Just played this for the first time the other night and thought the dice rolling mechanism was a little flat.
I'll concede the fact that an infantry's chances to take down a tank single-handedly are typically remote...they should be expected to lose a vast majority of the time.
But the real sticking point for me is the tank's ability to steamroll over an area containing only jeeps and infantry (with 3 dice). It seems to game the system a bit.
One or two successful airstrikes with 3 tanks rumbling down the the road, towards the enemy's airstrip, is pretty much the recipe for a quick and uneventful victory.
I think the problem originates from the "tie" rule. In this first game, any unit rolling less than a six against a tank typically lost. A strong roll of a five almost always resulted in a tie, only retreating the enemy tank backwards 2 spaces (to get decimated only a bit later).
Like I said, only one play but I thought about revising the rule slightly and wanted to see if anyone has ever implemented it, and get their thoughts on it:
• The attacker rolls 3 dice (4 if General, or other modifiers).
• A tank can re-roll a dice 3 times (aka the 3 tank roll), either the same die 3 times or all three dice once (or any combination really)
• Follow the same system- jeep 2 dice; infantry and General 1 die; the anti-tank gun the same as the attacker's unit
• The defender also rolls 3 dice, and re-rolling (per unit strength) to counter the attacker's roll. Defender gets slight advantage in knowing the numbers they have to beat.
• Compare/match the dice rolls ala "Risk" and the winner having the most winning die rolls, is the victor.
• If the rolls are unbalanced, i.e.: 3 dice vs. 4+ die (due to modifiers), the player with the majority simply chooses their 3 highest dice rolls.
This variant still gives the strongest unit the edge with additional dice re-rolls, but it likely reduces (or eliminates) the constant "ties" and retreats associated with consistently rolling a 5 or 6 on only one die. The extra dice rolling takes little additional time but I think it might add a little more decision making, and require more than just a single 5-6 roll to negate an attacker.
I'm open to feedback or results from others, thanks.