Posts made by Texas Holders

@questioneer:

@Texas:

@questioneer:

@questioneer:

Kreighund,

Any chance that there will be an official change for the tank- making it a cost of $5 instead of $6???��  I don’t wanna get ahead of myself but several here think (and those tested the game already think) that the tank is useless as it stands.��  No real purpose of buying it, might as well soak hits with the more powerful infantry or artillery.��  The tank as a unit already seems broken.��  Can you explain futher???

Waiting for a reply on this- thanks. :-)

I think once you see it in action or run the numbers, you will change your mind on the tank.

Here is an example of its effect in combat compared to an equal cost of 2 infantry.�  For simplicity, I won’t list the units accompanying these units and the numbers are the sum of all units attack/defense.

Offense 1
1 tank - attack 2
2 inf - attack 4

Defense 1
1 tank, 1 inf - defend 4
2 inf - defend 6

Offense 2
1 tank, 1 inf - attack 4
2 inf - attack 4

Defense 2
1 tank, 2 inf - defend 7
2 inf - defend 6

It just keeps adding after that.�  The initial investment will weaken you, but the western front will not be one in one round of combat.�  Also, say the above was taking place in Lorraine, the infantry saved by the tank are infantry that didn’t have to be purchased and marched 4 spots from Berlin.�  The combat is a lot slower in this version, even more so with the large number of spaces between Berlin and Paris.

You seem to be comparing apples to oranges here.  Ex.in Attack 2:

1tnk, 1inf= 9IPCs versus 2inf= 6IPC.

This should be 3inf= 9IPC at an attack of 6
vs.
1tnk, 1inf= 9IPCs at an attack of 4

plus the extra inf gives you an extra hit, that washes out the tank soaking a hit.  With infantry having a much better defense alone at a 3-1 advantage over the tank.

Also for 7IPCs I can buy an infantry and artillery- 2 hit shots with an attack of 6 and a defense of 6 and not to mention the possibility of air supremacy to bump up the artillery up to 7/7.

All that versus 1 single tank at 6IPCs, with equal movement, no air supremacy bonus, attack at 2 and defense at 1 and to compensate all the tank gets is a single soak hit.

I could run some other combos and I do realize that I may be getting ahead of myself but the initial numbers don’t seem to make sense.

Am I really missing something here???  If I am, PLEASE Kreighund or somebody enlighten me… :?

I don’t think you fully understand how tanks work.  Of course the IPC values in Attack 2 aren’t equal, that is due to the tank saving a life during the first attack.  If you are talking defense, you also have to take into consideration that the tank saved an infantry on offense.  So 2 infantry will defend at 3-3, a tank that saved a life on offense is sort of defending at 3-1.  Keep in mind, that tank saves a life every attack.  You compared it to that extra infantry giving you an extra a hit, while that is true, it is only true for that first round.  Your next attack, your tank soaks up another hit, your infantry that soaked up a hit the first round is still dead.  Think after 4 rounds of attacks, that single tank has soaked up 4 hits.  So after 4 rounds 1 tank worth 6 IPCs is now worth 1 tank and 4 infantry worth 18 IPCs.

Why didn’t Russia activate Romania?  3 IPCs basically left on the table.

Why no transports for the US?

@Richter:

has anyone tried to make an amphibious attack on Tuscany on A1(arty + inf from Trieste) if sucessful it would split italy in two parts, delaying a counterattack on Venice (at least preventing a an early attack from Rome.

I tried it, not really worth it, on I1, the forces from Rome took it back.  Italy will be moving those forces up anyway.  It doesn’t really delay much counterattack on Venice, there is only 1 infantry that could be moved up to Venice from Tuscany.  Italian counterattack will either come from Piedmont on I1 of Rome to Tuscany on I1, and to Venice on I2, that assault doesn’t change that.  I think those troops are better used in Albania or Venice.

@Holden:

Lets see what we have here:

-A production chart that is useless
-Chips that are hard to read
-A useless tank unit
-An overpowered air unit
-Longer game play (6 turns in 10 hours!!)

Ouch, this sounds …brutal. I love all things Axis and Allies and will probably be getting myself a copy but damd. Why are people claiming this to be the best Axis and Allies experience to date? Is it simply because its so different to everything else? Is it really more elegent, balanced and an overall a better game than Anniversary?

Please convince me that this is a brilliant design and not the dinosaur it appears to be.

• The tank isn’t useless, I just think it is misunderstood.  It basically generates a free unit each round of offense.
• Not sure what you mean by overpowered air unit…air supremacy is extremely valuable if you have a lot of artillery present in the territory
• I think game length is a result of completely new game mechanics with new rules and just trying to figure out how to play the game.  Once you are familiar with the game, it doesn’t take nearly that long.

@questioneer:

@questioneer:

Kreighund,

Any chance that there will be an official change for the tank- making it a cost of $5 instead of $6???�  I don’t wanna get ahead of myself but several here think (and those tested the game already think) that the tank is useless as it stands.�  No real purpose of buying it, might as well soak hits with the more powerful infantry or artillery.�  The tank as a unit already seems broken.�  Can you explain futher???

Waiting for a reply on this- thanks. :-)

I think once you see it in action or run the numbers, you will change your mind on the tank.

Here is an example of its effect in combat compared to an equal cost of 2 infantry.  For simplicity, I won’t list the units accompanying these units and the numbers are the sum of all units attack/defense.

Offense 1
1 tank - attack 2
2 inf - attack 4

Defense 1
1 tank, 1 inf - defend 4
2 inf - defend 6

Offense 2
1 tank, 1 inf - attack 4
2 inf - attack 4

Defense 2
1 tank, 2 inf - defend 7
2 inf - defend 6

It just keeps adding after that.  The initial investment will weaken you, but the western front will not be one in one round of combat.  Also, say the above was taking place in Lorraine, the infantry saved by the tank are infantry that didn’t have to be purchased and marched 4 spots from Berlin.  The combat is a lot slower in this version, even more so with the large number of spaces between Berlin and Paris.

@Krieghund:

Note that control of a naval base is not the same as control of the territory that it’s in.  You control a naval base if you either control the territory it’s in or that territory is one of your original territories and it’s contested.

Just to get clarification on this, if you lose control of that territory, but later contest it again, do you regain control of that naval base?

Also, say you lose control of the territory, but one of your allies later contests it, so none of your units are present, do you regain control at that point, and if not who does control it?

I guess to summarize, does control default to the original owner regardless of how the territory became contested?

It’s largely irrelevant.  Sub-Sahara Africa doesn’t take up that much space on the map.  Ottomans can threaten Africa, Germany has little hope to retain its colonies, but Allies don’t have that many troops there to take them away.  Do the Allies really want to make the effort to steal Germany’s colonies that are worth a combined 4 IPCs?

Yeah, national production chart on the board is worthless.  I poached the Pacific 1940 one since I no longer use it.

@Flashman:

Doesn’t sit well with me. Would the Central Powers really sign a treaty with the Bolsheviks that allowed them to keep original CP tt?

More and more, I believe my own “Reds and Whites” solution is not only the most historical, but the simplest system to implement.

Would the allies support the whites and CP the reds?  Historically, the reds didn’t get support from the CPs.  Perhaps that is why the allies can still pass through Russia freely, they are supporting the whites, but if they do so they should have to pay a penalty for doing so, such as lose one unit each turn they are in Russia.

@Flashman:

Define “Russian Territories”.

Anything Russian controlled.  They get to keep what they conquered, but the “shields” would work both ways.

Tanks will more or less pay for themselves after two rounds of offense by saving two infantry.  Even more so sense you the saved infantry are already on the front line and need not be moved from the capital.  I don’t foresee them making a huge impact though, they won’t see combat until turn 5 at the earliest.

I think making Russian territories off-limits to both sides would make more sense.

Continuing the minor country questions, if the UK activates Albania, who gets the IPCs and are Italian troops still used to represent the Albanians?

Also, can non-infantry move to the capital without infantry if infantry are being purchased?  For example, I want to move an Austrian fighter from the east to the west with a stop in Vienna, but it is the only unit in Vienna at the end of the movement phase.  However, I have infantry that I purchased to be placed in Vienna at the end of the turn.

It looks like Austria needs to commit more to Romania to ensure it isn’t contested.  If Serbia is contested, not as big of deal since Russia wouldn’t be able to reinforce it if Romania is Austrian controlled.

Diplomacy and A&A are both produced by WOTC.