Let’s say there are 6 territories between Moscow and Germany. I will agree that the front lines must be mainly INF +art. But to catch the inf (once they are 2+ territories from Germany), you need tank and Mech inf (if I remember correctly, Mech inf need tank to blitz).
Tank has blitz, and enable mech inf to blitz if I have read the rules correctly (Which I haven’t)
While Germany may start with 10 Fighter, may I remember you that Russia won’t have that many? While you might have super air power, should I remind you that AA gun do exist and could follow Russian’s troops as they march toward Germany?
Tanks are also boots. I believe I showed how Planes do not land in the territories you conquer. Tanks, on the other, follow the winning army. You cannot neglect this. Tank will give the edge to an army. Also, tanks combined with Mech infantry will make the “can opener” trick even deadlier (I’m hoping that it won’t be an issue).
Shore bombard serve me quite well, especially with UK.
“That bombard is highly situational as the enemy will rarely leave his units on the border to be bombarded”
This statement is completely false. Germany WILL defend France. If he doesn’t, Allies just win the game. If he does defend it, that’s when shore bombard is useful. No need to risk your planes to the AA gun. Just bombard the hell out of them
“Think about it, what is worse, a pair of carriers with 4 planes, or 8 cruiser shore shots, when trying to invade a heavily stacked territory. By round 2 the planes got just as many hits and can be taken as casualties in a close battle. Even against an AA gun on average if the fight lasts to round 3 the carrier out performs. Run the odds if you don’t believe me.”
Why wouldn’t a mix of both be possible? Why is it A or B with you? The world isn’t binary.
“And stop comparing apples to oranges, comparing land units to air units is pointless as they have different roles. The only reason air units are compared to naval units is the carrier. I would almost always take 3 mech inf over 2 armor. I’ll take what I start with but other than that, junk.”
I suppose I can tell you this too. Why are you comparing two naval units when both of them serve a different purpose?
DD : Meat to any fleet, detect sub
Cruiser : Shore bombard, better offensive capabilities, is likely to be sacrificed before capital ships
And you stated it yourself. Units have different roles. If air units have different roles than ground, why wouldn’t two units (ground-ground or naval-naval) serve different role? You are taking the units too narrowly and are not capable of seeing the game in its totality.
I will go with Craig A Yope that some of the units might not be balanced. Increasing AC price is one step toward that direction. As for ground units, I will need to play the game myself before concluding. But theoretically, I see reason why they wouldn’t be balanced. Each unit serve a different purpose and has its role. While Inf + Art are the heart of any ground army. Mech inf + tank are needed for their speed. Same way for naval units. While sub and DD will likely be the meat of any decent fleet, cruiser + BB + AC will serve to give more offensive power to it. Cruiser and BB will allow you to have more punch when doing amphibious. And Air with their mobility is probably the best unit in the game. However, they are not capable of landing in a conquered territory, thus making your offense more fragile to a counter
Mech need armor to blitz, not to move 2 spaces. Without mech inf i’d agree armor would still have a situational use, but with mech, meh.
Can someone clarify the mech inf rule?
I just did, mech inf can move 2 space, but they cannot blitz.
Blitz is the action of taking an empty enemy territory and then continuing into another battle, mech if can do that if paired with an armor. Mech inf is also boosted to a 2 attack when paired with an artillery.
I too have a problem with the ‘simple math’ line of reasoning.
If the gameboeard was 2 nations and 3 total territories, then the ‘simple math’ would apply in this purchasing slugfest. But, there are many, Many, MANY other factors like: how many transports are avaible, factory production limits, distance away, etc. All of these cannot use ‘simple math’ to decide purchases.
Of cousre, as Don Rae wrote in his essays that if your purchases are way off, it will really hurt your game.
But to say ‘never buy such and such a unit, because it is not worth it’, is going too far.
Don Rae’s tactics don’t really apply to the newer games.
I would almost always take 3 mech inf over 2 armor
The exception being production space. When producing at a minor factory, tanks are the best buy per slot for ground unit (just not per IPC). Ditto for transporting. Mech are just as ‘bulky’ for transporting as armor but deliver far less combat power on the attack.
For those reasons, armor will still have a role (if more limited in the Pacific).
But CAs just dont have even those saving graces. MAYBE if you are trying to maximize combat power in as few units as possible, but even there I’d rather have a CV and planes than a few CAs.
And as noted above, you cant compare aircraft to ground units for cost because for planes you are paying for the versatility of a four range. But you CAN compare CAs directly to the other ship types since they will be competing for the same role. And in that competition, the CA is clearly inferior in 90% of the cases.
Don Rae’s tactics don’t really apply to the newer games.
Nor did I imply that Don Rae’s tactics apply here. Let me spell it out for you. The general reference was to major purchasing mistakes would cost you the game.
Don’t forget the psycological element.
When attacking a small naval task force with planes, I don’t care about a DD.
A CA is another caliber and another threat.
It is the same with infantry/artillery and tanks. You have allways a closer look on the enmy tanks.
Shure, you can’t scare mathematicians with this psycological element, but an A&A player who cares for his planes, running out of resources.
Great point about deterring an air attack on your small task forces. +1
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.
Maybe they would be built if you couldn’t build Capital ships (acc + bat) out of Minor complexes.
As the USA I almost always buy a tranny, inf + art, DD and CA. Cost: 34. I have 21 left (most of the time) for another tranny and cargo, or the build up of CV-fleet.
This way I will have a steady flow of land units while it isn’t a nice target for a lone bomber or a lone sub. As a bonus my trannies can gop back for more cargo (or be offered to be destroyed to liberate a Chinese province or DEI). Then you still have the DD and CA left, which can be added to your growing US fleet.
For all other nations I hardly ever build CA’s. I go DD and SS all the way.
Cruisers and battle ships are luxury items. Really the only two powers in this game that can afford them are Japan and the US. I agree that it would be stupid as the UK or ANZAC to buy these vessels, they cost too much money. But these ships give you advantages in battle that destroyers or subs can’t, and for powers that can afford them they are logical buys.
Don’t forget the psycological element.
When attacking a small naval task force with planes, I don’t care about a DD.
A CA is another caliber and another threat.
It is the same with infantry/artillery and tanks. You have allways a closer look on the enmy tanks.
Shure, you can’t scare mathematicians with this psycological element, but an A&A player who cares for his planes, running out of resources.
Yeah but the point is that the threat to your air is actually GREATER from an equal investment in DDs than in CAs. So yes, for players who value ‘gut’ or ‘feel’ to statistics or facts, they might be a greater deterrent but that is perception only - not reality.
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.
Yes, I would very much like to see that. That would REALLY mix things up a bit IMO.
The only thing I would suggest is to have the price dropped to 11, the same as tactical bombers.
Actually, keeping with the spirit of them I think I personally would run them as follows:
In a convoy zone intercept 2 IPC like a sub
Have 3 movement. Do not gain an additional movement from a naval base.
This would give them there convoy raider feel, and would be useful for when you want boats that do not have to rely on naval bases, and for running them away.
Alternatively, give first strike back to shore bombardment and we got an entirely different ballgame.
Cruisers have more offensive power than destroyers, and more per IPC than battleships. Cruisers are actually very effective doing two things
A: Adding a little extra power to a fleet that already has a full carrier. Its cheaper than building another CV or BB.
B: Attacking smaller fleets (perhaps a DD + Trns) when sending a BB or CV would be overkill.
I think after shore bombardment lost its first strike capability, some people might not care as much for cruisers or battleships. However, when destroyers were first introduced, they were more like cruisers, then what they are now. However, destroyers were good for sub hunting, though they were more limited in that regard as well, as they did not stop sub stalling.
I think whenever new units get introduced, some of them will be more respected than others. And as abilities change, so will their relevance.
I haven’t played this edition yet, but I used to build cruisers with UK, and US in the AA50. Didn’t people complain that Italians didn’t come with enough cruisers?
However shore bombardment rules are now weaker than ever. I think everyone has their play style, and what units work the best for them. Hopefully I’ll play this game soon, so I can have my opinion about the new mechanics in this game.
The only thing I would suggest is to have the price dropped to 11, the same as tactical bombers.
This is where I am right now. At 12 IPCs, Destroyers are a better buy at 8 than cruisers. Giving cruisers resillience is probably too strong. Making them act like AA guns upsets some folks. I just don’t think their shore bombardment and 3/3 stack up against the DDs sub hunting and 2/2.
Are others noting the need to Destroyer Stall (D-stall) in AAP40? A cruiser can’t stall a sub from getting behind you and costs more for the “delay.” So in addition to being a 2/2 unit at 8 IPC, & being the anti-sub platform, it is also the only good stalling piece for the oceans. I just don’t see the cruisers stacking up well against that at 12 IPC. I can even imagine a US strike against a heavy Japanese fleet in the Carolines where the US player only sends subs. You gotta have a mess of DDs to counter that.
