I was saying that balanced army will always beat infantry stack (unless you are talking about equal IPC value army). But again, who would attack when guaranteed of losing?
Inf Defends at 2. So a stack of 20 infantry should average 1/3 so 6-7. 10 inf 10 tank should do about 6. Second round, the attacker should still do 6, defender will do about 5. Third round attacker, should do 5 and defender will do like 2-3. Of course, this kind of stat doesn’t work when applying to such huge numbers of dice. But I’m pretty convinced it should be about correct
However you do the math, it means three things:
1: This point is nearly inarguable, tanks are strictly worse than they were in AA50. The only advantages they receive is the ability to attack on 4 with a fighter (This will likely have very little impact), and the ability to carry along a bullet shield two spaces for 4IPCs in the form of MechInf (which may prove more useful).
2: An equal IPC stack of infantry on the attack will win 54% of the time at 6IPCs, and the limit of this figure aproaches 100% as the IPC value aproaches infinity. By only 24 IPCs the odds are 67% in favor of the attacking infantry. If the infantry defend and the tanks attack, the figure is, obviously, even more skewed in favor of the infantry. Thus, if only one space of movement per turn is needed, tanks are strictly worse than infantry.
3: Another two-movement land unit can now be purchased for 66% of the cost of a tank. The MechInf is significantly more cost effective on the defense than a tank, getting the same average number of hits per IPC while costing only 66% as much for 1 wound. Thus, tanks are not useful on the defense in any situation, only in an attacking scenario. The tank does provide an attack value of 3 for 60% of the cost of a fighter, and has twice the firepower per IPC as a mechanized on the attack. However the fighter is much more mobile, is more powerful on the defense, and has the flexibility to participate in naval combat. That doesn’t mean tanks are useless compared to fighters, you can buy a hell of a lot more for the same amount of money, but it does restrict tanks to a much more niche role than before. Tanks are not cost effective for a slow moving attack, infantry are much better for that. Tanks are only effective when you need both to be able to move quickly, and focus on offense much more than defense.
HI, my first post.
I don’t believe in favoring 1 unit over another. I’ve played several different versions of A&A and am the Axis 99% of the time (I like the challenge) Since I play Germany for most of the games, I have experienced my fair share of armored battles on the Eastern front. I’ve found that buying all tanks is ridiculous, as they are expensive to replace and are easily lost when clashing with a Soviet infantry stack. I also found that buying all infantry is not a wise thing also as they take forever to move to the front, and when they arrive their attack power is unreliable. The way I see it WWII was famous for its combined arms assaults, so now my most common buy is 5 infantry, 3 tanks, and 1 fighter. I find that this is a very flexible task force that is good for defense, attack, and counter attack for the reasonable cost of 40 IPC’s. However, this buy is made while tanks cost 5 IPC’s each. In the new game I plan on testing a task force comprised of 3 inf, 2 mech inf, 2 tanks, and one tac bomber, at a cost of 40 IPC’s. Basically what I’m saying is that it’s a good idea to be diverse in your purchases to meet the ever changing tide of battle.
There is no time limit in A&A so slow moving infantry is not a problem. It just postpones things a little. And if you keep buying a piece withbetter odds of survival than your opponent eventually the outcome will be favorable.
This is the same math that Las Vegas banks on.
Well, there is a sort of timelimit, because your allies will die while your slow army advances with the steps of a mouse…… and meanwhile the brits and americans are building up in the atlantic… :)
I will also say I’m glad the price of tanks is 6 now. With the new TAC unit, the mec. inf unit for 4IPC, and a larger map giving fast movement expanded value, the tank has to cost 6. Calculating clean combat odds vs unit costs makes little sense here, infantry must be the best buy there, if you have it combined with some firepower… Tanks will be worthwhile, building only tanks will not anymore…
hi guys,
I am interested in this costing thread. I agree that some units may not be costed right, or may not be playable because of their cost/ benifit ratio.
I don’t know if it has been brought up before but what about recosting the land units kinda like they did with the naval units?
Make standard infantry 2IPC, Mech 3IPC, Tanks ( 3att 3def ) 6IPC and give them 2 hits kinda like battleships with an added rule that if you allocate a hit to a tank the next hit taken during same combat must go to the damaged tank. That would just stop tank stacks from absorbing too many hits before they started getting destroyed.
Welcome to the forum Lowercore, +1 to you, your ideas will need some analysis.
I think giving 2 hit to tanks would make them way too powerful. Unless if its two hits from infantry/art. But then, it would make the game a little bit too complicated.
hmm there are going to be more territories so maybe that means more money? which could support things with an inflated cost
Hmm, it occurred to me that supposing there are a lot more territories in these 1940 games, then perhaps the Tank may regain some of its former value by being able to move two spaces. That way, you can capture more territory more quickly… This could be a factor. Just a thought…
i wish there was a cost of 5.5….
perhaps there could be a a buy one for 6, get the next for 5 deal? kind of like those cheapo half assed coupons i get from restaurants except for tanks… yes, I do believe this might actually be the best solution, since 5 is too cheap and 6 too expensive
Oh a 2 for 11 deal? I think I saw that coupon somewhere.
yay subway
I still say give tanks another benefit, for example, perhaps they could support mechanized infantry? We all know that in the war the panzergrenadiers were never far from the panzers.
Hmm, it occurred to me that supposing there are a lot more territories in these 1940 games, then perhaps the Tank may regain some of its former value by being able to move two spaces. That way, you can capture more territory more quickly… This could be a factor. Just a thought…
I was glancing over this old post and realized Lozmoid has the best opinion, there is way more IPC in the 1940 games now. China previously 4 IPC in original versions is now 12 IPC, the coast of Asia from Soviet territory to India is now 21 compared to 9. ANZAC is 10IPC previously 3. The extra 1IPC cost for tanks just helps balance and stop ridiculous Jap tank builds
My 2 rules of Axis and Allies that will always carry me:
(1) Never save more than 2 IPC’s in any turn
(2) Always try to max out factory production limits.
With factory production limits you cant just shout “Yay infantry!” and spend all of your money throwing down giant stacks of meat. Of course infantry are the best unit in the game for the price, but if you have extra money you better be spending it on better units. Maybe this has been mentioned before, I’m not sure.
Having the tactical bombers choose their targets is a great idea. Now maybe they would be worth buying. As far as being escorted by a tank, that is just foolishness. I can see the need of a fighter escort to gain a higher attack value but the tank idea should be dropped.
I will offer up a rationale for the tac/tank combo. Think about Panzers and Stukas for a moment. The Panzers are used to pin down the enemy in known locations. Then Stukas are sent in to finish off enemy defensive positions before the Panzers blitz the line. If it weren’t for the Panzers pinning the enemy units, they would be harder for the Stukas to hit.
I may be talking out my a$$ though…
