…
And Holkann: fighters can only scramble from airbases on island (territory with one seazone all around it).
tnx :-)
…
And Holkann: fighters can only scramble from airbases on island (territory with one seazone all around it).
tnx :-)
Isn’t there a scramble rule - putting some ftrs in West-Ger can save the fleet in SZ 112. The fighters can still attack UK because they are in an airbase. The West-German airbase rules!
Ow, and putting a dd in SZ 119 with UK does block acces to SZ 109 via SZ 119 right?
Allright, clearly forgot to check this thread regularly :roll:
My votes:
About a first -incompatible, barely playable- version: if you have one, plz publish it, it’s better to play and get incompatible games, then no games at all 8-)
2 mech and ftr attack at 5 and defend at 8. 3 tanks attack at 9 and defend at 9. Same number of hits. Tanks can defend the captured territory, fighters cannot
Better skew for the mech + ftr :-P
Just kidding, obviously the tanks are stronger in this situation. But the fighter buy has some advantages too: more mobility, keeping allied fleets at bay, better trading zone opportunity, no need to sacrifice costly units (tank vs mech). Fighters rarely die in land battle, so after a while you’ll end up with a nice stack staring at moskva :-D
Moreso, for 2 extra IPC’s, you get the omnipotent bomber :-o Maximum mobility, and in a dull moment there’s always so;ething to strategically bomb raid. Add in a tac fighter every now and then… I like it! Air + mech, a powerful combo for Germany?
@Imperious:
The discussion regarding the tank glitch at 5 IPC shows fully that tanks ruled. Now its more subdued but still used even at 6 IPC.
Tanks at 6 would be perfect if mech was at 5. I hope there won’t be a mech/air or mech/rtl glitch… For instance, G1 all out rtl, G2+ all out mech. Or G1+ always half of the buy mech, other half varies between air/inf/rtl. Good luck trying it out ;)
Even though I’m an admitted noob to some aspects of this game its been my experience that this whole game hangs on small margins like this.
What’s the small margin? The fact you save more than half an infantry? Or the fact you have a minimally better skew at some distant battle? Don’t count on small margins when the big ones aren’t mastered… Remember, hits > pips > skew, in that order and no other.
In a landing, the 2 space thing isn’t too big of a deal. The best thing about landing tanks is that they can better hold the land you’ve captured.
In later turns, they still move 2
Owkey, why not put in a mech then if moving 2 is important? Wait, I know the answer: mechs attack at 1. So why not an rtl? Because they don’t move 2. So why not a mech? etc. etc. Am I the only one who sees the walking in circles here?
As I said, ONLY if moving 2 is important AND you’re severely lacking attack force, an arm is worth its 6 ipc’s. Anyone who argues with this point?
If you agree on this, I say a good general will have a steady supply of rtls/air to generate attacking force, and mechs to generate mobility. It’s just so much cheaper. The rare occasions you’d want to blitz or move 2 and attack @ 3, but you can’t because you didn’t buy (enough) tanks, are more than made up for by the extra rtl/mech you’re saving every time you don’t by 2 tanks.
Inf, tank has more skew: the first hit takes out a 1 instead of 2
Are you arguing this tiny advantage is worth 2 ipc’s? More like 0.2 if you ask me. So okay, you’ll win “only” 1.8 by using inf+rtl in transport instead of inf+arm.
Allweneed is the only one making sense in this thread. I agree with him wholeheartedly: compared to mechs, armor is overpriced. I’ll buy my armour now as I would fighters: only when it’s absolutely necessary (to blitz or to get attacking power to the front fast). Any other case, mechs are a better buy.
transport argument: put 1 inf 1 rtl in it, and you’ll save yourself 2 bucks for the same attacking power as 1 inf 1 arm.
3 inf vs 1 inf and 1 arm 1 rtl vs 1 inf: turn it the other way around. I bet the infs are better on defense, which is also worth an ipc.
every unit has it’s specific situation: true, but the specific situations for tanks become slim, to say the least. It used to be a cool unit, making up about 1/3 of your land force (inf being 1/2). Now it’ll be more like 1/10. That’s not close to the ideal 1/4 (4 land units).
Bombers are strong now. Naval is an option for Germany (not the best but doable). KGF is still best, though I think a German who defends with luftwaffe + subs + inf can keep the balance.
The major new strategy things are for Germany, my favourite is buying a bomber every turn to keep the Allied fleet at bay, and/or bomb the Russians.
@Imperious:
Yes they are 1-1-1-2 units ( typo)
The other concern is you got to model the concept that conscripts have a pattern of diminishing returns. You can’t keep scraping the bottom of the barrel and not suffer worse success at getting these conscripts. This also presents the player options on making decisions, rather than making it just too simple… by rolling and buying these cheap units.
I also might add that conscripts are really cadre ( static) divisions that are very inexperienced. Usually these troops are stationed in areas where no fighting is taking place so that they may gain this experience. These also represent old men and kids fighting desperately ( volkstrum). To model this it should be a rule that you cant move these outside your original controlled areas, unless you “convert them” by paying another 1 IPC to full infantry units.
Now you got what is really an upgradable infantry unit which might add to the game. In this case you might as well allow anyone to obtain them, but only if their original areas was occupied ( Philippines does not count).
It will definatly help in Russia.
The static (not movable outside original terrain) and convertable (pay 1 ipc to get them to regular infantry) are simple enough, maybe I’ll use them. The diminishing returns are sufficiently represented by the fact that you can buy only one on each territory with ipc-value >= 2. You can’t keep scraping the bottle of the barrel, even though you have sufficient cash. Tnx for the input!
@Imperious:
Conscripts should only be available for Soviet Union and Germany.
The first time either player loses one of his original VC to the other side, that player may raise conscripts as follows:
Roll D6 = number that can be built, each turn in succession you want to roll, you must subtract one from die roll. The die modification is reduced by one each turn and no less than one can be a total result. If you wait one turn and don’t raise them, the modification is entirely removed.
These cost 2 IPC and are 1-1-1-1 units.
Example:
Germany tanks Leningrad and thats the first Soviet VC to fall to the enemy. Soviets can now start rolling. They roll 5 and can now spend 10 IPC and buy the full 5.
Next turn Soviets try again and roll D6. They get 3 but must reduce it by -1 yielding 2.
Next turn after that they get greedy and roll again. Now they roll a 4, but must reduce the value to 2 and spend 4 IPC to get 2 conscripts.
Next turn they decide to not buy conscripts.
Next turn they now again buy them, rolling 6 and can buy the full 6 since they waited a turn.
Conscripts can be placed at the rate of one per territory, or at VC equal to the production value of the territory. They don’t go by factory placement rules.
Conscripts do not get an attack bonus from artillery, but can get a defensive bonus ( defending at 2) with each matching artillery 1:1 basis.
Here is my concept for you.
:), you always put a lot of thought into these things. Though it probably is historically accurate and balanced, it’s very complicated to fit in a game like AandA imo.
I like my rules clean and simple, with little die rolling and stuff. So in my view these conscripts also represent Chinese partisans, a Hindi army corps or Belgian volunteers going to fight the commies at the Eastern front. It’s an untrained lot, easy to muster but nearly worthless in a fight, used as a meatshield or last resort if nothing better is available. I hope it gives Japan something to ponder about in the east, without forcing the allies to overcommit themselves by buidling vulnerable IC’s. Besides, it’s always funny to see a little hero pop up in South-Africa, which will prove itself a loyal infantry invaluable in the defense of Moskva ;)
The cost of 2 is spot on, giving them a cost of 1 means half my army would be conscripts - for the price of an infantry, 3 conscripts could take 3 hits! I’ll do one concession though:
After a succesful land battle a conscript has witnessed warfare firsthand and tasted victory. This experience grants him the status of veteran conscript. In game terms, any surviving conscript gets promoted to regular infantry.
Unfortunately, conscripts rarely survive :evil: Btw, conscripts can’t be supported by artillery, unless they’ve been promoted to infantry.
@Imperious:
Good arguments
I understand that in AAE, with a lot more ground to cover, the mobility advantage of tanks was vastly improved. However, with the mech now, there’s a unit as mobile as an arm for 4 ipc’s, even less than 5! If tanks aren’t overpriced for 6 (which you guys explained to me), how come mech’s aren’t overpriced? Because they lack offensive capability? Meaning mobility is better for offensive units than for defensive ones?
Just asking questions, don’t know the answers…
Because I’d rather spend 1 more ipc to buy an inf. That 2 ipc is wasted on a useless hit that probably won’t change the battle outcome
True, but would you be willing to build an IC in India to produce that infantry? Or would you go with the inferior Conscript? After 3 turns 3 conscripts can make a difference in battle. It’s an extra combat round where your real infantry can shoot the baddies down…
So, 1,1,2 is better than 3,3? I’ll take the 2 3s.
It’s 1, 2, 2 in offense and 2,2,2 in defense, but you’re forgetting the extra hit again! Anyhow, you can’t counter mathematics (== the bean counting) with intuition.
As the board grows, so too does the value of the faster unit.
Hmm, didn’t think of this before… Maybe you’re right, but should the bigger advantage of better mobility not also be reflected in the price of mechs then? Like, mechs being a 1/2 or 2/2 @ 5 ipc’s?
You’ll still see more tanks built than subs.
Lol, maybe the convoy rules allowing subs to have some economic impact can influence this a bit…
India gets 1 0/0 a turn? That makes no sense.
Yeah, if you pay up the 2 ipc’s this unit costs. It’s a conscript, forced to fight for a country he’s not willing to defend. Why wouldn’t it make sense? You can also produce one in Egypt, South-Africa, China, Kazachstan, Eastern Europe etc.
“You take the bullets, you take the gun!” - Enemy at the gates.
6 different sea units, but only 3 different land units… It’s time for a new land unit: the Conscript! This poor little fellow lacks the training and experience of regular infantry, and its most common strategical use was being cannon fodder to let the more valuable forces survive. In-game this would be translated as a 0/0 infantry unit with a cost of 2 IPC’s. The funny thing is, it doesn’t need an IC to get produced: every territory with an ipc-value of 2 or greater can produce one Conscript each turn. If India needs defense fast, just recruit some native rabble to fill up the ranks ;)
Thoughts and comments?
@Dylan:
To be honest I think tanks should be 7.
Example:
Infantry has 1 for attack has 2 for defense =3 (RWJ)
Mech Infantry has 1 for attack has 2 for defense has 1 extra movement =4
Artillery has 2 for attack has 2 for defense =4
Tank has 3 for attack has 3 for defense has 1 extra movement =7
Lol! Still the old IPC==attack+defense trick :roll:
Try not to forget that both tanks and infantry can take just 1 hit. For example: 2 inf 1 rtl vs 2 arm, the attacker wins because he’s got more hits than the defender. With arm @5 ipc’s this is a fair tradeoff, because the lack in raw fighting power (= attack + defense + hit taking capability) is countered by improved mobility. arm @6 is a joke, their role will diminish severely from “good for mobility” to “good for offensive mobility”. You can have 2 mechs + 1 rtl for 2 arm, in defense the mechs + rtl clearly are superior, and in offense they still have a small edge. 2 Mechs have got the same mobility as 2 arm, so in that view they’re equal. So what could be the advantage of armor over mech? Real fast offense maybe, when it’s impossible to have a couple of rtl at the front, arm might be a fast substitute.
I think though, that a good player will keep a handful of rtl at the frontline, supplying them with fast mechs which fulfill the role of canon fodder until the inf arrive. Arm will be bought little, maybe at the start of an offensive when there’s no time shacking rtl to the front. Hmm, “the evolution of the frontline”, fase 1: arm+mech, fase 2: rtl+mech, fase 3: rtl+inf 8-)
All in all, I think arm is overpriced in global compared to mech. Arm was fine at 5, they shouldn’t have fixed what wasn’t broken.
If I am understanding you correctly, the tactic is for G to only buy tanks and send them all towards Russia. I’ve faced against this tactic quite often when playing Revised/42 on TripleA, I usually smile when my opponent decides to use it :)
The thing about this tactic is that it is supposed to scare the Russian player into defensive mode but if Russia isn’t cowed by it then it will start to be a waste of IPCs for the Germans. The Allies can quickly set up their navy and start trading W Europe, E. Europe, Bielorussia, Ukraine and Karelia with the Germans and Germany will have to start spending those valuable tanks instead of infantry to retake those territories or see its production level drop to the same level as Russia.
I couldn’t agree more. There is no “glitch” buying only arm in Revised/42, it’s just a bad strat.
Ow, for the beancounter part, guess that includes me :lol: Though according to my bean counting, arms are fine at 5, and underpriced at 6. Not to mention cruisers at 12 :roll:
@UN:
Vee aaar Quebec! And vee are Fhhrecchhh Canaiiidion!
Nous sommes Québec. Et nous sommes canadiens français.
Je suis déçu à la fois de votre français.
Perhaps because the phrase “We are Quebec” doesn’t make sense?
I think it’s “Nous sommes (des) Québecqois, nous sommes donc des Canadiens français.” Or maybe it’s better “On est Québecqois.” The “des” is not translated in English, but before a plural substantive it’s either “les” or “des”. “Québecqois” can be interpretated as an adjective, without the need for “des”, or as a substantive, in which case “des” is required. I’m not sure however, ask a real Frenchman ;)