1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. Uk
5. Italy
France and what should be done about it.
-
ok then pick one:
all defending units fire first in combat ( loses removed then attackers fire)
or
apply the same rule as invasions all units attacking get a 2 or less first round
-
5 rules:
12 ipcs
1 hitpoint and can not be captured (just dies if the controller loses that territory) [could also do zero hitpoints, just like AA gun, and still would not die unless territory is lost]
fires a 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)
once in place, it is pointing at a certain territory border and only defends against attacks coming from that border (the border can be land or sea, and therefore does not matter if it is amphibious or regular assault)
is built in place, but can only be built in territories that contain an IC or are adjacent to a territory that contains an IC. Only one blockhouse per border.
this i think would be balanced
game should start with only 1 of these units, to represent the maginot line.
the fact that it is built in place, and can be built in a territory that does not have a factory (but must be touching a territory with a factory you control) is a big plus for it, IMO -
so my infantry and artillery defend at 3, and my tanks defend at 4? I really think this is an absolutely horrible idea and I am very glad larry harris did not implement it. sorry i’m coming out so strongly against it, but more unit for the sake of more units does not add to gameplay value, and a unit such as this would shut down entire fronts and turn the game into a defensive standoff, massing infantry stacks, etc.
I see your point and I like your ideas.
Remember all ideas require some play-testing.
-
fires a 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)
this seems out of place. defenses like IL mentioned were extensive and set the attacker in prime kill zones, limiting their ability to attack. If anything, seems there would have been a limit to how many attacking units could get in range to attack. Certainly let casualties fire back but no limit to who gets shot at.
maybe the +1 could be only for defending INF and ART, as they could have been more under the protection of the fort and firing out.
a +1 for everything might work great in a D12 version of AA, like Bulge. -
yea thats an idea…. the bonus of the fortification roll is limited to the number of defending artillery and infantry!
So its not against each landing unit, but limited to an extra 2 or less for each defending INf and ART in the opening attack phase?
This would be the same rule if you invaded or if you attacked from another land border.
The cost would have to go down to say 10 IPC right???
-
so, like this IL?
10 ipcs
1 hitpoint and can not be captured (just dies if the controller loses that territory) [could also do zero hitpoints, just like AA gun, and still would not die unless territory is lost]
fires a 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of the total number of defending infantry and artillery (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)
once in place, it is pointing at a certain territory border and only defends against attacks coming from that border (the border can be land or sea, and therefore does not matter if it is amphibious or regular assault)
is built in place, but can only be built in territories that contain an IC or are adjacent to a territory that contains an IC. Only one blockhouse per border.
i think that would also be fair. 10 or 11 ipcs for such a unit seems right
-
I have been thinking…( Yes i Know very dangerous)
What we have is this:
Blockhouse: cost 5 IPC per level and can be a two stage fortification. On stage one: all infantry and Artillery get one free roll first in the opening combat round hitting at 1. On stage two: You spend 5 more IPC and now each of your infantry and artillery get one free roll at 2 or less in opening combat round. Each level of blockhouse takes one hit for a maximum of two.
This unit works ONE of two ways:
-
protecting all coastlines from invasion only
-
protecting against attack from all adjacent land territories
Next:
Airborne:
These are normal infantry and can be dropped but limited in quantity to the total number of Bombers , so if you got 5 bombers you can potentially drop 5 infantry. The Bomber can BOTH drop and participate in SBR, but it cannot both drop airborne and be used as an attacking plane ( at 4)
When infantry is dropped in this manner the first round these hit at 2 or less, after that they hit at 1 only. Airborne always fire before any fortifications but after Shore bombardments. If they hit and roll these ones they can disable the fort and render it useless.
Key point: If they ever roll a 1 in that opening round that hit can be applied instead to the fortification.
Now this is brilliant and even i know it.
-
-
Sounds good to me but I think that blockhouses should only be able to boost one inf. and one artillery, or any combination of the two. I think that better simulates real life, in reality not every troop will be holed up in a blockhouse. That is just my thinking though, loved the airborne idea, sounds very good.
-
This unit works ONE of two ways:
-
protecting all coastlines from invasion only
-
protecting against attack from all adjacent land territories
I still thind that they shoul only be able to protect one border or coastline.
-
-
I would not work too many exceptions. Look at UK. They would have to build many of these just to protect the island
What about france? Allies just invade from another SZ and invalidate the investment. Play the rule out.
Plus for 10 IPC and the limitation of defending Artillery and infantry it does not get out of hand. I think the rule is perfect now…so play it out in your next game. The airborne now works perfectly to give the attacker a counter which AA is all about.
-
NO, Blockhouses (forts) would be a terrible idea. One of the reasons the blitzkreig did so well against the KW/Maginot Line was that the French and the Belgian forces relied heavily on border forts, which were made only to defend from one direction, which were in turn easily seized by paratroopers attacking from the rear (look up Fort Eban Emael). I’d say the Germans gained more from the Allies’ dependence/resources/time spent on building the forts than the Allies did defending them. At least during WWII.
Just let there be regular dices. (Or maybe have the French tanks attack at a 1, if we want to be accurate, in terms of mobility and range on a tank of gas.)
-
Also, I think that defending infantry get TWICE the firepower regular attacking infantry do already. Yeah, I know artillery balances it out, but it still isn’t as cost effective, at least defensively.
Also, NO BLOCKHOUSES.
-
Okay lets look at blockhouses realistically.
They were a cheap way to fortify your defense, were useless for attacking and could not move.
So I think 0-4-0-6, they do not help any other piece in any way, and I am undecided on how many borders they should protect.
-
I think if Larry implements some kind of blockhouse or coastal def (He could change his mind) it would have to be something simple. A blockhouse 0-4-0-6 or pairing units already in the game would be simple enough. As for what boarders it protects, you have to look at a block house as many structures so it should protect all boarders I think maybe raise the cost slightly. We still don’t know the full extent of what a port or air strip brings to the table. There could be some type of def bonus tied to these new concepts which would reduce the need for the things we a now discussing.
-
I think if you raised the price any more, then the tanks and infantry would become a better investment
-
@Brain:
I think if you raised the price any more, then the tanks and infantry would become a better investment
Tanks and Infantry SHOULD be a better investment. WW2 proved that defensive fortifications were a bad investment! I am against any defensive unit that does not take this into account!
-
but WW2 is replete with constant examples of them. They existed, why cant they be in the game?
-
@Imperious:
but WW2 is replete with constant examples of them. They existed, why cant they be in the game?
Ahh, we agree. The game really should have som blockhouses in the set-up, because France did start the game with the Maginot-Line, and since A&A’s purpose is to honor and memory the service-men, this game should have a blockhouse unit too. But also this blockhouse unit should be so expansive and with low combat value that nobody wants to purchase it later in the game. Now you dont see many battleships being purchased do you ? Well thats because carriers are a better buy, but the game still has a battleship unit, right ? So we need a battleship unit and a blockhouse unit, but you dont have to buy it, right ? Let that other guy buy this obsolete stuff and get a lesson.
-
Are you kidding? Battleships are the perfect piece for finishing off a stubborn UK or a stubborn Japan.
-
I say they increase rolls of infantry and artillery by one, and cost 6. But to make the number of blockhouses needed accurate, they can only boost two units (any combination of infantry and artillery) and can be destroyed. Now, should the units they are boosting die along with the blockhouse or should they survive it’s destruction? I’m thinking survive it.
Suggested Topics
