Tanks in AA1940

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
Häretiker
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Häretiker » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 pm

Thanks for the answers. I think, if PzGren get +1 for combined with tanks would be a nice thing (especially because I served 2 years in a PzGren unit of the german armed forces :mrgreen: ).

I tested the "hit and run" tactic and even if a mixed forces of tanks and inf the defending inf will allways score more hits then the attacker in the first round (if booth sides have the same total number of IPCs). But in normal game situations attacker will allways have more total IPCs in combat then the defender, and because of this it should work.
In my eyes the problem with this is, that the german player hasnt enought time to use hit and run especially vs russia.

Back to my example above. The only thing I wanted to say is that before the costs of tanks were increased to 6 they have had a higher winrate vs infantry.

Infantry:
10 inf vs 10 inf: attacker will win 5.4% of all battles

Tanks:
5 IPCs:
6 tanks vs 10 inf: attacker 7.3%

6 IPCs:
5 tanks vs 10 inf: attacker 1.7%

Why they increased the costs to 6? Because of the tac bombers?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:01 pm

Why they increased the costs to 6? Because of the tac bombers?
No because Axis and Allies Europe original edition and Revised 2004 which are more or less broken with all tank buys and other land units were not being purchased.

Also, including the mech infantry unit needed separation from the tank in terms of its quality.

Tactical Bombers arrived because the naval units got reduced in price to such a point that the planes didn't look like a decent buy anymore against naval, so they invented a 'naval fighter' which could also be used on land. However, they used the incorrect term "tactical bomber" which is a word that didn't exist till modern times, while Fighter -Bombers could be used to describe both naval and land based dive bombers.

It is more efficient to use the "tactical bomber as a pure naval fighter because you are destroying more expensive naval units on average. This is why it can't be this unit.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:04 pm

I think, if PzGren get +1 for combined with tanks would be a nice thing (especially because I served 2 years in a PzGren unit of the german armed forces :mrgreen: ).


So tell us:

If you had 100 regular infantry and their equipment vs. 100 armored infantry in armored mobile plated cars, which would be more effective on whole in most battlefield situations?

Whom would have more firepower, who would suffer more combat loses?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

m7574
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by m7574 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:46 pm

OMG! do you guys realize how fast Rssia wold crumble if Mechs got a plus one from pairing with armor?

Mechs are a great unit as they are.

what I can't figure out is why an armor gives a plus one to a tac.bomber. It is air superiority that makes the tac more effective. pairing it with the ftr should be the only way to get a plus one.

User avatar
Kaufschtick
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Kaufschtick » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:18 pm

Imperious leader wrote:
The German troops fighting the 101st were 'volkssturm' infantry, which are nothing but Militia units and what Himmler called "rearguard swine". 101st Airborne are elite units matched against old men with diapers and sub-machine guns. Not even close.
Tell that to the soldiers of the 106th ID, that it was old men in diapers who decimated their ranks.
Last edited by Kaufschtick on Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Young, Rodger W., Private, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division; born Tiffin, Ohio, 28 April 1918; died 31 July 1943, on the island of New Georgia, Solomons, South Pacific, while singlehandedly attacking and destroying an enemy machine-gun pillbox.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:33 pm

Tell that to the soldiers of the 106th ID, that it was old men in diapers who decimated their ranks.
The 106th was a so called "green" division made up of inexperienced troops matched against a Waffen SS armored division and the best elements of the 6th Panzer Army ( AKA an Armored spearhead).

At St. Vith the 106th didn't fight the militia volksstrum units, they were decimated by much more powerful units. It was a massed attack at a weak point and they had no chance against such odds.

If perhaps Hitler just threw in the regular volksstrum unit alone, we would be talking about "tell that to Himmler's volksstrum infantry" because it was them that would be decimated against well equipped Americans.

You keep making examples of one weak unit fighting a much stronger unit(s). So before you bring up another "tell that to _____", please reference units that have equal footing.

It only also proves that the Mechanized infantry were stronger. Perhaps in a prepared town with time the foot soldiers could defend with mines/traps/ and complete surprise, but on average against mechanized or armored infantry, an equal number of normal soldiers are no match because they cant carry or transport the larger equipment (large artillery pieces) that can cause greater damage.

foot soldiers have light weapons and some anti- tank weapons, but nothing compared to the types of equipment you find in a properly equipped Mechanized infantry.

Also, look at how all other wargames have it, Armored infantry is always getting a higher combat and defense value, not to mention movement.
Last edited by Imperious leader on Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Kaufschtick
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Kaufschtick » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:42 pm

m7574 wrote:OMG! do you guys realize how fast Rssia wold crumble if Mechs got a plus one from pairing with armor?

Mechs are a great unit as they are.
I agree whole-heartedly.
Imperious leader wrote: So tell us:

If you had 100 regular infantry and their equipment vs. 100 armored infantry in armored mobile plated cars, which would be more effective on whole in most battlefield situations?

Whom would have more firepower, who would suffer more combat loses?
I can't believe I just read this.

It sounds like a question my professor in my WWII history class at O.S.U. years ago, would have just "gone off" on.

We're playing a game, but the subject of our game was and is, no game at all. You're talking about flesh and bone human beings as if they were the toy soldiers we get in our games.

To quote a good phrase: "In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

That is a very simplistic question you posed, and any answer to it would have no meaning at all, in any context.
Last edited by Kaufschtick on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Young, Rodger W., Private, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division; born Tiffin, Ohio, 28 April 1918; died 31 July 1943, on the island of New Georgia, Solomons, South Pacific, while singlehandedly attacking and destroying an enemy machine-gun pillbox.

User avatar
Kaufschtick
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Kaufschtick » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:53 pm

Imperious leader wrote:You keep making examples of one weak unit fighting a much stronger unit(s). So before you bring up another "tell that to _____", please reference units that have equal footing.
In war, rarely are terms on an equal footing.
Imperious leader wrote:It only also proves that the Mechanized infantry were stronger. Perhaps in a prepared town with time the foot soldiers could defend with mines/traps/ and complete surprise, but on average against mechanized or armored infantry, an equal number of normal soldiers are no match because they cant carry or transport the larger equipment (large artillery pieces) that can cause greater damage.
Frost's British Para's at Arnhem were combat inexperienced from what I've read. They had no time to "prepare" as you say, with mines and traps, and certainly had no suprise on their side. They were few, and lightly equipped, yet held off just the type of troops you say they were no match for in equal numbers, and they were outnumbered.

We can go at this all day as far as I'm concerned. You're talking theory, and I'm telling you what happened in practice.
Imperious leader wrote:foot soldiers have light weapons and some anti- tank weapons, but nothing compared to the types of equipment you find in a properly equipped Mechanized infantry.
This game does not make the distinction of what types of equipment the units have.
Again, mech infantry's main advantage was one of maneuver
Imperious leader wrote:Also, look at how all other wargames have it, Armored infantry is always getting a higher combat and defense value, not to mention movement.
Who cares about other wargames, we're talking Axis and Allies here. The mech. infantry is just fine as is.

I think it's fair to say that we disagree on this. :)
Young, Rodger W., Private, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division; born Tiffin, Ohio, 28 April 1918; died 31 July 1943, on the island of New Georgia, Solomons, South Pacific, while singlehandedly attacking and destroying an enemy machine-gun pillbox.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests