Tanks in AA1940

[questioneer]

Gentlemen:
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.

Larry

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.
LH-o

I've been checking in here and there but that's all. I didn't want to contribute anything since I haven't done a full playtest. I am doing 2 games (one as Axis and one as Allies)- very long and delayed at times since I'm in school.

The games are in round 5- so far Alpha+2 has been fabulous.

Middle East Oil- awesome addition and I am seeing some action/fighting there.

At this point, and other experienced players will probably agree that the game flow goes like this:

Axis threaten real hard- pushes Russia to the limits then slowly runs out to gas- too big of a supply line to keep up the pressure. If Allies buy and play smart they can weather the storm. Doesn't mean Axis can't win, because there are some definite "pivot" points in the game. It just means that even though the game is much more balanced I still (at this point) judge the game as a slight Allied advantaged game- probably a bid for Allies in that case.

So you are weakening the tanks defensively unless with and inf/mec....hmmm...I don't know. Maybe it really wouldn't hurt much.

So the real question is- When during the game do you think DEFENSIVE tanks are by themselves most commonly? This is where the game would be weakened by this rule.

9 times out of 10 tanks are joined with infantry anyway for fodder purposes...you know what I mean???

I only see this hurting in small battles where you take a tt with just tanks (or tanks survive only) and you don't hold it as well because your defense is now 2 for those units instead of 3. Because I believe the game is slightly Allied advantaged I would think that this would hurt both sides but Axis more than Allies.

Ex. Battle of France - round 1

Germany- 5inf, 4mec, 3art, 5tnks
France- defending with 7inf, 2art , 1tnk, 1ftr
Battle Calculator says Germany wins this over 85% of the time. Using your new tank rule weakens Germany's tanks in the later battle rounds if his infantry (attacking fodder) are exhausted. This would lower that battle %.
Correction- bad example as this would not change Germany's tanks value because they are ATTACKING.


Battles in the opening must be considered when applying this rule- it could wack out the balance right from the start- then you have to play with the setup again- uggh.

I would look at the opening battles in the game...because of this tank rule all of them will have slightly lower percentages now...some may even flip to the other side having the advantage. Be careful.
Update- Analyze the DEFENSIVE side not the attacking side %s as those would not be effected by this rule.

Anaylze these carefully before applying this rule...that is your HW Larry.

My final answer on this rule: Right now, I would side on NOT applying this rule, yet I do admit I need to anaylze this more.

PS- They are reprinting "Shogun"(to be called "Ikusa")- awesome

[m7574]

Some people on this MB should be ashamed of themselves. I wonder how many of them would say the things they say if they were face to face with Larry. I feel a certain amount of respect is in order. You know, like respectfully disagreeing. Debate not attack. A lot of people just need to calm down.

PS- I am glad the armor changes were recinded.

I also agree pretty much 100pct with questioneer on the balance of the game. Allies should hold the fort with proper play. At least thats what our playtests have found. Any additional assistance given to the axis however needs to be made carefully. It doesn't take much blow the game up. A bid as small as a single German transport could ruin things.

[Kobu]

I'm glad it's not going forward, but it did bring up an interesting idea in forcing a bit more consideration for loss order. Maybe some other time.

[Dave]

I thought it was April 1st... What are you telling me. I should get out more.
LH-a

You don't need to get out more. I like the effort and work you've put into Alpha. I'm just saying after the emotions that this small tank change brought out, it would be really cool for you drop a really big unannounced rule change bomb on everyone April 1 (April Fools Day anyone?). Then see what happens. You could sit back and chuckled while the message boards burn down in fire!

Who knows, you might even increase game sales. I could see some of the people who have responded to this tank change finally doing a ritualistic burning of the game only to go out and buy a new copy once they realize they were duped by The Master.

[Dave]

I'm glad it's not going forward, but it did bring up an interesting idea in forcing a bit more consideration for loss order. Maybe some other time.

That is a great point. I does make one consider loss order. I had played a version where a roll of a one allowed the atttacker or defender to choose the casualties on the other side with a few exceptions. Infantry were never allowed to choose. Tanks and artillery had to choose among any ground units on ones. Planes could choose any unit of there choice on ones. In naval battles, any roll of a one allowed you to pick casualties. It definitely added variability to battles. You could have scored more hits in the first round of a battle, but if your opponent rolled ones, you could lose some high value pieces and be toast.

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.

[bubone]

If the real concern is about more mech on the board,
why not letting them attack at 2 if matched 1-1 with tanks?

actually
30 ipc= 5 tanks= 15atk 15def 5 hits
or
30 ipc= 3 tanks 3 mechs= 12atk 15def 6 hits

new rule
30 ipc= 3 tanks 3 mechs= 15atk 15def 6 hits

A little difference that would induce to buy more mech, german for russian front, the best UK buy for S.Africa tank+2mech etc.. Don't change too much the general mechanics of the game.

[Kobu]

If the real concern is about more mech on the board,
why not letting them attack at 2 if matched 1-1 with tanks?

actually
30 ipc= 5 tanks= 15atk 15def 5 hits
or
30 ipc= 3 tanks 3 mechs= 12atk 15def 6 hits

new rule
30 ipc= 3 tanks 3 mechs= 15atk 15def 6 hits

A little difference that would induce to buy more mech, german for russian front, the best UK buy for S.Africa tank+2mech etc.. Don't change too much the general mechanics of the game.

I made a separate topic for that very idea if you'd like to put your analysis there too.

[aaron91]

Did anyone actually playtest the tank rule change to see if it really is as game breakingly horrible as some people would have us believe?