The Doctor's Prescription

[Dr.Cornelius]

Check out The Doctor's Proposed Wargame House Rules (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=89085#post89085)

Comments Welcome.

[XAos]

One of the problem units (possibly the worst problem) for game balence is the M4A1, your meta-rule#4
#4. Only change what is absolutely necessary. This means changing only general rules and modifying special abilities. No changing point costs or statistics.
Leaves me wondering how you could apply any fix to that unit.? And if that unit can't be fixed, all the other fixes may be moot.
It also specifically prevents fixing the ridiculous armour stats on the easy-8.
I do agree with you that some of the special abilities (particularly in set-2) need to be toned down.
a) The BAR covering fire works against any soldier unit regardless of tactical position. the soldier can have defense:5, in cover, the BAR itself can be disrupted. And the covering fire still works. :eek:
b) The Veteran crew ability is not just strong against enemy tanks. It also provides a nearly perfect counter against infantry close assaults. I expect to see infantry out of the metagame entirly. because they are sitting ducks to a sherman rhino (even after turn:7)

[Dr.Cornelius]

Easy Eight
Is the Easy Eight unbalanced from a game perspective? In my experience it is not particularly cost effective. Is your argument that it is not historically accurate for E8 to have 7/6 superior armor? Or for any Sherman variant? Did the E8 stats exist in another variant, making the E8 simply mis-named?

It is my belief that the E8 was given 7/6 armor for game balance reasons and that it is not anywhere near as historically inaccurate as other SAs on my list.

Make an argument as to why and how the E8 should be changed.

M4A1 Sherman
The Sherman is definitely cost effective, but I am not convinced that it is anywhere near "broken" in light of the following changes:
1. Vehicles set up one hex in. This slows down the Sherman rush considerably, makes long-range shots possible and generally helps the Germans.
2. Sherman is impacted by the bigger AT Guns in Set II. Tweaking Snipers and possibly Humber makes the AT Guns more cost effective, and a strong alternative to the Sherman.
3. Point-for-point the T-34/85 is an even match for a Sherman.
4. Heavily Armored Tanks (Tiger, JS-2) are effective against a swarm of Shermans and have more support units in Set II.
5. IMHO the Croc is still more of an issue than the Sherman.
6. The Sherman Rush is relatively easy to learn and play. Other strategies take more experience and skill. Is it possible that there are strong armies/tactics vs the rush?

Recommendation: playtest the Sherman and others under the proposed rules and SA changes and see if it is still dominant.

Multipurpose Units and R-P-S
One of my biggest concerns about the game is flexible, multipurpose units. For example the Sherman, Stuart, SE Paratroopers and a few other units are strong against both armor and infantry. AAM has a strong Rock-Paper-Scissors element that breaks units into categories:

Armor or Infantry
Strong against Armor, Infantry or Both

Examples:
Sherman: Armor, Strong Against Both
T-34/85: Armor, Strong Against Armor
Brummbär: Armor, Strong Against Infantry
Vickers MG: Infantry, Strong Against Infantry
PAK 40: Infantry, Strong Against Armor
SE Paratroopers, SS-PG: Infantry, Strong Against Both

The availability of flexible, general purpose units like Sherman & Stuart encourages the use of all-armor forces, especially in a timed tournament. Likewise, the SE Paratroopers strength against infantry and high close assault attack against armor encourages all-infantry builds.

Combined arms armies using units that are only effective against infantry or armor are at a significant disadvantage against all armor or all infantry builds that are effective against both. This is a case where the US force pool is significantly stronger than the other nations.

[Dr.Cornelius]

Regarding Close Assaults:
One other thing to think about- is it a good idea for the KV-1 and other heavy tanks to be effectively immune to close assault, except from specialized AT units like Panzerfaust & Bazooka?

In my mind this is one of the big factors that makes the Croc broken.

Are the heavy tanks balanced as-is, in light of cost effective 21-33 point tanks or should tanks armor vs close assault be capped at 5?

[XAos]

Easy Eight
Is the Easy Eight unbalanced from a game perspective? In my experience it is not particularly cost effective. Is your argument that it is not historically accurate for E8 to have 7/6 superior armor? Or for any Sherman variant? Did the E8 stats exist in another variant, making the E8 simply mis-named?

It is my belief that the E8 was given 7/6 armor for game balance reasons and that it is not anywhere near as historically inaccurate as other SAs on my list.

Make an argument as to why and how the E8 should be changed.

Easy-8; No, it's not strongly cost-effective. It's strongly non-historical.
The easy-8's armour was not seriously better than the M4a1's. There was an m4A3e2 (Jumbo) who's armour might have been "7/6". But the weight of the armour prevented it mounting the longer (and hence heavier) gun of the easy-8. As for game balence, thats what points cost is for. Evidence from the german side {Tiger, Panther etc} is that having high points cost tanks does not shift the game balence in your favour. A lot of players complain that they won't play the german heavies because it's too many points for 1 unit.
As to how the easy-8 should be changed, I think dannyl phelps posted possible stats for it that looked a lot more accurate than A/H's.
In my mind this is one of the big factors that makes the Croc broken.

Are the heavy tanks balanced as-is, in light of cost effective 21-33 point tanks or should tanks armor vs close assault be capped at 5?

One can argue about the croc being broken V's set-1 units. But the so-cal forces only used 1 croc supporting 2 shermans. No one used 2 crocs & 1 sherman. So that suggests that if the croc is broken, then the sherman is more broken.
And set-2 has several units that look almost custom designed to beat the croc. The T-34/85 exceeds 105% cost-effective against a croc at any range. And the Tiger-II is better than 2 crocs at all ranges & 142% cost-effective at medium range.

[Dr.Cornelius]

Easy-8; No, it's not strongly cost-effective. It's strongly non-historical.Yes- I understand that a few units while balanced in game play have grossly non-historical statistics. Would it be easier to consider the Easy Eight 7/6 armor a simple error, like the oversize Hellcat or tiny M5 AT Gun? It is a mistake, but it does not detract from the game in the same way that overpowered special abilities do.

Let me clarify my position- the objective of my House Rules is to make the game more historical in a sense that it is more like a wargame simulation than playing D&D Minis with plastic tanks instead of Dragons.

Changing the statistics on a unit that is not broken from a game-play standpoint adds complexity and opens the door to changing the stats or costs on other units.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but at this point I believe that AAM can be converted in to a reasonable wargame by only changing a few basic rules (like starting vehicles on the map edge) and by modifying several problem special abilities.

As to the Croc army builds at Gen Con So Cal. I declined to play two Crocs for several reasons:

1. I considered it unsporting.

2. More importantly, Croc + 2x Sherman + Stuart matches up better against certain infantry-heavy and other armies than 2x Croc + Stuart + Humber. A single Croc supported by 2x Sherman also matches up better against a Tiger in a timed match.

As to the Croc vs Tiger matchup- the key issue is not can the Tiger knock out a Croc at range. Of course it can. The issue is getting in a shot. I playtested the matchup extensively and on every map except Tiger Heaven, the supported Croc is able to deny the Tiger LOS until the Tiger obligated to contest the objective- at which time the Croc effectively gets two 37% shots to auto-kill the Tiger.

That being said, I do not believe the Croc is unbeatable given the addition of Set II units like T-34/85, PAK 40 and Panzer III. But I also think that Flamethrowers should be included in the Special Ability review. My sense is that we (I) have one shot at revising AAM and I want to do it right the first time, and not come back and revise units over and over.

[skeevo666]

Where's the cowbell?

[Old Fart]

From a purely historical perspective the Croc is a mess. The flame-
thrower was located in the hull in place of the bow machine gun
and did not really interfere with turret operations. Had the AH game
designers treated the flamethrower as an Additional Hull Weapon SA
the obvious increased point cost would have somewhat lessened it's
usefullness.

I personally find the Flamethrower SA a kiddie gimmick. It's effects
are immediate and there is absoultely no downside when it is disrupted/
damaged unlike ondinary weapons. If the effects occured normally
during the Casualty Phase and disrupted/damaged required four 6's
instead of three, the flamethrower would lose it's status as a joke.

Old Fart

[Richter von Manthofen]

To the swarm issue I impose (in home games) the rule that for each vehicle 2 soldiers must be fielded. With set II available this reduces the Sherman swarm to 4 Sherman and 8 KMT riflemen -> :D

It makes for more balanced armies (inf + armor).

Additionally I assume (still) that PT are dropped down and thus the SC EA Capt Ini+3 applies after it is dropped and not while off board.

As I play up to 1942 games the Croc is not an issue, but the suggested disrupted/damaged penalty (4 sixes) is a good fix for the problem. Similar could the BAR gunner fixed by requiring a hit for suucessful use of his SA.

With this modification it is still hard to win for the axis, but more likely than without them.

If I could change point values I think that the Sherman and the PzIv should cost roughly the same, mabe the PZ IV 1-3 points more, but that is the most difference both deserve. As the Sherman is clearly better than the Pz IV against infantry the better anti tank ability of the PzIV is balanced and the Extended range should be worth no more than 1-2 points.

My suggestion would be that the sherman should cost 24 points and the Pz IV 27 and nothing else changed (stop. add 4 points to the Rhino) With this modifications the other units could stay the same without game balance beeing disrupted more than necessary.

2cents

[fifleche]

Don't forget the rear defense of 3 on the PzIV... Ouch!

[Old Fart]

What to do about that troublesome Rhino ??? Simple ... just change
Veteran Crew to " this unit can move while disrupted " and eliminate
the " and doesn't suffer the -1 penalty to each attack die ".

Old Fart

[Domhnall101]

didn't the croc have a towed tank for the flamethrower? that has got to be a danger to the tank

[Comassion]

The Churchill Crocodile did tow a fuel tank behind it, but it was small (compared to the tank), and therefore a much harder target to hit than the tank. Plus, it was towed far enough behind the tank that even if it were hit, the tank itself would probably still be fine. So while you could deprive the Croc of it's flamethrower by shooting the trailer, you'd still have a heavy tank on your hands.

[XAos]

The Churchill Crocodile did tow a fuel tank behind it, but it was small (compared to the tank), and therefore a much harder target to hit than the tank. Plus, it was towed far enough behind the tank that even if it were hit, the tank itself would probably still be fine. So while you could deprive the Croc of it's flamethrower by shooting the trailer, you'd still have a heavy tank on your hands.
That fuel trailer weighed 6.5 tons. Most of that weight being armour. So actually rupturing the fuel container was not easy.