@Upside-down_Turtle:
What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf. I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules. Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):
Piece Name Attack Defense Move Cost Special
Soldier 1 Light Infantry 1 2 1 3 N/A
Soldier 2 Marine 1 2 1 4 + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult
Truck Motorized Infantry 1 2 2 4 Can Blitz
Gun(1) Light Artillery 2 2 1 4 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Gun 2** Heavy Artillery 3 2 1 5 +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Half-Track Mechanized Infantry 3 2 2 5 Can Blitz
Tank 1 Light Armor 3 3 2 6 Can Blitz
Tank 2 Heavy Armor 4 4 2 8 Can Blitz
*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to). Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility.
I feel the need to explain my chart a bit more and why I made certain decisions, such as bumping tanks up to 6 IPCs.
I think the original concept for a Mechanized inf piece was the idea of IL, who suggested a 2-2-2-4 unit represented by a half-track or a truck, which is a really good idea. The whole problem for me came with FMG providing both trucks and half tracks, and not either/or. Really it’s not their fault. We as players need not assume they both have to be used once we get the set, but it seems a waste not to use both. I liked the idea of a “land transport” but it was a carry over concept from a tactical game that I feel can’t apply to a strategic game. Looking into the history of the Mech-Inf on the Larry Harris forum, I came across an idea that made a distinction between 'motorized infantry" (Trucks) and “mechanized infantry” (Half-tracks). I liked this, but couldn’t see how to get passed some obvious difficulties. These difficulties arise from a very simple economic principle called Gresham’s Law, a principle first stated by Late Scholastic thinker Nicolas Oresme (1325-1382).
Gersham’s Law states that if two currencies (say, gold and silver) exist side by side in the same economy and the government fixes a ratio between them that diverges from the ratio that they can obtain in the free market, the currency that the government overvalued will drive the other currency out of the market. A modern example of this would be if the government today announced that for all payments, three quarters will be considered the equivalent of $1, everyone would rush to break their dollars so they could make all their payments in quarters. The paper dollar would be pushed out of existence. I feel a very similar problem exists with the truck as a unit that transports inf side by side with a 2-2-2-4 infantry.
Lets say trucks were priced as originally proposed at 4 IPCs. This unit carries an inf and art. Essentially, you have 2 units that attack on 2 and defend on 2, moving two, that cost 3+4+4=11 IPCs, when you could get the same w/ 8 IPCs in two mech inf. To have price parity, you’d have to reduce the truck to 1IPC. However, this still consists of requiring 3 units to achieve the same effect as 2 units. It saves production efficiency just to buy the 2 mech inf. The 2-2-2-4 unit is simply too good. It takes up the 4IPC niche and crowds out everything else but the artillery. It was a unit designed under the concept of trucks and half-tracks being one and the same unit, but alas, they broke up.
It kept me up one night till it occurred to me that the only way to find a “niche” for every ground unit was to make room. I bumped the tank up to 6 IPCs, and beefed up the mech inf to a 3-2-2-5 unit, essentially making it into what the tank was before Revised. This provided room for 1-2-2-4 motorized infantry and the Marine from Pacific.
Now, you may have several gripes about why this is simply wrong:
Q1. “Doesn’t bumping the tank up to 6 IPCs make it too expensive, making it a bad buy, dooming us back to the dreaded Infantry Push Mechanic?”
A1: No. The whole reason for the Push Mechanic had nothing to do with cost/power ratio, and everything to do with fact that a unit that cost 5 IPCs defended at the same value as a 3 IPC unit. Tanks still defend at 3, making them heavy hitters and defenders. Also, planes supporting them by +1 adds value, essentially keeping them the same.
Q2: “You made the Mechanized Infantry the same as the pre-revised tank. Isn’t that just creating another dead unit?”
A2: No, the Mechanized Infantry is still an infantry, meaning it can be transported and supported by Artillery as any infantry can, making it much better than the Pre-Revised Tank.
Q3: “How do you justify making a Half-Track attack on the same value as a Tank?”
A3: George S. Patten said that the main weapon on a tank wasn’t the cannon, but the machine gun. Tanks are infantry killers first, and tank killers second. Also, I make the distinction between light and heavy tanks, also in conjunction w/ the new FMG pieces. Heavy tanks are not infantry killers as light tanks are, but specialized to kill other tanks. There main weapon is indeed the cannon.
In a way, I’m almost ashamed to admit that I’m proud of my new post-Revised Tank (kind of ironic, huh; being ashamed of pride). Perhaps my pride is blinding me, but the only problem I see with this new chart will be for new players who tend to get confused enough on what land units to buy when there are only 3 of them. Truly, this is something that follows in the Advanced-Deluxe Legacy of the early development of AA50, adding both volume and complexity, and ought not to be tried by a beginner A&A player. The whole thing seems rather elegant to me, making Land Combat almost as diverse and complex as Naval Combat.
Well, that’s the best argument I can make in favor of my ideas. I hereby await judgment.
