Posts made by wodan46

If I were a first time player, I’d go “how do you build a fleet?  How do you fight with a fleet?  How do you handle its air support and move troops with it?”.  I mean let’s review:

Transport: Doesn’t participate in combat, (complicated transport rules go here)
Subs: 0.33 Attack, 0.17 Defense, and 0.17 HP per IPC.  (complicated sub/destroyer/aircraft interaction rules go here)
Destroyers: 0.25 Attack, 0.25 Defense, and 0.13 HP per IPC (detects subs)
Battleships: 0.25 Attack, 0.25 Defense, and 0.13 HP per IPC (can soak a hit)
Aircraft Carrier: 0.08 Attack, 0.17 Defense, and 0.08 HP per IPC (2 Fighters can land on it)
Fighters: 0.30 Attack, 0.40 Defense, and 0.10 HP per IPC (complicated landing rules, weird interactions with subs)
{Note that Carrier Groups as a whole have 0.22 Attack, 0.31 Defense, and 0.09 HP per IPC}
Bombers: 0.33 Attack, 0.08 Defense, and 0.08 HP per IPC (as Fighter but with superior mobility, weird interactions with subs)

Every single one of these units is important to naval conflicts, requiring you to carefully use them as a combined group.  And every single one of them costs 50% of more of any country save the USA’s income.  How precisely is this supposed to be “simple” or “open” to new gamers?  I’ve been playing/pondering Axis and Allies for years and its still easy to forget about the esoteric properties of units at inconvenient moments, such as forgetting that the reach of the Bomber lets it sink an undefended Transport and then land in some minor territory, or that a single Sub can wipe an unsupported Carrier Group 4/9s of the time.

If they really wanted to make the game simple, they should have done this:
Infantry: Attack=1, Defense=2, Movement=1, Cost=3 (land)
Armor: Attack=3, Defense=3, Movement=2, Cost=5 (land)(blitz)
Aircraft: Attack=3, Defense=4, Movement=4, Cost=8 (air)
Ship: Attack=2, Defense=2, Movement=2, Cost=6 (naval)
Fleets can transport/carry 2 IPCs worth of land/air units for each Ship in them.  Defending fleets can block 2 IPCs worth of land units from landing per ship in a sea zone adjacent to the invaded region.

Looking at the game, and having played/heard multiple sessions, outside of bad die rolls and extreme player eccentricity, its hard to see how the game does anything other than this:
1. Russia falls by Turns 3-5, generally depending on whether or not Germany diverts airpower to sinking the British fleet first.
2. The game enters a long boring stalemate where both sides trade Eurasian and Oceanian territories willy nilly before someone takes a capitol or dies trying.

This is basically because of two factors:
A: Because of the reduced IPC income, Germany can build 4 Infantry for every 2 that Russia does.  This gets ugly once you factor Germany having way more support units that ensure good exchange rates, Russia having no AA to counter those support units, and the Berlin=>Moscow march being back down to 3 spaces.
B: Because of the reduced IPC income, it takes longer for Great Britain/America to pressure Germany in Western Europe.  Great Britain generally has to build an Atlantic fleet, Atlantic transports, and ground forces in both the UK and India.  America generally has to build a Pacific Fleet, Atlantic transports, and ground forces to field in both areas.

The net effect is that Russia gets wiped out, whereupon the game trends towards a stalemate due to Russia being as subpar a reward as it was a threat to the Axis.  Even if all of Russia falls, its still only 28 Axis income to 27 Allies income, plus or minus whichever Eurasian and Oceanian territories have exchanged, but its hard to see either side getting the capacity to threaten the other’s capitols for a looong time.  Frankly, it amazes me that this game passed muster.  This game is supposed to be focusing on simplicity, yet “Russia will always fall” means the game is either broken if you assume “Russia falling ends the game” and is complex if you assume “Russia falling doesn’t decisively end the game” which is the case in pretty much every other Axis and Allies game.

Hence my suggestion that Artillery defend against Sea and Air threats, in addition to supplementing ground offense, while Infantry provide for more general defense against Land threats.

Interesting, that would mean that Tanks on the tip of the spear with M-Infantry would likely be exposed and fragile, but Tanks within the main force don’t suffer such.  Giving M-Infantry the Artillery bonus gives them a similar reward for being within the main force.

Anyone think that the Artillery, AA, and Blockhouse should all be combined into one unit?  Doing so would probably result in an increase in cost to 5, which would help balance the new Tank.

Artillery: 2-2-2-5
Powers
1. Gives +1 to an Infantry when attacking
2. Before the first round of a sea invasion, gets a potshot for 2 or less vs. landing units, casualties removed before rolling
3. Before the first round of any combat with enemy aircraft, gets a potshot for 2 or less vs. air units, casualties removed before rolling.

In this setup, I would also gives Fighters a potshot of 3 against aircraft, and Fighter-Bombers a potshot of 1.

@Brain:

Leave the tanks at 5, Allow mech inf to transport 1 artillery of 1 infantry with it. This would be good.

That is another acceptable fix.

The central problem is that Mechanized Infantry being a 1-2-2-4 unit makes it near strictly weaker than the 3-3-2-5 Tank, but the Tank is already well balanced with everything else.  The solution is to make the Mechanized Infantry balanced.  If it turns out that the superior movement is more powerful, then even then, the Tank only needs a marginal decrease.

Ways to improve M-Infantry
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that can transport 1 Infantry with it when it moves two.
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that receives +1 from Artillery
M-Infantry is a 1-2-2-4 unit that can be transported like an Infantry could (hence you could transport a M-Infantry and Tank)

Ways to marginally weaken Tanks
Tanks are now a 3-3-2-6 unit
Tanks are now a 3-2-2-5 unit
Tanks are either one of the above but receive +1 when working with a Dive Bomber

@Brain:

i think that the mech infantry is mainly for getting infantry to the front lines

Which is interesting given that they have no such power.

@bugoo:

But oh noes, the dreaded AA gun is in Berlin!  This may be true, so lets up the numbers to 3 carriers for 6 fighters.  You will lose 1 on average, so by round 2 you took 10 attack rolls at a 3.  With your bombards you would get 9 cruisers for that cost, or 9 attack rolls at a 3.  As the combat progresses, the carrier/fighter combo continues to outperform your bombardments!  Now yes I know AA gun rolls are dicey, so are bombard rolls.

The vital aspect is that Bombard resolves before units fire, which means that you don’t simply inflict losses, but you deny them a chance to inflict them as well.

Lets compare a Cruiser to a Fighter when attacking France (which WILL have an AA gun).
Cruiser has a 1/2 chance of inflicting one loss, usually just 3 IPCs, and eliminating that unit before it can fire is usually a 1/3 chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Hence, each Cruiser deals 1.5 IPCs worth of damage and blocks 1.0 IPCs worth of damage.

Fighter has a 1/6 chance of being shot down, causing 10 IPCs worth of losses, and then has a 5/12s chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Each subsequent round, it has a 1/2 chance of inflicting 3 IPCs worth of losses.  Hence each Fighter on average incurs 1.66 IPCs in losses and inflicts 1.25 IPCs in damage first round, 1.5 IPCs in damage each subsequent round.

Cruiser: 2.5 IPCs, weighting it by 10/12s gives 2.083 IPCs
Fighter: -0.41+1.5x IPCs, where x is the number of rounds beyond the first.

Hence, for Fighters to be worth it, combat has to last at least 3 rounds.  Also note that the Cruiser carries no risk of suddenly having a weaker air/sea force, which could leave one exposed to a counter-attack.

Granted, the fire first has been removed, and as such, they should probably lower the Cruiser’s cost to 10.  But in AA50, it was understandable.

That might work.  Mechanized working with Artillery allows it to compensate somewhat for its pathetic offense, Tanks and Dive Bombers both getting +1s makes them an extremely powerful attack engine.

With the defense oriented Mech Infantry, you actually have the manpower to do a second attack, allowing you to push forward twice in a turn, something that is quite useful, but you can only do it with the more expensive ground units.

Doing so pushes both the M-Infantry and Tank to the “useful” range without changing their costs.  Granted, it completely changes the nature of ground combat, as you have twice the threat range.

One possibility would be to keep the new 6-Tanks and 4-M-Infantry, but add a Blitz rule

Blitz: During the first round of combat, Mechanized Infantry and Tanks fire before other units do, and casualties are removed before other units can fire.

Doing that might make both M-Infantry and Tanks on par with Infantry, Artillery, and Aircraft, at least by the standards of previous maps.

There is the open question of how much bigger the map is, and whether or not units would actually need to use that mobility.  If so, that can justify the M-Infantry and Tank, which are balanced relative to each other, being weak compared to Infantry/Artillery.

Also, the more I think about, the more I wonder about how effective M-Infantry is in general.  Their defense is less than a Tank, their durability is marginally better, and their offense is weaker than that of Infantry!  In the mean time, they can’t be transported readily and they can’t be boosted by Artillery.  Their only advantage is being a better hit-soak than the Tank, and that only works so long as the Tank either has a cost increase or defense loss from its Revised version.

@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

Good analysis Gorshak. I agree that adding Mechanized Infantry necessitates changing Tanks, because otherwise, Mechanized Infantry gets 1/3 of the mobile firepower of a Tank for 4/5s of the cost.  Upping the Tank’s cost to 6 means the ratio changes to 1/2 the firepower for 2/3s the cost.

The way it works now, they seem to be emphasizing two pairs:
1. Infantry+Artillery, the slow moving but efficient force.  7 IPCs for 4 Attack, 4 Defense, 1 Move
2. Mech Infantry+Tanks, the fast moving but expensive force.  10 IPCs for 4 Attack, 5 Defense, 2 Move

However, Tanks are now pathetically inefficient versus mainline Infantry.  More importantly, they are now completely outclassed by the Fighter.  Fighters cost only 4 IPCs more, but have superior projection and defense.  Furthermore, while the disadvantage of the Fighters is their inability to hold new territory, thus necessitating Armor for quick consolidations, Mechanized Infantry can do so instead.

However, if you upgrade the Tank, it will just surpass the Mech-Infantry again, and we’re back to where we started.  Honestly, I think that Mechanized Infantry unbalance the game, because they deny the Tank the unique ability to attack and hold a territory two away from where they started.

Funcioneta, while I admit that the Tanks mobility is more useful than ever now, with the current costs, Mechanized Infantry+Fighters can do anything that Tanks can do, but better.  Mechanized are better at securing distant territory and soaking hits.  Fighters are better at projecting attack where you wish, without exposing yourself to losing that projection.

@Gorshak:

I really like the introduction of F-B, but I would like to have each aircraft have its distinct usefulness:
Fighter: Strong in Air Combat, weak to medium in Ground Combat
F-B: Strong in Ground Combat, medium in Air Combat and weak to medium in Strategic Bombing
Bomber: Strong in Strategic Bombing, weak in Air Combat, medium in Ground Combat, Long Range

Hmm…
Fighter: Attack=Medium , SBR=None, Interception=High, Defense=High, Move=Medium
F-B: Attack=High, SBR=Medium, Interception=Medium, Defense=Medium, Move=Medium
Bomber: Attack=Medium, SBR=High, Interception=None, Defense=Low, Move=High

Fighter: Attack=3, SBR=0, Interception=1-2, Defense=4, Move=4, Cost=10
F-B: Attack=4, SBR=1d6/2 rounded up, Interception=0-1, Defense=3, Move=4, Cost=10
Bomber: Attack=4, SBR=1d6, Interception=0-0, Defense=1, Move=6, Cost=12

@Brain:

@wodan46:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist.

Not currently, they don’t.  It was stated to be on the “cutting room floor”.

Quote your source.

@Imperious:

At sea, or during sea battles, it selects its target for the first round of battle. (This rule has been changed and is a concept that was not in the and was left on the cutting room floor). The next rule is the final rule regarding DB below:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I actually like the tac bomber restrictions you forget that tac bombers get to PICK what casualites they inflist.

Not currently, they don’t.  It was stated to be on the “cutting room floor”.

@bugoo:

And, in closing, 12 IPC cruisers are just plain dumb.  With bombarding requiring a landing unit per bombard, it is not that powerful of an ability.  Both the sub and the destroyer have better special abilities, and IPC for IPC outperform the cruiser by an insane amount.

Destroyer’s detection ability is relatively weak, because you gain no bonus from having multiple Destroyers in a group, whereas Cruiser bombardment gets better and better.  The Destroyer’s primary ability IS its combat performance, which is in excess of any other naval unit.

Cruisers get better offense and bombardment than Battleships, albeit at the lack of the hit absorption, which is the primary ability of the Battleship, one which has been weakened by the way.

Of course, you could just get Carrier Groups for air support instead.  However, there are three reasons why Cruisers are better in certain cases:
1. Carrier Groups are expensive, most nations can’t afford such a commitment without crippling their land production and/or leaving their fleet vulnerable to Subs, who can snipe the Carriers out from under the Fighters.
2. Fighters get shot down by AAs, before they even get a chance to fire.  Cruiser bombardment doesn’t carry this loss, which is substantial (1.7 IPCs per Fighter per attack on average, not counting the loss of critical firepower unexpectedly)
3. Cruisers fire first, before ground combat even starts.  This is invaluable.

A simple situation in AA50 where Cruisers are useful would be for the UK, if they are attempting to take France.  If they use air power, it gets savaged every turn by anti-air guns, and a determined sub group could knock out the carriers.  If they use Cruisers, every time they invade France, they can pick off 2-4 units before combat even starts.

That said, I think that Cruisers could use a minor boost.  I’d say it’d be best to give them 3 movement.

@bugoo:

Inf: Cheap, fodder, best defensive bang for your buck.
Art: Most cost effective offensive unit when supporting inf.
Mech Inf: Like the inf, but faster movement. (please note, I do like this unit and do see its role, just feel its a little OP for the price)
Arm: Currently good all round unit and fast movement.  At 6 IPC I feel they are worthless other than for extremely rich nations with small deployment abilitles (Jap/US).

Two things to note
1. Mech Inf are NOT boosted by Art
2. Armor now boosts Tactical Bombers

That said, Tactical Bombers are from what I understand likely to undergo change, and thus Armor will as well

If Carriers still cost 14 but take 2 hits to destroy, then they would be more useful as hitsoaks than as fighter deployers, even if you need a Port to repair, and even if they have no real combat power.  They would be either take 2 hits at 7 IPCs apiece, or 1 hit for free per 14 IPCs worth of Carriers.

Maybe they should have it at 1-1-2-18, but declare that after 1 hit, only 1 Aircraft can land on it, rather than none?

@Nickiow:

In a straight combat the 6 Tanks lose between 2-3 and inflict 3 in return, you can argue the maths if you like! :-D but the principle point is that the Armour losses Armour while the INF/ART combination losses expendable INF on rnd 1, if it goes to another round you get 3@3 vs 6@2.

Your example is deeply flawed.  Armor should always be deployed with Infantry if possible.

1 Tank, 1 Infantry loses 25% of its offense and 40% of its defense when it takes a hit
1 Artillery, 1 Infantry loses 50% of its offense and 50% of its defense when it takes a hit

Combined with the 2 movement, the blitzing, and limited IC production Tanks are clearly worth the extra IPC.

@Subotai:

AA50, (and also Classic & AAR) is not about VCs. It’s about production, attrition and money.

Says you.  My gaming circle plays way too aggressively to get bogged down like that.  The game is usually over by the 3rd turn.

Also, I see no reason for Germany not to build Subs, seeing as they can easily shove Russia over to the point where Germany makes 50 and Russia makes 30, and then they can simply harass and trade till Godzilla crushes everything.  Why should Germany make a risky push into Moscow when they can win just by surviving?

Also, you could declare that naval units can’t go to and from the Baltic Sea Zone unless Northwest Europe is controlled by friendlies.  Axis subs are thus invincible unless Northwest Europe is taken.

If Allies go KGF, Germany simply turtles with Infantry+Fighter builds, then patiently waits for Japan to take either Moscow or East US.

If you look at the actual game reports, Axis consistently wins the majority of them, regardless of NOs or Tech.  The most common reason for victory is simply Japan Hulk Smash.

By the end of turn 3, Japan’s Income should be 60+, having taken East Asia and Indonesia.

By the end of turn 6, around the time KGF should be reaching its climax, Japan will have around 80+ income, having taken Africa and Siberia, and be poised either to invade Moscow, or may have taken East US already, seeing as US was so concerned with Germany.  US/Britain might have 115 IPCs at best, but be in a far more difficult position tactically, seeing as their fleet is no longer of any use for defending either Moscow or East US.

Interesting.  So Britain could build Carriers into the English Channel that American Fighters from East US could then land on, allowing you to rapidly build a fleet threatening Western Europe without compromising Britain’s limited budget, which should be spent on land units that can be flung at Western Europe more efficiently than America can.