Posts made by Veqryn

well, I do not think that navy units should be compared with tanks directly
yes, a tank is a 3-3-2 for 6 and a cruiser is a 3-3-2 for 12, but you can not compare them directly because they will never fight each other

however, you can compare them through the air units, because each will have to fight with air units

tanks are a 3-3-2 for 6 and fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 10, which is fair or perhaps a little expensive for the tank which should cost 5 or 5.5 or something

fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 10 and cruisers are a 3-3-2 unit for 12, but the fighter requires you to pay for a carrier, which you don’t attack with, that costs 18, which is an additional 9 per fighter, so that means fighters are a 3-4-4 unit for 19 while cruisers are a 3-3-2 unit for 12, which is not fair for the fighter and sucks my balls (see my post about the cost of carriers)

@idk_iam_swiss:

mechs are 2-2-2-4 right? I think mechs in anything are better than artillery and infantry. for the same price as an artillery I get a cheap unit that can blitz? count me in!

no

mechs are 1-2-2-4

take a 1 mile journey south?  (i mean 1.6 km journey south… sorry)

wouldn’t it be cool if they made mech infantry into a 2-1-2-4 unit?  it would be like the submarine on land hahaha

i do not like the ideas for blitzing though, I believe combat should end all moves and that odd rules about first round of combat are too weird and hard to balance in general

i think larry said that mech infantry will receive a boost from artillery, but don’t quote me on that

you may think mech infantry is not that good, and you are right, but it will still be bought and will still fill a very specific role:

after purchasing infantry and artillery for a few rounds, and having them move towards the front line, you will begin purchasing mech inf and tanks for a few rounds, and if timed perfectly will catch up to the infantry and artillery just in time to launch one massive attack

edit:

oh and with regards to brain’s comment about “are we back to buying all infantry?”
in a way, yes, you will see much more infantry being purchased even by powers that are supposed to be on the offensive
BUT artillery has permanently altered the landscape by providing the most cost effective way to attack people: if used properly it is a 3-2-1-4 unit
so at a minimum, you will see people buying mostly infantry, with an artillery are two

I am though very worried about the consequences of a tank that costs 6
i am not that worried about mech infantry though, as i kind of regard them as a novelty and little more, however the game needs tanks and the game will not function without a balanced 2 move attacking unit

@wodan46:

@Veqryn:

KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5

Hmm.

For 20 IPCs
4 Tanks=12 Attack, 8 Defense, 4 Hits
5 M-Infantry=5 Attack, 10 Defense, 5 Hits

For 21 IPCs
3 Artillery, 3 Infantry=12 Attack, 12 Defense, 6 Hits
7 Infantry=7 Attack, 14 Defense, 7 Hits

Interesting.  That actually works a lot better.  Tanks are still clearly the best way of projecting offense, but M-Infantry are better at securing territories.  Artillery/Infantry are the best all around force, but move slower, and Infantry have the best defense/health, but have pathetic attack and move.

Also, M-Infantry are going to be really bad for Invasions, as when transported, they are the same as Infantry, but take up the better slot of the Transport and cost more.

In fact, the full statistics are below:

1 Movement Force
Infantry=1.40 Attack, 2.80 Defense, 1.40 HP
Infantry/Artillery=2.40 Attack, 2.4 Defense, 1.20 HP

2 Movement Force
M-Infantry=1.05 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 1.05 HP
Tanks(Original)=2.52 Attack, 1.68 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(Revised)=2.52 Attack, 2.52 Defense, 0.84 HP
Tanks(1940)=2.10 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 0.70 HP
Tank(Original)/M-Infantry=1.88 Attack, 2.35 Defense, 0.94 HP

thx for doing the math

i will miss the 3 defense, but i would much rather 3 offense for 5 ipcs than for 6 ipcs
a gameplay consequence would also be that people would need to secure their conquered territories with units other than tanks since they would have the worst defense per ipc rate, and i think that would make much more interesting gameplay on a larger board than classic (ie, on a board the size of aa50 or pacific/europe 1940)

the more i think about it, the more i like it

honestly, I would rather they KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5 than change it to 3-3-2-6

i think it is changing to represent the importance of repairing your fleet in this game

however, since you can’t land fighters on the damn thing after it is hit…. you are sort of screwed anyway

which makes me think…  why not have it both ways in a way:

when hit, a carrier can only hold 1 fighter instead of 2

now that might be cool, but it still doesn’t solve the issue of reduced offense
(offensive power is being reduced in two ways: by forcing you to pay more money for the ability to host your offensive fighters (you don’t bring carriers into attacks, but they are often the defending party) and being forced to sink something that now takes 2 hits)

why change something that was working really well.  i would totally agree with keeping it 1-2-2-14 with 1 hit to die

@wodan46:

3. Cruisers fire first, before ground combat even starts.  This is invaluable.

you may not know this, but the rule for shore bombardment has changed.
yes, it happens before the combat starts, but it really doesn’t matter since you could just as well say the shore shot happens during the 1st round of combat because:
casualties from the shore shot now get to shoot back before they die (they move to casualty board instead of to the box)

I am glad you bring up the issue of tanks costing 1 more now (+1 for you too)

i feel that i will not be buying very many or any at all of tanks.  costing 1 more just puts them out of the range of their utility.  Half of a unit’s worth is its ability to absorb hits, and an infantry for 3 ipcs absorbs just as many hits as a tank for 6.

i Would pay for a tactical bomber / fighter-bomber if they removed that stupid restriction that it needs a tank/other fighter with it to get its benefit.  what if my other fighter gets shot down?  its a great idea, but get rid of that dumb restriction

people are going to buy cruisers because of that bombarding ability whenever they need fleet defense but don’t think there will be a naval arms race.  this pretty much only occurs in the atlantic, where it is a given that after a certain number of turns the allies will own the seas.  yes, your destroyers are better in almost every way, but on the 3rd or 4th turn, when there are no more german or italian navy units left, and your fleet is big enough to completely deter an attack by airforce, your navy of destroyers will be near useless, while mine will be providing shore shots for the next 6 turns or whatever til the game ends.  (and yes, in this situation carriers with fighters are superior to both options)

people thought that navy got cheaper with AA50, but the only thing that really got cheaper was the battleship.  everything else still follows larry’s stats as being  1 point of offence/defense per 2 ipcs in cost.  (in AA50 cruisers are 3-3 and cost 12, and in revised they are 3-3 and cost 12.  subs are 2-1 that cost 6, similar to 2-2 that cost 8, which is what destroyers now cost, etc. etc.).  I think that navy should use the prices from the “upgraded shipyard” tech in AA50, as those are just a little cheaper but not by much.

Does China follow other rules similar to AA50:

She doesn’t have factories right?  She can just place anywhere as long as there are not more than 3 troops already in that territory, etc?

Her forces can not leave China’s borders, except perhaps to indo china and manchuria, etc?

@maverick_76:

I think 1-1-2-16 sounds good. Carriers did have defenses against planes but not really against other ships, that is why I think the original 3 defense was whack. I think the best solution should be 0-1-2-15, either that or what I mentioned above.

that is pretty good

I have a spotty history with pre-orders.  Several times I’ve either never received the product, been charged twice, or the company i pre-ordered from never received any from the manufacturer and strung me along for months before I got my order cancelled.

So, what website is the best to Pre-order A&A Pacific 1940 from?

you can also mention actual physical stores, but only if they are a chain and therefore would be in multiple states

thx

k, so what about this?

1-1-2-16 carrier unit with 2 hitpoints

or

0-0-2-14 carrier unit with 2 hitpoints

i would almost rather have the second version… but i think either would be great

my big question is: how many turns will the burma road survive?

i predict it will survive only 2 chinese turns (3 japanese turns), which means you may have to purchase all the artillery you want for the rest of the game during these turns…

do China’s infantry cost 2 ipcs or cost 3 ipcs?
I’m assuming artillery will cost 4?

Why don’t we just treat them like territories at sea?

if there is an enemy unit in my convoy zone/box then I do not collect income from that convoy zone
if there isn’t an enemy unit there, I do collect that income…

well, 14 or 15 ipcs is even better in my mind, so i agree with that IL,
i just think that Larry won’t do it, since he has said it will cost 18, have 2 hitpoints, can’t land planes if hit (he has not yet said it will be a 1-2 or 2-2 or 1-1 or 1-3 unit), so I was hedging my bets and asking for a drop to 17

like i’ve said before, and I’m not sure anyone is reading this, is that super-stacks-standoff is bad gameplay, and we need to forget about historical stats for the carriers and start looking at what creates better gameplay

1-1-2-17 or 2-2-2-17 or 0-0-2-15 or something along these lines would create better gameplay by limiting its defensive rolls in relation to the offensive power it brings

the only way we are going to get rid of super-stack-standoff is if we increase the offensive capabilities of the navies:
this means Carriers should not go up to 18 ipcs (that lowers the incentive to buy Carriers + 2 aircraft)
make carriers defensive rolls no larger than its offensive rolls
make Tac bombers / fighter-bombers a 4-3-4-11 unit that does not require a friendly fighter present to get its 4 offense

@Zhukov44:

@Tragedy:

@jigsaw:

The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.

Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?

Building factories as Germany is a HORRIBLE idea.
Disagree.  In AA50, I think it’s accurate to say this (that if Germany loses France they are probably doomed to lose the game).  In Revised or this game, trading Western Europe is perfectly acceptable–it is Moscow and Berlin that are essential, not Paris.  The only thing that is vital is that you don’t allow the Allies to hold Paris.

The Western IC has promise in theory and might work if the Allies don’t react and/or focus on Japan.  But it still seems like a waste of IPCs given u already got more than enough factories and that the Western IC is a serious potential liability.

I’m for 1-1-2-17 with 2 hitpoints.  I feel 18 ipcs is too expensive and may cause more purchases of warships even though Aircraft should be the main thing being purchased as navy.

I am purely against Super-Stack Standoff.  (SSS for short), which I feel makes for bad gameplay regardless of whether it is historical or not.