Elite Infantry Cap?

[Cpt. John Miller]

Here's what I posted elsewhere, sorry about the repeat.

I have been play testing the US and German platoons posted on the WotC site and I have to say the US just shreds those Mauser Kars. Even with the Haup they get chewed up by garands w/ RDCapt. I think there is no making the Mauser Kar worthwhile even in a platoon format. They are cannon fodder and not worth the cost, even with a discount.
MK has 6 dice at medium range vs. 8 Garand w/ Commander bonus.
No contest.
They can't hold the objective, they can't roust anything off the objective. Strictly a filler piece.
I don't think the SSPG will be going anywhere anytime soon.
It's very unfortunate but Germany just SUCKS without them.

Anyway, someone mentioned the idea of an Elite Soldier Unit Cap.
Similar to the Hero errata. Max of three 5/5 soldiers per 100 points.

Is Germany still competetive with a cap??? Big question.

No more Parabomb to contend with.
I like this idea because you can field elite infantry, just not ALL elites, like the tourny winners of the past. Platoons might be more tempting if you need to find replacements for your meat and potatoes.
This is not my idea but it might just be the best one I have heard yet.

[Uncle_Joe]

As I said in the other post, if you cap the elites, you remove the biggest 'screw' with the Amis...the ability to either Parabomb or Sherman swarm. If you reduce it to a one-dimensional threat, the Germans are just fine without massed SS-Pgr.

IMO, the limit should be 2 elites for each 100 points of build. If players want to play with more, they can mutually agree to more but the standard should be quite low.

Even Platoon pricing isnt going to be enough to discourage use of mass elites unless the discounts are EXTREMELY high...the reason, the 'screw' with the elites IS extremely high. For example, if Elites should cost 7 in terms of cost effectiveness (and I think they easily should), then their 'screw factor' is a whopping 40%. So unless the discount on platoons equals or exceeds that screw factor, you are still going to see massed elites unless there is a cap.

[Cpt. John Miller]

Uncle Joe-
So you and I both think that there should be an Elite Cap.
Two is fine with me.
The Hero Cap had a great affect on diversifying competetive builds, this could do the same.

[Uncle_Joe]

IMO? Yes, I think it largely would.

Its quick. Its easy. Its consistant. It restrict parabombs and the underpriced troops. Whats not to like? (unless you are powergamer looking for the non-brainer way to win that is...).

When you think about it, neither the Russians nor the Brits have ever been accused of being overpowered...why not? The Russians have PLENTY of cheap, solid armor. The Brits have what many consider to be the most cost-effective heavy AFV in the game (Croc) AND two of the more popular anti-infantry units as well (Humber and Stuart). The answer is that neither has cheap, accessible underpriced 5/5 infantry.

[EricM 2404]

a cap is something I would like. simple and affective

[Cpt. John Miller]

More brilliant rationale from Uncle Joe on how an Elite Cap would help solve the Aircraft dilema:

Again, the reason is the cheapness and rampant availability of Elite infantry. A 'standard' squad with a 6 AI at medium range has only a 10% chance to affect a 4/4 aircraft as it is now. The chances of actually killing said plane with standard squads is VERY low.

However with the preponderance of Elite units on the board, the chances go up dramatically (SS-Pgr has almost 3x the chance of a hit). As I've said time and again, regulate the number of unrealistic and undercosted elites and the planes will be much more survivable.

Caveat: If changes are going to be made to the aircraft rules, might I suggest removing Crack Shot's ability to get its +1 vs aircraft. That, coupled with a reduction in the number of elite soldiers present would instantly increase aircraft survival rates whilst leaving a chance that normal troops could drive off a plane every now and then (through disruption results). Problem solved.

:D

[Major Adler]

I am with you Uncle Joe...a 2 unit CAP on elite (5/5) infantry...

[fifleche]

Try out a RDC & 3 Garands VS a SSHF & 4 Mausers.

Unless the American player lets the combat slide at range 1, the Amis win almost without a challenge.

8 dices at medium range & -1 to opponents cover rolls VS 6 dices and disruption removal won't cut it.

Same equation without leaders, altho then Germany has a fighting chance.

[Uncle_Joe]

That is a distinct possibility. But you cant just compare infantry to infantry like that for balance IMO.

Four units lets you cover more area and is less susceptible to large AI attacks. The Amis will have more firepower, but less staying power. Both Ami perks (more dice and reduced cover) give them the firepower while both German perks (an additional body and the ability to remove disruption) give them the staying power. If you are trying to weather attacks and simply survive on an objective (or other key terrain), the German force will be much better suited.

In fact the 'mother of all tactical WW2 game' (Advanced Squad Leader) has exactly the same dynamic...the Ami squads have 50% more firepower, but are a bit more expensive and a little more brittle. The Germans have the edge in morale giving them more ability to stay on the line. I think you'll see that in the game and I think its a good dynamic.

As another comment, the Amis are wholly dependent on their leader to win the 1 on 1 engagement for cost. If you can manage to separate them from their leader (either kill him or threaten him), the Amis lose a lot of their lustre for the points.

Also, as an alternative, try 4 of the German Vet infantry vs the the 3 Garands and the RDC. Its a pretty close matchup given equal terrain.

Believe me, I've been playing without SS-Pgr and Rangers for some time and its not all doom and gloom for the Germans. In fact, it makes many of their AFVs more playable knowing that your 7 AI numbers actually have a 50/50 of affecting any opposing infantry (and that any hit you score is going to stick because they have no way of removing disruption). I would NEVER use a MkIV (SS or otherwise) or a MkIII or any of the halftracks knowing I could run into a cloud of 5 defense infantry. But if that possibility is gone, 6 and 7 die AI attacks are actually worth considering.

[Major Adler]

since I almost always play the Russians...what is elite infantry?...I would love to have 2 Russian 5/5 infantry as the proposed cap would allow...and I would love to have Russian paratroopers...and I would love to have a Russian unit similar to the German Veteran Infantry...I have gotten along OK...and have an enjoyable time gaming...

elite infantry...I don't need no stinking elite infantry...

URaaaah!!!...

Death to the Imperialist Fascist Invaders!!!...

[polish_horsy]

one effect of a cap would be that falschirmjagers and SS-Stormtroopers would be tackle box pieces. I mean who is NOT going to have 2 SS-PG in every army? For the Americans the Ranger is a better bargain but the Para still has his advantages and would still see use.

[Kaufschtick]

A two elite infantry cap would be just fine, IMHO.

[Uncle_Joe]

one effect of a cap would be that falschirmjagers and SS-Stormtroopers would be tackle box pieces. I mean who is NOT going to have 2 SS-PG in every army?

The SS-Stormtroops? Yep, tackle-box....no change from now though. The Para though still has some uses as a deep-strike unit or to secure a key piece of terrain.

And yes, the trouble with limits is that usually mean that the limited unit is worth putting in up to the limit. But at least there would be some trade off for the Para.

Perhaps the SS-Stormtroops could be part of a 'platoon' grouping though...

Assault Platoon:

2x SS-Stormtroop
1x Brummbar

34 points.

[Kaufschtick]

one effect of a cap would be that falschirmjagers and SS-Stormtroopers would be tackle box pieces.

You still have scenarios.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I mean who is NOT going to have 2 SS-PG in every army?

I believe that heros count towards the elite limit so I would take a Grizzled Vet. and a SSPG.

[fifleche]

I would rather see all 5/5 reduced to 4/4 Steely Resolve 2 and be done with it.

I do not like the idea of limiting iconic troops that were numerous... Okay, there wasn't that much SNLF troops, and certainly most of them WEREN'T fanatics, but there were litterally dozens of SSPG DIVISIONS!!! When the 101st or the 82nd were deployed, it wasn't two squads at a time, believe me.

[Uncle_Joe]

I would rather see all 5/5 reduced to 4/4 Steely Resolve 2 and be done with it.

You've got my vote! :)

Now convince WotC and/or the rest of the peanut gallery and we're in business!

[Cpt. John Miller]

I would rather see all 5/5 reduced to 4/4 Steely Resolve 2 and be done with it.

Very interesting solution, I think I prefer the cap. I don't care about exact historical accuracy in this game. I'm just sick of seeing the same builds.

[boersma8]

I would rather see all 5/5 reduced to 4/4 Steely Resolve 2 and be done with it.

I do not like the idea of limiting iconic troops that were numerous... Okay, there wasn't that much SNLF troops, and certainly most of them WEREN'T fanatics, but there were litterally dozens of SSPG DIVISIONS!!! When the 101st or the 82nd were deployed, it wasn't two squads at a time, believe me.

I'm with him! Since we're trying to make the rules more historical ( we are, aren't we?), there's no justification for not allowing more than e.g. two SS panzergrenadiers.

I also think changing all the 5/5 infantry to 4/4 with steely resolve 2 is better! You could even leave the statcards the way they are, because this rule would only be in place when playing by the " Expert rules" and the rule book could simply state: When playing by the expert rules, all 5/5/ infantry units are considered 4/4 units with steely resolve...Problem solved.

BTW, I'm also still hoping for a Wehrmacht officer that would increase the number of dice for NON-ELITE troops only. If you give e.g. mausers two extra dice at short and medium range when adjacent to this officer, you do make them playable ( per the standard rules...) This is how WoTC have been fixing the ( regular) game's problems so far anyway...( Sherman ==> Elite panzer 4, SS panzergren ==> Ranger, Transport ( no guns) ==> Gun transport etc.

[Cpt. John Miller]

You guys are so into historical accuracy that you play the regular panzergrenadier all the time right?
I didn't think so.

[CaptainHans]

I like this except that I want to play with all the pieces that I have. I don't want a rule that tells me I can't play with the mini's I have. I am much more in favor of altering the cards of the offending units than having a blanket rule against 5/5 infantry.

[NorthernRommel]

In addition to the Steely Resolve move with 5/5 infantry..........

1) Create a base list of individual units that may be purchased on singularly - aka officers, Mausers, MG-42, etc

2) Create a bunch of platoon cards - which is the only place where the elite or specialized infantry can come from. If you want the elites then you have to buy them in a sensibly organized group (not twenty of the dam things and one Chinese Officer).

3) Pick Platoon or Company Cards randomly

OR

4) Pick ALL units randomly from a built deck that contains a limit of elites and platoons, officers, etc. Randomly pull a certain number of cards, and that is what you have to build your army from and nothing but.

This is not just a suggestion. It is a method that has been used and tested by us, and it it works terrific.

"Americans always do the right thing eventually - after they try everything else." - Winston Churchill. :rolleyes:

[Richter von Manthofen]

I like the idea of an elite cap, but I am not totally happy with the unit they define as "elite"

Paras - OK (most are 5/5 themselves - exception the Captain and the SNLF)
Heros - OK (already limited to one per 100-500 points)
BUT
Partisans? - this is only to protect the shiny little support units - sigh

BTW - can't find the line where they wrote that DEF 5/5 is capped? - can you point me - though I would like to see this cap. And please keep the cap at 3 units two lets you less diversity in one build. (A para Captain with only one Para to support is silly IMO)

[boersma8]

You guys are so into historical accuracy that you play the regular panzergrenadier all the time right?
I didn't think so.

I do in scenarios. ;) Furthermore, Like I said, historically, there were entire divisions consisting of SS units. This is a big difference with the heroes for example.....I mean, if you want to win a standard game, you'd be stupid not to field SS panzergren. That's the whole point why the other ones have to be made more playable! I would like to use other infantry units ( en mass) but that's suicide.....

Do you have anything against a 4/4 SS panzergren. ( and all the other 5/5/ infantry units) with steely resolve 2 for "Expert rules"play ONLY?

[Richter von Manthofen]

If you make it steely resolve 3 - then maybe ;)

[Uncle_Joe]

I like this except that I want to play with all the pieces that I have. I don't want a rule that tells me I can't play with the mini's I have.

Currently, you already have this 'rule'. Its called the SS-Pgr. And by its existance at that ridiculously low price, you cant play with Mausers or Vet Infantry or SS-Stormtroops etc (if you want to have a chance against similar units like the Ranger and the Paras).

I like the idea of an elite cap, but I am not totally happy with the unit they define as "elite"

Defining 5/5 Defense infantry as 'Elite' keeps it simply and clear.

BTW - can't find the line where they wrote that DEF 5/5 is capped? - can you point me - though I would like to see this cap

AFAIK, its not even remotely 'official'. This is just something that is being suggested and discussed.

Do you have anything against a 4/4 SS panzergren. ( and all the other 5/5/ infantry units) with steely resolve 2 for "Expert rules"play ONLY?

Me personally? Not really. I still think they have too much firepower for a 5 cost unit even with the reduced defense, but I could easily live with it.

Just like the limit, this is clear and consistant...

Expert play = 5/5s convert to 4/4 SR:2.

Or

Expert play = 2x 5/5 defense troops max per 100 points.

Either would be fine and a huge step in achieving their goal of making more playable minis. The former is less limiting on builds, but requires a semi-official change in a card's stats. The latter is simply rules oriented and leaves the cards intact.

Pick one and make it 'official' for the Expert Rules.

[boersma8]

If you make it steely resolve 3 - then maybe ;)

I was thinking about that too, but wouldn't that almost make it just as good as a 5/5 ? Well, I guess it does make sense, three seperate hits of 4 would still mean a destroyed counter...Maybe you meant it as a joke but it's sure worth trying ( I mean, an SS trooper would regularly be better than a Veteran SMLE riflemen who also has 4/4/ and steely resolve 2.....)

[Richter von Manthofen]

No joke - and you only need two hits on infantry.

(I am not sure that a "raw" ss-man is better than a Veteran Wehrmacht ;))

If we talk restricting unit I also would call a Veteran unit "special" (Veteran Tiger, Veteran Rhino, Veteran SMLE, Wehrmacht Veteran Inf) - or even the Elite Panzer IV

Maybe the restriction should go 2-3 "Special" Infantry and 1 "Special" Vehicle for a total maximum of 2-3 units.

[bresh]

I dont like such restrictions.

Regards
Bresh

[boersma8]

I dont like such restrictions.

Regards
Bresh

I don't like restrictions ( other than heroes and scenario specific ones) either. Just make 5/5 infantry 4/4 with steely resolve 2 ( possibly 3) and be over with it..You won't field two Veteran tigers ina 100 point build anyway....;)

[Richter von Manthofen]

How about 5 Elite IVs...

[FlyingDutchman]

I am with you Uncle Joe...a 2 unit CAP on elite (5/5) infantry...

I am not convinced about an absolute cap. Since "elite" means better then average, should the cap not be to have more non-elite 4/4 troops than elite 5/5 troops?

Anyway, the first best solution (I know, I keep repeating this...) is just to properly cost the units!! Let's focus on that rather than inventing other rules that turn a nice and simply game into a long list of erratas and additonal rules;)

[Wolfpack]

I don't like restrictions ( other than heroes and scenario specific ones) either. Just make 5/5 infantry 4/4 with steely resolve 2 ( possibly 3) and be over with it..

Sounds good for me

[Marquis]

Ok I've proposed this before on the house rules and we currently play our campaign gam using this rule and I think it solves all the Elite problems:

Any 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tank is limited to 20% of your total points.

So if you have 100 points you can use 20 points to purchase 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tanks. This means that a German player would have to choose between 4 SSPGs, or 1 hero and 2 SSPGs, or three Paratroopers, or a combination of such units or forgo the infantry and buy an Elitle PZIV, the Vet Tiger is now religated to only large point games.

For us it has made all the differnce in the world. I like 5/5 infantry but I also like using my pieces, the 20% rule makes for interesting army builds and inturn a more pleasing game. Plus when one of you SSPGs or Rangers are destroyed you really miss them... I've said it twice before but it needs repeating.

This is a cap but it's much more flexible than say nope you can only have two.

Personally I hate the 4/4 plus steely resovle idea. I really don't want to have to rethink my cards, if I did I'd be be playing HHR.

Ok comment welcome.

[Qmark]

Any 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tank is limited to 20% of your total points. Then what? It seems to me that some other cheese would step up and become the new thing everyone whines about. Eventually all the units end up banned/limited except for KMT Riflemen and Volksturms

In a world without Elites, 6Stuart or Sniper/Flamingo starts looking really nice.

[bresh]

I dont see limting number of special units as an option, like a XX% rule :(
Not unless you wanna restat all units over.

Soviet,Uk & US gotten alot of overstatted base-units just to fight those 5 def Infantry.


Regards
Bresh

[Marquis]

Then what? It seems to me that some other cheese would step up and become the new thing everyone whines about. Eventually all the units end up banned/limited except for KMT Riflemen and Volksturms

In a world without Elites, 6Stuart or Sniper/Flamingo starts looking really nice.

The idea isn't about making the most power gamer army possible it's about making the game more fun to play. By limiting 5/5 and Elite/Vet it forces the player to use regular infantry, you know the troops you never would otherwise play with. Personally I've used every single piece from every set. how many people can say that? The 20% rules helps make this happen and I certainly think it's better than creating a 2 max limit.

[Marquis]

Soviet,Uk & US gotten alot of overstatted base-units just to fight those 5 def Infantry.



You mean like the Rangers? They too would be limited. You mean like the mortars? All sides except the UK have decent mortar. Hasn't any one ever fought a Parabomb or a SNFL fanatic army and though Gessh where's the fun in this, I'm getting my @ss kicked.

[boersma8]

I am not convinced about an absolute cap. Since "elite" means better then average, should the cap not be to have more non-elite 4/4 troops than elite 5/5 troops?

Anyway, the first best solution (I know, I keep repeating this...) is just to properly cost the units!! Let's focus on that rather than inventing other rules that turn a nice and simply game into a long list of erratas and additonal rules;)

He's right of course and we all ( including the guys at WoTC!) know that! Would reprinting (some) statcards really cost so much more than reprinting rulebooks? ;)

[boersma8]

You mean like the Rangers? They too would be limited. You mean like the mortars? All sides except the UK have decent mortar. Hasn't any one ever fought a Parabomb or a SNFL fanatic army and though Gessh where's the fun in this, I'm getting my @ss kicked.

The thing about the mortars is that all nations except the US need spotters to make them really effective, so I'd say the US is the only country with a ( more than) decent mortar!

[Vikingwarrior]

He's right of course and we all ( including the guys at WoTC!) know that! Would reprinting (some) statcards really cost so much more than reprinting rulebooks? ;)

Yes it definately would. It would also cause all sorts of problems with distribution. So I would say as much as I would like it that "solution" is definately out.

[Marquis]

The thing about the mortars is that all nations except the US need spotters to make them really effective, so I'd say the US is the only country with a ( more than) decent mortar!

Agreed. The US mortar is very effective and spotter are too expensive for thier worth.

[maciej12]

So what everyone here is saying is that they want to keep me from using all 15 of my Screaming Eagles at once? C'mon Marquis, I know you have at least one ME-262 to attack these guys in the open.

Seriously though I don't like the idea of limitations, but I see that they are needed, and I think that the 20% rule makes good sense.

[Vikingwarrior]

The thing about the mortars is that all nations except the US need spotters to make them really effective, so I'd say the US is the only country with a ( more than) decent mortar!

They also have the best tank for taking on both infantry and armour, the sherman. They also have a flamethrower that no other country has.

[Marquis]

Seriously though I don't like the idea of limitations, but I see that they are needed, and I think that the 20% rule makes good sense.

Finally the voice of reason!:) Thanks for the support.

[boersma8]

Finally the voice of reason!:) Thanks for the support.

I'm not against it per se either. I mean you could still have historical scearios that use more paratroopers and/or SS panzergrenadiers...
At the same time I like the idea of creating the best army possible. Again, had everything been correctly costed from the start ( 2 SS panzergrenadiers or 4 Mausers and two points to spare for 14 points would've been a lot tougher decision than it is now; two SS apnzergrenadiers or three Mausers and have one point to spare.......)and hadn't there been so many 5/5 units now, others would still have been playable too.....

[Marquis]

Again, had everything been correctly costed from the start ( 2 SS panzergrenadiers or 4 Mausers and two points to spare for 14 points would've been a lot tougher decision than it is now; two SS apnzergrenadiers or three Mausers and have one point to spare.......)and hadn't there been so many 5/5 units now, others would still have been playable too.....

I agree but we can't keep bemoaning what has happend. Our challenge is to work within the frame and to that I suggest the 20% rule. It's easy to implement, easy to remember and easy to use for large point battles.

[Latro]

Copying some of the tournament formats they use in the CCG-scene would be fairly easy to implement as well:

(just as an example)

Type I tournaments = anything goes
Type II tournaments = has a list with restricted units

Everyone knows what kind of game they can expect and choose to play the sort of game they prefer ... and historical scenarios aren't effected at all.


:cool:

[Qmark]

Type I tournaments = anything goes
Type II tournaments = has a list with restricted unitsYes, becuase blanket banning of all sets older than X totally lets everyone "use all of my units"![/sarcasm]

[Uncle_Joe]

Any 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tank is limited to 20% of your total points.

To me, that is still allowing too many on the field. Four SS-Pgr/Rangers is better than 8 or 10, but you still have to plan for them...every game. And it still means that you won't want to field vehicles or units that have a tough time hitting them.

Also, its apparent that many people are going to balk at having any limit at all. So, really this limit is hitting the worst of both worlds. Its not truly diminishing the power pieces and its still imposing a hard limit that people dont seem to want.

Really, the 4/4 SR:2 solution appears better from that point of view. Then people can still play with as many as they want and there are no artificial restrictions on the builds. It also sidesteps the problem of any limit that means that in 'competitive' builds you'll always play up to the limit (ie, always have 4 SS-Pgr if limited to 20% or always have 2 if facing a hard limit of 2).

[Autarch]

I agree with the converting elite 5/5 to 4/4 with SR 2. Limits are bad, m'kay?

[maciej12]

Converting to 4/4 SR 2 would work for most units, but in the case of the Screaming Eagle (my favorite unit to play) it wouldn't hurt them a bit. With the hard charger SA they would still have pretty much the same capabilities. The only diff. would be that it woul be easier to keep them from moving, but usually when I play them I rarly move them anyway, they sit in cover and cover the objective.

[Uncle_Joe]

Converting to 4/4 SR 2 would work for most units, but in the case of the Screaming Eagle (my favorite unit to play) it wouldn't hurt them a bit

No, it hurts them quite a bit too. You only need to hit a 4 defense twice in a single round to force the cover save rather than that irritating 5 defense twice. It dramatically increases the chance of a kill when attacking from multiple units.

[Latro]

Yes, becuase blanket banning of all sets older than X totally lets everyone "use all of my units"![/sarcasm]

Oi! Don't make me quote myself at you!


Copying some of the tournament formats they use in the CCG-scene would be fairly easy to implement as well:

(just as an example)

Type I tournaments = anything goes
Type II tournaments = has a list with restricted units

Everyone knows what kind of game they can expect and choose to play the sort of game they prefer ... and historical scenarios aren't effected at all.


:cool:

[/good dose of realism]


:cool:

[maciej12]

No, it hurts them quite a bit too. You only need to hit a 4 defense twice in a single round to force the cover save rather than that irritating 5 defense twice. It dramatically increases the chance of a kill when attacking from multiple units.

Oops! You are right about that--Kind of like the ESPN commercials--I was speaking out my a**. Disregard my previous statements which make me look stupid.

[polish_horsy]

I'd be in favor of converting all defense 5 units to 4 plus SR2... but of course there are consequences to that also. Some units will be too expensive to use... that's ok. Better to create a scenario piece then to have gamebreaking pieces. Another consequence is that Mortars will be very popular. And of course one game breaking piece (US broken Mortar) will be even more of an infantry slaughterhouse. defense 4, SR 2 units are a dream to the medium mortars... 2 success = disrupt, 3 = dead. And of course those that decry any change to the cards and actual abilities will not be happy... which begs the question - what is the difference from changing the defense and changing the unit prices?

[Marquis]

Better to create a scenario piece then to have gamebreaking pieces. Another consequence is that Mortars will be very popular.


It seems that by creating a scenario piece you are just undoing what's already been done. A bunch of lowly infantry are already scenario pieces, seems like this would be change for no gain.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, you have to take it one brick at a time. The first order of business before the rest can be tackled is to fix the fundamental problem at the core...and that is how cheap the 5/5s are which in turn breaks many of the games other interaction (ie, Armor vs Infantry, MG lethality, Aircraft etc).

I personally think that Improved Indirect Fire needs to be officially errata'ed in the standard game, let alone the 'expert rules'. But in the end, those things aren't really any more truly lethal to 4/4 units than to 5/5s...3 hits equal dead for either.

[Qmark]

A bunch of lowly infantry are already scenario pieces, seems like this would be change for no gain.Eight dice at short range should have disappeared as of Set 3.

[Jaels]

I personally think that Improved Indirect Fire needs to be officially errata'ed in the standard game, let alone the 'expert rules'. But in the end, those things aren't really any more truly lethal to 4/4 units than to 5/5s...3 hits equal dead for either.

I do strongly agree that IIF needs to be toned down a lot, but there is a important difference when firing a mortar at a 5/5 instead of a 4/4: 2 hits won't give you a disruption.

[Uncle_Joe]

No doubt mortars are better vs 4 defense than 5. But what I'm trying to say is that that doesn't mean that the change would not be very favorable for the game.

Put another way, does anyone see any problem with mortars outside of the IIF issue? I very much doubt it. That to me says that the problem is indeed, the IIF and not whether the mortar is more effective vs 4 defense or 5 defense troops. If lowering the 5/5s to 4/4 SR:2 means that the Germans might actually play their 81mm, then thats a good thing IMO.

And with 'platoon pricing', they can 'fix' the spotter issue too:

German Mortar Platoon:
2x 50mm Mtr
1x 81mm Mtr
1 x Spotter
19 points.

Or any other combo you want to throw together.

[polish_horsy]

But in the end, those things aren't really any more truly lethal to 4/4 units than to 5/5s...3 hits equal dead for either.

But 2 hits = disruption for 4 defense. A nice consolation. And for 5 defense? Bupkis. A wasted turn.

[Major Adler]

we already have a CAP...with regards to the limit on heros...so a CAP of 2 on eliete infantry (that is 5/5 defense infantry) seems to me the logical way for AH to go...

when the heros first came out...I said HURRAAAH...finally...now I have some 5/5 Russian infantry...then the CAP which I agree with and which made the game more logical and historical...so now I have 10 Russians heros that I cannot play...and 7 Grizzled Veterans I cannot play...big deal...worth it to have a better game...

now I will have a bunch of Stormtroopers and SSPGs I cannot use...worth it for a better game...

as for the Fallschrimjager...one of them is cheaper than a FW-190 if you want some sort of anti HQ unit ability...so I only play one SSPG...no problem...there is always the Veteran Infantry...excellent units...

[fifleche]

Heroes, I would envision as 3/3 Steely Resolve 2 or 3 without any restriction. Those guys which we call now "heroes" did some very reckless things during the war, and many others did too, except most didn't live through the day. And that way, ppl could actually use all their minis if they wanted to.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I'm down with either the cap, or changing all 5/5s to 4/4 SR2.
I don't like the idea of recosting the units. Noone will be happy with the results. Not the powergamers. Not the newbs.
And WotC isn't going to agree to that anyway. That would be like saying "Oops, I guess we really screwed this game up. Wait, do over!"

[Cpt. John Miller]

now I have 10 Russians heros that I cannot play...and 7 Grizzled Veterans I cannot play...big deal...worth it to have a better game...

now I will have a bunch of Stormtroopers and SSPGs I cannot use...worth it for a better game...

This is exactly the right attitude.

Not "I don't get to play all my pieces, boo hoo"
Not "But that's not historical enough, boo hoo"

Right on Major Adler!

[Autarch]

I'm down with either the cap, or changing all 5/5s to 4/4 SR2.
I don't like the idea of recosting the units. Noone will be happy with the results. Not the powergamers. Not the newbs.
And WotC isn't going to agree to that anyway. That would be like saying "Oops, I guess we really screwed this game up. Wait, do over!"

But that is exactly what they are saying. Hence this forum. The idea of these advance rules is to restore some of that balance. And your right, they don't want to offend the powergamers who have siezed upon the obvious built-in imbalances. Guess who is NOT going to be playing expert rules...(unless they throw the game into further imbalance lol).

Expert rules should be to add to the flavor and longevity of the game, not to paper over balance issues. As it stands, WotC is not going to entertain individual cost/re-stating solutions, so we have to work within the parameters of platoon costing.

I'd rather see the 4/4 SR 2, but that is re-stating and I doubt it will happen. Sadly, cap will probably be the result and then the only way to "take down" imbalanced units is by overcompensating with other rule changes like defensive fire and tank shock.

[bresh]

You mean like the Rangers? They too would be limited. You mean like the mortars? All sides except the UK have decent mortar. Hasn't any one ever fought a Parabomb or a SNFL fanatic army and though Gessh where's the fun in this, I'm getting my @ss kicked.

I mean beside mortars also : 9-8 dice do have a ok chance of hitting, just cause its not a 50% chance doesnt make it non killable.
Tanks with 9-8 dice at range 4 or less, like the humber class scout, Kv1 and stuart and most shermans. For inf The Bofor. Dont remember the others atm.

I doubt in reality those tanks was so outstanding infantry killers compared to the german tanks.

The bofor for 1 is also an overstatted unit or highly undercosted.
Not to mention the superhuman us-mortar ability. Spotting units dont even get the chatting on radio malus, so the abilty is a joke to compensate for previous errors.


Offcourse a 4 def 2-3 steely resolve could make other units more playable, but then you gotta restat all those 8-9 dice anti-inf killers to.

I say still no number limit on "elite inf/units".

Changing Defense 5/5
4 def+sr3 would be ok
4 def+sr2 is, well playable but sr3 would be prefed.

Regards
Bresh

[shadowhooch]

Let me ask everyone this......

Is it really the 5/5 defense that creates the problems in the game or is the the SAs associated with the 5/5 defense infantry that really breaks it?

It seems that, for whatever reason, WotC made some infantry tougher to hit with 5/5 defense - and that is fine. But they should have focused on making the elite infantry EITHER hard to hit OR better at attacking OR harder to kill (remove disruption). Their mistake is they gave them ALL of that.
The real frustrating thing about these units is that you can attack and hit them and then your efforts are wasted next turn as they are back to normal through removal of disruption or can still be lethal with Ruthless. It really detracts from the strategy.

What would these units be like:
Fanatic without Hard Charger
SE Para without Hard Charger
SSPG without Ruthless
Stormtrooper without Ruthless
Heros without "ignore disruption"

I think they'd all be fine. Their is A LOT less complaining about the Fallshirmjagers and UK Paras because they don't have these over the top SAs.
Seems to me the problem is the removal of disruption and being able to attack well while being disrupted instead of the 5/5 part.

I don't have a huge problem disrupting a 5/5 soldier and then finishing him off the next turn (as long as they don't ignore or remove disruption).

...just some alternative thinking. I wish they would have limited Hard Charger and Hero SAs to 4/4 infantry. Those SAs are more broken than the 5/5 part for me.

[Uncle_Joe]

Is it really the 5/5 defense that creates the problems in the game or is the the SAs associated with the 5/5 defense infantry that really breaks it?

Its the 5/5. If it wasnt so hard to disrupt them in the first place, allowing them the good SAs wouldnt be as much of a problem. In a dice pool system like A&AM uses, there comes a break point on defense.

For example, take a vehicles. A Sherman or MkIV has 5 front armor...no one cares a whit and its pretty easy to take out. Improve it to 6 (only 1 point) and it becomes much more difficult (KV/Panther etc). Bump it up up one more point and it becomes a monster (Croc/Tiger etc).

When dealing with infantry, the 'standard' AI dice are about 6-8. So, the difference between a 4 defense and a 5 defense is HUGE. You generally have about half the chance of a disrupt with many attacks).

Now on TOP of that, they give them power SAs and/or ways to undisrupt and it becomes way overpowered. Removing those abilities would still leave you with a very hard to kill package. And for units like the SS-Pgr and the Ranger, they would still be beyond cost effective.

Remove the 5/5 Defense and its a whole new ball game. Now you can bring those units down with multiple shots from 'lesser' units. And it makes it far more likely that they can be destroyed before their SAs can come into play.

The reason people dont complain about the Brit and German Paras is because they are priced correctly. If SS-Pgr and Rangers cost 7 and SE Paras cost 10 or 11, then I dont think anyone would complain about them either.

[Colonel_Coo]

To rephrase an earlier post and support Shadowhooch.

A Mauser with a 5/5 defense at 5 points or a SS PG with 4/4 only plus the SA
s is not nearly as bad as a 5 pt SS PG with SA's.


It is not that a unit has 5/5 defense that breaks them.
It is not that a unit is cheap that breaks it.
It is not the 10 attack dice at short range.
It is not the 8 attack dice at medium range.
It is not the CA7.
It is not the Hardcharger, Paratrooper or Ruthless.

It is the fact that is more powerful on offense, stronger on defense, loaded with special abilities, can kill soldiers and tanks and cost less that breaks them.

Of all the 5/5 troops in the game today which one is properly priced? Maybe an american hero? Maybe the German hero? Maybe the SNLF Fanatic.

Make all 5/5 units become 4/4 SR2, which is now NOT properly priced? Some are little more expensive, but none are overcosted.

[Vikingwarrior]

Recost the units. And I think I finally came up with how WoTc can do it inexpensively and promote the game and the local game store at the same time. WoTc could issue small square stickers that could be applied to the existing cards with the new numbers on them. They could supply these stickers to the local game store for free, as a service. The benefit to WoTc is to promote the game, sell more boosters, and make existing gamers happy which will in turn promote the game even more. The benefit to the local game store is it creates traffic and buzz for the game. Couple this with Combat Zone gaming and more boosters should be sold as well which should increase sales for the game store. The benefit to the gamers is obvious.
Since HHR has done the lions share of the work WoTc can use their costs but only recost units that are aggregiously out of wack. I think this is a VERY doable and low cost way of promoting the game.

[Latro]

YESSSSSSS ... does that mean I can make my Veteran Tiger cost 7pts as well?


:D

[Cpt. John Miller]

Recost the units. And I think I finally came up with how WoTc can do it inexpensively and promote the game and the local game store at the same time. WoTc could issue small square stickers that could be applied to the existing cards with the new numbers on them. They could supply these stickers to the local game store for free, as a service. The benefit to WoTc is to promote the game, sell more boosters, and make existing gamers happy which will in turn promote the game even more. The benefit to the local game store is it creates traffic and buzz for the game. Couple this with Combat Zone gaming and more boosters should be sold as well which should increase sales for the game store. The benefit to the gamers is obvious.
Since HHR has done the lions share of the work WoTc can use their costs but only recost units that are aggregiously out of wack. I think this is a VERY doable and low cost way of promoting the game.

I'm sorry guys, recosting may be the easiest solution(some of you want restatting too!) but it is just not gonna happen. Make a list of all the units with the costs you would like and use it to build all your armies and make your opponent do the same.
WotC is not going to recost anything.
Or reprint cards.
Or make stickers for you.
I wish they could make us all happy with custom corrections, and new cards and such, but I give it very little chance of happening.
I hate to be a party pooper but this is a fix you will have to do yourselves.