Tanks in AA1940

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
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 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:09 am

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.
The Allies lost at Arnhem BTW, and also Airborne troops are elite troops. So i guess this is another poor example. Airborne troops even as elite units can't hold out without supplies and they didn't get back home, but surrendered.

Find me an example of a division of infantry ( not airborne, just regular) holding back. Panzer Grenadiers or any other mechanized infantry. I can find many examples of the reverse.
In war, rarely are terms on an equal footing.
Fine put them in the desert... all of them. all land is flat in this example.

The mechanized just pick them off at a distance and move around and surround them.

Regular infantry is just hiding in the dunes shooting small arms at armored cars, half-tracks and light tanks? You might give them pea shooters too.

On second thought just make mechanized infantry 0-1-1-6 units
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 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:12 am

Imperious leader wrote: Fine put them in the desert... all of them. all land is flat in this example.

The mechanized just pick them off at a distance and move around and surround them.

Regular infantry is just hiding in the dunes shooting small arms at armored cars, half-tracks and light tanks? You might give them pea shooters too.

On second thought just make mechanized infantry 0-1-1-6 units
I'm just saying, I like them the way they are. :D

Sorry, I'll stop. :D
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 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:02 am

Me too..

Ok new idea ...rank the following units in terms of combat capabilities:

scale will be regiment

Artillery
Mechanized infantry
Armored
Airborne infantry
Marines
Rangers
Commandos
Heavy Tank
Self Propelled Artillery
Armed Militia

rank each on a scale of 1-10

Note the list has 10 different types of units, and no unit can have the same number as another unit.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Krieghund » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:04 am

Imperious leader wrote: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.
Fascinating. I had no idea this was the case. :?
Imperious leader wrote: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.
While "tactical bomber" is a modern term, it more accurate describes the mission of the aircraft, as is evidenced by its eventual adoption. It was decided that this term would be less confusing to players than the more historically accurate "fighter-bomber". Calling it a fighter-bomber would just confuse the unit's role with that of a fighter.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by turner » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:40 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.

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.
How fast would Russia crumble?

Mechs would gain a +1 when paired with armor, but would lose the +1 when paired with artillery. I think this would pretty much be a wash.

The tank giving +1 to the TAC bomber is a little puzzling, but I think it is suppossed to represent some type of spotters with the tank units. I think taking that away would be fine as well.

Then you would have what makes sense:

Fighters give a plus one to TAC's
Tanks give a plus one to Mech
Artillery give a plus one to Infantry


I don't see how this would hurt Russia at all.

Another question is combined arms gives a +1 to the attack of units, but why are there no combined arms giving a +1 to the defending units?

Would artillery help infantry defend better?
Would fighters help infantry defend better?
Are there really no units who work really well together while defending?

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by turner » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:49 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Me too..

Ok new idea ...rank the following units in terms of combat capabilities:

scale will be regiment

1. Heavy Tank
2. Armored (I'm assuming you mean like a Tank division)
3. Self Propelled Artillery
4. Mechanized infantry
5. Artillery
6. Rangers
7. Marines
8. Airborne infantry
9. Commandos
10. Armed Militia

I could really put Rangers, Marines, Airborne and Commandos in a hat and draw them out. If possible, per your rules, I would have rated them 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d.

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by turner » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:14 pm

Krieghund wrote:
Imperious leader wrote: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.
Fascinating. I had no idea this was the case. :?
Wow!! Krieghund made a joke! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Häretiker
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Tanks in AA1940

Post by Häretiker » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:17 pm

@Krieghund (why its not KriegShund btw?)
Why the costs of tanks were increased to 6?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests