1. The cost of 6 is too much now. I thought 6 was just right with all that tanks currently are.
1a. I still don't think I'll buy any more mech inf. Probably less tanks now too in favor of just more inf/art.
1b. Mech inf ought to get an attack bonus with tanks also. Then I could start thinking about buying them with tanks.
2. Germany is going to get screwed in the current setup. It still has a lot of territory to cover, but now it's got less on defense after it commits to an attack or tries to outmaneuver Russia.
3. Now the good(?)--odds will favor the attacker a bit more in some situations. If you can get through an inf screen, you can can get further into the remaining tanks. This may work to get rid of some of the large stack standoff situation.
What happens is you buy inf/art early on to advance, then buy mech/tanks so they can catch up to your advancing stack. As Germany advances you count on the defense of those tanks because your ftrs can't land in tt you have just taken. As Germany I would normally have a horde of inf moving to the front, so my tanks would be protected for quite some time in a counter attack, but at some point this rule will cost me. The Russian player will see this new weakness, and counter attack a tt that they would have only considered before (on the fence). I will be forced to loose more expensive units (most likely my art stack) or even tanks as the battle rages. Russia will do even more hit and runs (as pointed out by other people), and Germany will be forced to retreat afterwords loosing the art/inf combo, rather then continue their aggressions. Germany that was the aggressor has just become the defender (or will at least retreat after a successful hit and run). If the Russian hit and run gets good results, Russia decides not to do the run part because the German units are on the ropes. As the defender Germany can't retreat, so battles that the Germans had an advantage, or were even before, I am now on the short end of the stick.
As the Russian player you buy some mech/tanks, but it's mostly to have mobility so you don't get caught with a stack that can't get to your capital for the final showdown or to track down axis units that broke through the lines and are chewing up your income. Russia will still depend on inf for its defense, with a few tanks and air as it always has. It won't be quite as dependent on tanks for def, because of its air force (unless your also considering an inf combo to lower that def as well).
We have been using a 3-3 tank sense 2004 when Revised came out (as most have). Of coarse at 5 ipc's I think it was under priced (6 ipc seemed to work). It will be a hard sell to my group to lower the def value of a tank if not paired with inf or mech (for reasons stated above, and before by myself and others). Although I'm not sold on the idea that inf will have some defensive bearing on tanks, I am intrigued with the thought of casualties being spread out amongst the ground units, rather then just loose the inf stack. I know many have their their own incarnations of AA, or as IL said about other games using this same (or similar) mechanism. In AA50 we had a house rule that if art, or tanks, rolled a 1, you couldn't take inf as a causally it had to be assigned to higher ranked ground units (if available) we also experimented with something similar w/air (Yes IL I know this concept has been around for a while, and the credit must go to you--he he I beat you to it). I would like to hear from someone (Krieghund, Yope etc...) that have been using this rule that Larry has proposed (or something similar) for some time.
PS, is this proposed rule change going to come with adjustments to the set-up for Alpha.2 ?
Hey WB... how about you play with it and let us know how it went?
As to playability, I personally would be fine with moving to a more complex and refined game with many units supporting each other in unique ways and such to increase strategy, realism, and historical accuracy. However, I bet that many would not, so I would just like to pose the question of "Should we?" Great question. Frankly, combined arms can very easily get out of control. By definition it adds a layer of complication. This is especially true with such a core unit as tanks.
As to realism/history and continuity, if the answer is yes to the above question, then you logically can't just choose random cases in which to adopt this. For instance what about artillery? They can't just defend by themselves. Should they have defense and attack 1 unless paired with at least one infantry? And shouldn't they get some sort of first strike instead of supporting inf? And Air units support all ground units, but don't really just fight ground units as much. Should they have like attack 1 defense 1 but support several units to increase attack and defense? Should bombers be able to defend? Should ..... I mean, if we're moving towards a game with increased complexity, realism, and history, then that's fine. But why are we picking these random instances to enact random changes? It's an effort to add or subtract value to several units that all have to live within a very restricted, narrow group of integers that range between 1 thru 4. BTW... there's nothing random about the units selected and how and what they may interact with. It's actually a very difficult task. Remember this... "Design" is nothing more than a collection of compromises.
- Imperious leader
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
- Location: Moving up to phase line red...
Yes good one.As to realism/history and continuity, if the answer is yes to the above question, then you logically can't just choose random cases in which to adopt this. For instance what about artillery? They can't just defend by themselves. Should they have defense and attack 1 unless paired with at least one infantry? And shouldn't they get some sort of first strike instead of supporting inf? And Air units support all ground units, but don't really just fight ground units as much. Should they have like attack 1 defense 1 but support several units to increase attack and defense? Should bombers be able to defend? Should ..... I mean, if we're moving towards a game with increased complexity, realism, and history, then that's fine. But why are we picking these random instances to enact random changes?
This is a Pandora box where new on both attack or defense weak units make strong units stronger. Why not let destroyers boost battleships?
On land men run behind tanks so they don't get shot up. I suppose now tanks drive behind infantry so they can be protected?
Wonderful. Giving players options is great, but there are other ways to do this that contain some element of realism. For some reason people think its impossible to offer options while keeping realism. For them options that allow fantasy to promulgate is preferable to any other consideration. It is simply not the case.
Fighter-Bombers should always be at 3 unless the defender has no enemy fighters.It should have nothing to do with having a fighter yourself. Fighter- Bombers attacking unmolested against land or sea targets should always be at 4, and the cost should be 12.
Bombers should go back to 15 IPC due largely to this "roll D6+2 thing".
The technology relating to getting cheaper naval units should be reduced to a "buy 2 or more get discount of 1 IPC off each item" so you can buy 2 fighters for 18 , etc. You might make one for land units as well.
thanks for having the forums set up and running them, much appreciated and much utilized.
I've been playing for several years now from Classic on through to the current evolution of Global Alpha +2 and truly love it.
the one change and leap forward I've been waiting for all these years is what Imperious Leader touched on in this section, switching to 12 sided dice. I agree with what he said about how it could open things up and give so much more possibilities for design and play. is this being considered? has it been ruled out? and if so I'd be curious why.
again, thanks a bunch.
Hello bradley8118 and welcome.
No 12 sided dice have not be ruled out. Their potential has been recognized for many years. Maybe even before IL thought or expressed the need for them.
IL did say something about the idea that A&A may have out gowned D6s...I think there's some merit to that comment. Still. . At this point and in this game, they work just fine. One more word on 12 sided dice. Why 12? Why not 10. In earlier discussion I heard things like 10 sided dice don't feel as good as 12 sided die. Form over function? The 3/2/2/6 tank that becomes 3/3/2/6 with infantry support is not as dramatic a change proposal as some folks would have you believe. To suggest that it is armor that supports infantry or that it is infantry that supports armor is actually rather ridiculous. We all know that they support each other. The problem is... only one can actually get the credit for supporting and enhancing the other. I personally have been educated with the belief that it is indeed infantry that supports armor more so than the reverse. Heck, I could be wrong about that, I'm often wrong about a lot of things, but I'm pretty comfortable about this. Actually I'm not interested in being wrong or right. What I'm interested in is... What's best for the game. It has rather strongly demonstrated to me that this proposed change (tanks to 3/2) is a bad idea. With its need for a combined arms rule (infantry supporting tanks), which I'm not crazy about, or tanks supporting infantry which is rather automatic and already built in, wouldn't you say, could be the reason I would ever consider reversing this change.
A fun little flavor change? Thanks a lot.
First of all thank you for your input on this subject.
I want to inform you that I have decided to change tanks to the following. This will be how tanks are represented in the 1940 series (Alpha+2) and when possible/practical all future iterations of Axis & allies:
Tanks: “Cost 6 Attack: 3 Defense: 2 (3 when supported by infantry and/or mechanized infantry) Move: 2
Supported by forms of infantry: When a tank defends along with an infantry and/or mech unit (Marines, Charlie's Angels, or anything that can ware boots), the tank’s defense increases to 3. Each tank must be matched one-for-one with such a supporting unit. If your tanks outnumbers your support units, the excess tanks units still have a defense of 2. Tanks are not supported by infantry on attacks.”
Again, thanks for your input on this and other related matters.
You're kidding us right??? Seriously...
I'm going to exercise some patience and just suggest the following:
If the rule above is applied- the cost should be 5 otherwise leave the rule as is.
Why did you change this rule? Was there something mechanically wrong that you saw in the playtests so far???
Please explain your thinking...You got me stumped on this one.
So where have you been questioneer? Haven't been seeing much of you lately. I hope school is going well. Why did I make this change? Beats me. I do know that I didn't start this thread. I guess there must have been something wrong with the tank profile. So what do you think. I should back off from this? When I lose your support I start second guessing myself.
You need to read this:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ind ... ic=22467.0
When I read that IL and SgtBlitz agree on something I begin to worry. I've never heard one or the other agree with anyone. Bitch, bitch, bitch... Man it gets old. I'd much more like to see some contributions, contributions, contributions... and I'm not talking about changing everything that exist so that the game becomes appealing for ones little niche of the world.
Finally, agreeing with Mr. Dumpster and Mr. I-Know-Everything is going to be a hard pill for me to swallow. I've got to acknowledge this rather large push back by the many whose opinions I respect, however... Let me think on this. After all... This is the kind of dialog (between the designer and the players), that ended up making the Alpha changes in the first place... so it's doing its job. I must say, however, that I don't recognize many of these people at .org. Somebody should tell them that they don't have to slam me or the game only over there. They can come over here, but that might mean they'd have to contribute. Yeah... that might be asking too much.
I know I'm going to regret this in the morning Oh... it is morning.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests