From the Talk to Larry A&A WWI forum on HGD, page 41 (posted Jan, 14, 2013):
Hey WB…
- What are the values for some of the units (attack/def/move/cost)
That depends on the values the battle-board assigns to them. It depends on the influence of some of the combined arms. For example. If you have air superiority all you artillery are promoted up a hit point. For each artillery present one infantry or one armor unit is promoted up a hit point. It�s all about the battle-board.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=93&start=320
Edit: Forgot to add, this was posted by Larry.
OK, but the issue is more acute here when we consider the huge difference in combat effectiveness that tanks have changing from attack to defence.
What I’m wondering is: What happened between WW1 and WW2 that made tanks 3X more effective at defense? I know tanks in this period were used mainly for offense (because the Allies were pretty much the only ones who had them, and they were on the offensive), but what’s to say a tank sitting still couldn’t contribute a lot to defense?
So Razor’s math is invalid.
WWI tanks were about reaching and overcoming obstacles such as barbed wire and trenches, preparing the way for infantry. They did have armament, but of rather limited effect compared to WWII vehicles. Essentially, they were designed to lead infantry assaults.
WWII tanks (at least after 1941) were principally mobile artillery platforms, and as such were as powerful in defence as attack.
I agree with the way tanks are depicted in the new game; I just feel that they may be a little overpriced, or under-powered in attack. By slowing down the combat, they defeat the object of a breakthrough weapon…
But I’ll need to see them in action to be sure.
It’d be kind of cool if there was some sort of breakthrough rule…like, if a territory is captured (read: overrun), the attacking player may move all his tanks and 1 inf per tank to a territory adjacent to the captured territory, and may engage in another combat round there. That’d give an awesome incentive for buying tanks, and it’d be pretty accurate to what they were actually used for.
Looks like Artillery will be the new King, very cost effecient.
With air supremacy all your artilleries will hit on 4 or less. This is going to be strong.
During amphibious assaults all defending artilleries fire a pre-emptive strike against the invading land units, just like the Blockhuse from A&A D-day, and the casualties are removed before return of fire. On top of that, the artillery can roll again in the general combat. Very strong.
Make them even stronger:
If a side has uncontested air superiority, its artillery all get to fire a preemptive opening barrage before the main battle begins.
The enemy can reply with its own barrage, but not before removing casualties.
This might be considered in conjunction with upgrading tanks.
Could you envision tanks being heavily used in the Western Front by 1 of each of the Entente and CP? I have not thought about turn order and may not even work but if there is a large amount of German/Austrian & British/French cooperation what about one nation focusing on tanks while the other mainly on infantry to support? Tanks go in first to soak up the hits before the infantry stacks move in to support and to protect the armour from counter-attacks.
Not quite sure what you mean, multinational armies cannot attack together. Tanks attacking without infantry and artillery would do too little damage.
I’m yet to be convinced that tanks are worth buying, but maybe something alone these lines might work.
I figure Jonny talk about the classic 2pronged attack.
I see, worth trying out.
But if I were France, I still think I’d prefer to go in with 18 infantry and pass on the armour.
Yes indeed, with todays knowledge 18 inf is the rational choice.
But each of Larry’s postings reveal some new surprices, like last time he told us that artillery now can fire pre-emptive on amphibious assaulting land units, now who could have seen that one coming ? And what about air supremacy that boost artillery, and artillery that boost tanks, or two-hit tanks, or one round of combat that leave territories contestet so nobody get income from them etc etc. I figure next time Larry tell us something that make tanks look good, so I would be too quick making assumptions, man
You are probably right. What about an optional rule of when attacking with tanks to play 2 cycles of combat instead of one, kind of to try and represent an increase of speed and mobility of tanks (even if that is not representative of the truth) but really to have more time on the offensive with your tanks? Might be something I will think about if every battle is just stacks of infantry and artillery. I was also thinking about a ‘contested zones’ style gameplay for WW2 with a 2 cycles combat system for tanks/mechs as I have always lamented the no option for defender to retreat.
I was wondering if you thought that if your capital is contested can you still mobilize? Throw units straight into the fight?
We don’t know what happens when capitals are captured. I would assume they can still build there when contested, even though they’ll collect no money for the capital itself.
On past rules we can assume that all money is captured, the country cannot build new units or collect money, but can be liberated by its allies.
