you fix it? You can only change things with integer values. You can’t touch speed because that’s their defining feature. So, bumping up/down any one attribute, be it price, attack, defense, is all you have left, and that is massive. Seriously, Massive.

    Putting their defense on 1? Yeah, okay, they are still fodder for attacks supported by air/armor, and yeah, they can still attack with artillery, but their defensive value being lowered is still a humongous change. Russia’s ability to push back against Germany is solidified hardcore by that change. I don’t have the time or willpower at the moment to really think about what all that change might imply, but my gut feeling, and first thoughts, make me think it’s too drastic of a change and would require a bunch of ripple effects all across the board that puts this discussion firmly into the not-for-this-forum territory.

    That only really leaves: What if you make mechs not pair with artillery? Would they still be “too strong” then? Nope. Would they be “too weak”? Yeah, I think you’d risk putting them into cruiser territory. The ones you start with? Cool! Would you ever build new ones? Yeah, if your buy immediately matters the next turn and you had to finagle the last 2-3 IPCs around to maximum effect, but other than that? There are just too many instances where 3 art and then 3 mech inf. out of a mIC is a game-changer, or where without mech inf catching up to your art stack somewhere means your front is effectively deadlocked.

    And then to the original proposition which I don’t agree with: are mechs actually too strong for 4 IPCs? They are, situationally (hi germany! :D), quite great for 4 IPCs, but I in no way feel that they are “broken” at this price. Are mechs plus a few tanks clearly the best option for Germany headed toward Moscow for something like G1-G5, depending on the game and turn of DoW? I’d say so, yeah, but then you also have guys doing the dark skies shtick so obviously there are truly viable alternatives. Then, although rare, you do get those games with German investment in the med/eastern atl due to weird shit (like a dice-failed or nearly 50/50 odds scramble on Taranto) or a Sea Lion. Mechs are also the only thing that keep UK Pac and the UK stronghold in the middle east to help out Russia a thing that works. You mess with mechs by making them weaker, and UK’s middle east/india options are shitcanned pretty hard.

    Mechs would not be the first thing I would touch on if I were aiming to mess with or complain about the game.

    (Speaking of YG’s houserule that mechs can drag artillery, that has been discussed elsewhere, and it literally does break the game. This is unilaterally awful for the Allies. If you want to argue about that, start a thread in the homebrew section and PM it to me–I’ll gladly shoot it the fuck down–but this thread/forum is not the place to do it.)

  • '16 '15 '10

    @teslas:

    That only really leaves: What if you make mechs not pair with artillery? Would they still be “too strong” then? Nope. Would they be “too weak”? Yeah, I think you’d risk putting them into cruiser territory.

    This is a good suggestion but probably not enough. I’d probably buy about as many of them as I do now (and I never buy cruisers).

    I’m not necessarily saying mechs are too cheap.  The weakness is closer related to the map in general, and how it is possible to win via blitzing and encirclement rather than capturing capitals.  It’s also related to Axis starting with so much air power.  Mech would not be such a devastating weapon for Axis without this starting air power because mech is a fodder unit.

    I argue that mechs at 4 benefit the Axis power more than bombers at 12 because unlike mechs, Allies can potentially make as much use of bombers as the Axis does.


  • mech is the worst unit ever in Global… It cost 4 ipc, and attack at 1. It can move two spaces, but only in friendly territory, and it can only blitz together with a tank, or you have the tech for it. Then it is even harder to transport on a transporter. The defender can easy prevent the attacker from blitzing, by putting one infantery in each territory… If it could blitz by it self, or attack on a 2 parred with a tank it is worth buying…

  • Sponsor

    @teslas:

    (Speaking of YG’s houserule that mechs can drag artillery, that has been discussed elsewhere, and it literally does break the game. This is unilaterally awful for the Allies. If you want to argue about that, start a thread in the homebrew section and PM it to me–I’ll gladly shoot it the ���� down–but this thread/forum is not the place to do it.)

    I’m not sure where this is coming from, did I do something to you? all I did was write one sentence about a unit in this game. Sure, maybe it’s a bad idea… I sometimes have bad ideas, and maybe it should be in a different forum, I apologize for that. However, none of what I wrote deserves the crap you’re projecting onto me now… think about it.

  • Customizer

    @Young:

    @teslas:

    (Speaking of YG’s houserule that mechs can drag artillery, that has been discussed elsewhere, and it literally does break the game. This is unilaterally awful for the Allies. If you want to argue about that, start a thread in the homebrew section and PM it to me–I’ll gladly shoot it the ���� down–but this thread/forum is not the place to do it.)

    I’m not sure where this is coming from, did I do something to you? all I did was write one sentence about a unit in this game. Sure, maybe it’s a bad idea… I sometimes have bad ideas, and maybe it should be in a different forum, I apologize for that. However, none of what I wrote deserves the crap you’re projecting onto me now… think about it.

    Yeah teslas, I got to agree with YG on this. This thread is about mechanized infantry units and possible improvements to them. So I really don’t understand why you say “this thread/forum is not the place”. It seems to me this is exactly the place to make such a suggestion.
    Saying you disagree with an idea is one thing, but it is not up to you or any other member to tell another member this isn’t the place.

  • '15

    Did you do something to me, YG? Yeah, you son of a bitch, you made a series of great videos for newcomers, and now any new people that show up to my table have a decent foundation on which to start. It makes winning every game a little harder.

    And I wasn’t projecting any undue crap. I was just saying how the idea is bad in a vehement fashion. Debunking a person’s idea isn’t the same as debunking that person.

    As far as this forum not being the place, I was speaking about how the drastic changes, and then all of the resulting impacts and what not, belong on the houserules forum, not really this one.


  • Anyway, back to the topic on hand.  It is a good topic and very fair to bring up; much better than most of the discussions here.

    I personally think that mechs are just right.  They are good for Germany in mass quantities in order to get to the Russian front in time for action, and for Japan for their Asian factories.  Other countries find significant use for mechs because 1-speed units are just too slow to get into the action later in the game, but are not a panacea.  Moscow will fall if Russia only builds mechs instead of a mixture of inf, art, and fast movers.  Arts have an effective attack power of 3 for the same cost as the more mobile mechs… not an easy choice in many situations.

    With the map so big, the game will bog down to epic 15-20 round battles if we nerfed mechs to $5, followed by a necessary nerfing of tanks ($7-8) and planes ($12-18) to keep them in relative cost positions.  My big stack of infantry would stare at their big stack of infantry and nobody could outflank each other.  Transports would then become the next thing that would need to be nerfed because they would be the only way to get around the massive inf/art piles.  I just see too much game rebalancing tasks to do if we start adjusting the mech unit.

  • Sponsor

    @teslas:

    Did you do something to me, YG? Yeah, you son of a b����, you made a series of great videos for newcomers, and now any new people that show up to my table have a decent foundation on which to start. It makes winning every game a little harder.

    And I wasn’t projecting any undue crap. I was just saying how the idea is bad in a vehement fashion. Debunking a person’s idea isn’t the same as debunking that person.

    As far as this forum not being the place, I was speaking about how the drastic changes, and then all of the resulting impacts and what not, belong on the houserules forum, not really this one.

    Fair enough, no hard feelings.

    Cheers.


  • You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

    Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

    How to fix that?
    1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
    2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

    The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

    Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
    Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
    Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

    Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

  • Sponsor

    @Spendo02:

    You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

    Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

    How to fix that?
    1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
    2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

    The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

    Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
    Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
    Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

    Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

    Another way would be to increase the number of eligible territories for ICs (sorry… couldn’t help myself)

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    The US should be able to transport a Mech as if it were an Infantry unit.

  • Customizer

    I still think the best solution for mechs are self-propelled artillery for 5 IPCs (no blitz). Thanks to HBG, all the major powers have them available.


  • @Young:

    @Spendo02:

    You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

    Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

    How to fix that?
    1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
    2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

    The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

    Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
    Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
    Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

    Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

    Another way would be to increase the number of eligible territories for ICs (sorry… couldn’t help myself)

    Producing units in Europe you mean?  What other possible territories could there be that don’t already have one?

    In the Pacific the problem for the strength of the Allies - the US - is at best 3 turns from impacting the typical operations of Japan in the South Pacific, SE Asia and the DEI with its starting units alone.

    By vacating Hawaii, the earliest the US can arrive with 4 units in any location in those regions is Turn 4 (with a J1 DOW).

    In either situation, more units can arrive simply by increasing the capacity of ships the Allies use and forces the Axis to not only plan to conquer, but to hold territories from Allied threats.

    I do think the US should be able to place the IPC value of its starting units in any ground unitary form they choose at any US complex they wish with no regard for the IC capacity.  In short, all those MEC could be reorganized into INF and ART.  I never understood why the US had so many MEC to start the game.  I see why some are valuable (Alaska), but the starting amount is a bit… well we could say it is overdone.

    If you wanted to make a reasonable compromise, you could only allow AA from TT, but units carried on ships could NCM to reinforce newly taken territories.

    My proposition would be:
    AA can only be conducted by units carried on TT or from aircraft.
    Units carried on ships with defensive values can only NCM from sea to land.
    TT can carry up to 3 units, but no more than one non-infantry unit.
    CV can carry any 2 ground units.
    BB can carry up to 2 INF.
    CR can carry up to 1 INF.

    In this fashion, the US could load its starting 3 TT with up to 6 INF and 3 ART and can reinforce the units lost from an AA with units from CV, BB and CR which would enable a more… offensive island hopping battle.  Japan would be forced to seriously consider how exposed it wishes to leave its recently conquered islands if the US with no additional investment in ships could start the process of reclaiming islands with effectively strong AA landings.  This, all without changing the actual dynamic of combat values of units.

    The same could be said for Europe as in my experience successful AA landings that hold the gained territory are subject to the ability of the UK to reinforce and repel the Axis response.  By the US being able to bring more INF as reinforcements, Germany cannot simply leave Europe exposed and rely on the Italians to repel all the early small landings.  Conversely, the Allies have to wait much longer to land a strong enough force to actually hold Normandy, which plays so much into a hyper aggressive German march towards Moscow, it forces the Red Turtle™ as the only viable option for survival for the Russians.

    In effect, Germany may not be able to continue such a large stream of units towards Moscow so early because if the US spends on Naval on US1 in the Atlantic, the US could in theory land in Europe and hold it with the UK’s help and Italy would be unable to repel those landings alone.

    In reality, the Allied LimFac in Europe is not combat values or starting units (in general), but in the logistical nightmare of having to spend 70 IPC to simply move 20 units across an ocean.  And, that is only the first wave which is in direct proximity of multiple Axis IC (both major and minor).  Due to the turnaround or additional IPC investment required for TT to continue a stream of reinforcements, those 20 units are stranded in Europe for the next 4 turns (excluding what the UK could ferry in).

    Having the ability to transport more units to reinforce via warship allows the US to both defend the movement of its units across the oceans more effectively, and reinforce territories it does take to withstand counter attacks.


  • @Spendo02:

    You really need to stop thinking about changing the actual combat and consider why the Allies have a difficult time with the Axis.

    Its not that the Allies cannot get involved in skirmishes, but when they do, they are almost always outnumbered when doing so.

    How to fix that?
    1. Give the Allies more money is the easier solution and we call them bids.  These are dangerous.
    2. Give the Allies more starting units is similar to bids, but it doesn’t have what business calls “competitive advantage”.  It is a band-aid to a bigger problem.

    The bigger problem is the inability of the Allies to bring any strength to the front lines and continue to bring strength in any fashion.  It is a logistic problem, not a combat problem.

    Some alternatives in considering this dilemma include:
    Increase the capacity of Allied transports to 3 or 4 units.
    Increase the capacity of Allied warships to transport units to 1 or 2 units.

    Historically we know that many ships transported combat units, generally infantry.  Our game does not truly reflect that, and should be a real consideration to address the inability of the Allies bring strength to the front line.

    The problem is that the allies are trying to beat the axis at the spot where they are strongest.
    Good example where this does not happen is the med, allies always dominate this zone because they are stronger and use their power usefull.
    For most of the game the allies just need to ensure they make more money then the axis, that is all there is to it really.
    Allies need to do early skirmishes but they have to chose their battles to slow the axis down. Just slow them down a turn in china or burma. Take a money island back so they have to spend a turn to retake it. Take norway or normandy with 2 inf, sure germany can take it back but you already got half your investment back, and it is 2 inf less to russia.

    What historical reference do you have of any major combat units being shipped on warships? Some minor commando raids, 10 destroyers transporting a single stripped division of inf?
    And only in situations when there was no alternative because the infantry division had to leave most of its supplies and heavy weapons behind. And most on deck over short distances ( like 1 day travel ) IF you want to minic that in a game the whole japanes starting fleet could transport 1 inf in total and only bridging in the same SZ.


  • Actually if you think about it mechanic are perfect. At fisrt glance some may say “artillery cost 4 attacks and defend 2 and have a special abillity so why don’t mechanic cost 4 attack and defend at 2 at all times?” Well obviously it is because the abillity to move 2 is better than the abillity to support other units by one pip.
    So what is the problem here? Well right away we say that Germany and Japan are abusing the use of them. Well it just so happens that they as well as the UK are in a position that needs them. The only reason mechanic appear too strong is for that the Axis use a lot of them  AND have an advantage in this game. Axis buying mechs is just sound strategy. The only reason we may think it is unfair is due to the balance of the game being a bit in Axis favor.

    P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  😄


  • for their cost, tacs should attack and defend at 4, be able to intercept, be able to strat bomb factories, have a range of 15, and be able to call in the Death Star to obliterate the planet

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Charles:

    P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  😄

    Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.

  • '17 '16

    Fighter combat value points are:
    3 off + 4 def + 4 move = 11 points for 10 IPCs.
    And can be put on carrier.

    Tactical combat value points are:
    3.5 off+ 3 def + 4 move = 10.5 points for 11 IPCs.
    Can land on carrier.
    Can make bombing raid on AB and NB.

    The question is what does worth the Tac Bombing Raid capacity?
    1.5 points?
    To reach 10.5 + 1.5 = 12 value points against 11 IPCs.
    This would make Tac on par with Fighter 11 points for 10 IPCs.

    Rising Tac offense to 4 makes 11 points for 11 IPCs.
    +1 value point for TBR make it on par with Fighter:
    12 points for 11 IPCs.
    Half value of SBR, 1 vs 2 points, does it better reflect the real strength of TBR vs SBR?

    Strategic bomber combat value points:
    4 off +1 def + 6 move = 11 points for 12 IPCs.
    If balanced and on par with Fg, it means SBR on IC capacity worth +2 points.
    11 + 2 = 13 points for 12 IPCs.

  • '17 '16

    @simon33:

    @Charles:

    P.S. I think tacs are a bit overpriced. Maybe let them glhave 4 attack at all times  😄

    Or make them cheaper, like about 9. They’re pretty pricey for the capability they offer.

    Fg  A3 D4 M4 C10
    TcB A3-4 D3 M4 C10
    At 10 IPCs, TcB combat values seems more like a mirror image of Fighter’s combat values.
    One is for defense, Fg 3/4, TcB is for offense 3-4/3.
    Usually, in A&A, offensive capacity cost a little more than the same defense value.

Suggested Topics

  • 26
  • 7
  • 14
  • 4
  • 2
  • 12
  • 6
  • 33
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

54
Online

15.6k
Users

36.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts