Page 15 of 17

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:15 pm
by turner
Larry, sorry the 3/2/2/5 tank didn't go over very well. I wouldn't have minded it if the +1 bonus to mechs was added in. In fact a +1 bonus to mechs would still be a good idea in my opinion.

Some people still will say that it would give even more power to offensive stacks, but I also believe it should/would be possible to also give a mech a +1 defensive boost from tanks as well. This would really help promote the use of mechs and tanks together. I think it would really help to promote tank/mech combination purchases for Russia as well.

Currently I see a lot more infantry being purchased than I would expect and not many tanks at all. If tanks helped boost mechs in any way, I think that both tanks and mechs would be purchased more by all sides, even Japan. (OK probably not a lot by ANZAC, FRANCE or CHINA).

I think if your goal is still to help promote more mech and tank buys this would be the way to go.

I could even see allowing any number of mechs the ability to blitz with any number of tanks. This would really allow for the mobility of these units to shine on the eastern front.

I know you may be a little shy of the flag pole at this point but go ahead try running this idea up the pole, place it right below the flag where the state flag goes, I truly think it would be beneficial for the mech unit and the game as a whole.

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:28 pm
by Imperious leader
Tanks as i have indicated should still boost mechanized infantry. Mech Infantry should also be able to blitz on its own.

Artillery should not boost anything, but roll a 3 in first round, then 2. Alternatively, use the idea that if an Artillery rolls a one, you must select a non- infantry unit as combat loss.

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:46 pm
by Tobnac
C'mon! Is this it? Just scrap a rule-suggestion and no-one has playtested it? Larry, I think it's a great idea. It's a simple and clear rule which adds a bit realism in to the game. In earlier versions of A&A one could spearhead with tanks only. That felt very unrealistic. Stick to this change and let us try it out first. Though, my first thought was to lower the cost back to 5 - then it's more of an improvement from earlier editions. C'mon, keep it, keep it, keep it.

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:49 pm
by questioneer
Tobnac wrote:C'mon! Is this it? Just scrap a rule-suggestion and no-one has playtested it? Larry, I think it's a great idea. It's a simple and clear rule which adds a bit realism in to the game. In earlier versions of A&A one could spearhead with tanks only. That felt very unrealistic. Stick to this change and let us try it out first. Though, my first thought was to lower the cost back to 5 - then it's more of an improvement from earlier editions. C'mon, keep it, keep it, keep it.
Its not a bad rule per se as it really doesn't effect the attacker. However, it does effect the defender a bit.

1. Attacking tanks remain strong.

2. Defending tanks are weakened a bit. Most of the time tanks are with infantry anyway, but in large battles it will make a negative impact in later rounds of those battles because the fodder (inf) will be gone for the defender, making tanks weaker in the later rounds of battles.

3. With #2 in mind, consider opening battles and theatres where this can impact balance. Throw the balance of these battles off and you gotta redo the setup again. To me, that would be a headache. Its just not worth the pain for one little tiddy "realistic" change.

With all due respect, nice idea, but just say NO to the revised tank idea. :D

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:50 pm
by mantlefan
Tobnac wrote:C'mon! Is this it? Just scrap a rule-suggestion and no-one has playtested it? Larry, I think it's a great idea. It's a simple and clear rule which adds a bit realism in to the game. In earlier versions of A&A one could spearhead with tanks only. That felt very unrealistic. Stick to this change and let us try it out first. Though, my first thought was to lower the cost back to 5 - then it's more of an improvement from earlier editions. C'mon, keep it, keep it, keep it.
I think you might be forgetting that tanks are ALREADY a fairly unpopular buy at 6 IPCs. It takes only a second of rational thought, not playtesting, to realize that making tanks worse will make them more unpopular.

Now if the change had come with a drop in cost to 5, I would totally agree that playtesting would be necessary.

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:58 pm
by The Fire Knight
Dave wrote: If Larry went to a D12 system (which I would be all for) I would really like it if this was given thought. For a D6 system, it is a bit too variable for most people I would believe. However in a D12 I think it could add some real interesting changes without killing most peoples planning.

I would definitely be all for this. But I definitely want D10 and D20 to be considered and not just jump to D12 just b/c it's D6 times 2. Personally I would be for D20 the most, as it makes each number an easy 5%, which would make remaking the units easier, b/c the odds and unit power would be easy to calculate. And with larger numbers we could easily expand the game to have much more combined arms and possibly even more units :)

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:56 pm
by Imperious leader
And with larger numbers we could easily expand the game to have much more combined arms and possibly even more units
It just allows the results to better reflect the units capabilities. AA guns can now go to 1 out of 12 ( only 10% of total plane loses due to SBR were the result of any land based flak artillery or related weaponry)

Battleships could have a reduced (damaged) combat rating

Light cruisers could be built

Heavy tanks

Airborne which are elite troops would actually have better values than regular infantry.

etc..

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:51 am
by Carico67
Larry;
Have you considered allowing tanks to also function like artillery in aiding an INF to a "2" attack on a 1:1 ratio? Dropping them defensively, while adding this realistic and tactically useful tidbit might make both sides of concern find the changes acceptable. In the end, your take is the important one, but throwing it out there for thought. I stopped reading at page 6 and apoligize if this idea has already been thrown out there.

Chris C

Hey, Chris. How ya doing?
I have thought of this and exactly as you wrote it... "allowing tanks to also function like artillery. I'm not planing on making any more changes to unit profiles and combined arms changes to this game. I think it's fine as is (at least for the moment). I don't want to over do it. The impacts and ripples are way too much for me to seriously consider at this time. I do think that all the possible Combined arms combinations can be a lot of fun to explore. In this case... Hey, kids try this at home and not here :lol:
LH-e