I got Russian destroyers in ANZAC color instead of ANZAC cruisers.
What if mechanized infantry could tow an artillery piece
-
what if mechanized infantry could tow an artillery piece two spaces but wouldn’t be able to blitz
-
I would without a doubt never purchase a tank again.
-
You would need tanks to pair up with your art if you wanted them to blitz, I am saying if you gave them the possiblity to do both but not together. either one or the other. Maybe you would never build a tank in pacific, but then who really does? I am saying this more towards when europe40 comes out or a mod to AA50. The next time I have a game of AA50 I am going to try to introduce these rules and see how they turn out. Maybe add the tac fighters too. The artillary rule would really benefit the japs in pacific 40 since they can use it right away against china, and may lead to building more of them onto the board. Since in the games that I have played I havent seen anyone build one, they take up to much room in transports to be worth while and the britts cant really aford them until later in the game and then still if they do buy any only like 1 or 2. In the games that I have played sofar anyways. Thoughts?
-
I have thought about this as well, but I think it would create imbalances in the game. And I personally buy tanks every once and awhile, usually when I’m attacking Australia or Asia. They are nice on the offensive, and since they can blitz it really helps.
-
Ya tanks are good but what I am talking about is to get mec. inf into the game. If transporting accross the sea you will always bring a man and a art over a man and a mech. two attackes at 2 vs two at 1. But on the chinese mainland if mech inf can tow a art, then you might buy them more.
-
Sounds like a good idea, I’m game ti try it. Though not sure how often it would be used in Pacific, or even an AA50 adaptation.
-
Totally unbalancing, IMO.
But pared with a tank it will make the ultimate combined arms bonus. Three different units being able to move two spaces attacking on 2, 2, 3. And that for 14 IPC! That I would like to try.
-
I think the problem with that is it would almost nullify infantry, because you mainly buy them as cannon fodder on the offensive and then also for defensive purposes. If you can buy a combination of these three things why would you ever buy infantry anymore.
-
What I don’t get is why mech need a tank to blitz?
If they are in a vehicle why can’t they just blitz?
Why not just use the plastic from the mech to put more planes in the box
or ICs or AA guns and just have a tech like in a&a 50 -
It is to add to the blitzkreig warfare mantra that was so popular in WWII. I like the piece personally and I think why it cannot blitz by itself is if you think about it, all they are are transport trucks holding infantry, they can’t really fire on the run, or at least not as effectively as armor. And also this would make the pieces unbalanced.
-
I think that infantry would still be best on defense.
On Offense 14IPCs gets you:
6-Tank 3 on attack
4-artillery 2 on attack
4-mech infantry 2 on attack (with artillery right?)so you get 3 units and 7 hit points for 14 IPCs
On Defense 15IPCs gets you:
3-infantry 2 on defense (x5)So you get 5 units and 10 hit points for 15IPCs
Edit: Corrected tank cost
-
The idea of a half track towing an artillery gun halfway across Europe to get to the front line is hilarious.
I’ll say it again and again: land units all moved to the front by train.
Since I sense that LH is coming round to the need for rail movement, Mech inf will have to be revised to survive; since the 2 space movement becomes redundant then the blitz ability will have to become more important. However I’m not keen on artillery moving into combat at all, never mind blitzing!
-
The idea of a half track towing an artillery gun halfway across Europe to get to the front line is hilarious.
I’ll say it again and again: land units all moved to the front by train.
Since I sense that LH is coming round to the need for rail movement, Mech inf will have to be revised to survive; since the 2 space movement becomes redundant then the blitz ability will have to become more important. However I’m not keen on artillery moving into combat at all, never mind blitzing!
The games scale is not small enough for artillery to bombard adjacent territories if that is what your getting at, but I do agree, although it is a long AA tradition, tanks making strategic movement faster than infantry it is quite unhistorical and instead mech and tanks should have somekind of second attack ability.
-
Half tracks and trucks always towed artillery behind them towards the front, watch any WW2 footage and you will see this. And I said before that Mec inf that towed a artillery piece couldnt blitz only move 2 spaces. But could move 1 friendly territory then into combat. And I also think people would still buy inf, way better for defence for your ipc’s.
-
I kinda doubt that LH will incorporate rail movement, only way I could see this happening is to extend movement of a unit, kind of how naval bases and air bases work. Maybe if the unit is in Berlin it can move one more space than normally to simulate the rail system in Europe. But that is all I can think of that will really be feasible in this game.
-
I kinda doubt that LH will incorporate rail movement, only way I could see this happening is to extend movement of a unit, kind of how naval bases and air bases work. Maybe if the unit is in Berlin it can move one more space than normally to simulate the rail system in Europe. But that is all I can think of that will really be feasible in this game.
Simple make a railyard cardboard piece. As long as the territories are connected and have this piece units may move from one end to the other during NCM.
-
Well, I don’t know why really the purpose of the Mec Infr in this game, meaning I don’t know why Larry didn’t keep the same rules as he did for Battle of the Buldge, cos the trucks in this Pacific game don’t carry anything, seems pointless, except supporting power to tanks and men ( like arti gun does ).
It would be more exciting having your Mec Infr more usful, pay more for them for a reason to transport land units further, just like transporters, supported with tanks say it’s no free hit ( like subs on transporters/destroyers rule ).Bravehart
-
I like the concept of rail movement in AA. With that said I think there should be some limits. I wouldn’t want you to be able to move your entire German army (say 15 inf/10 tanks) from the Russian front to the French coast 6-7 tt away or vice versa. There would need to be some internal mechanism worked out for limits. As Flash said all ground movement would need to be modified (see note below).
Note: The above would make all ground units 1 move units (in combat). Your 2 move units could now be used to blitz into a 2nd battle, or retreat from the front lines. Tanks could still blitz through un-occupied enemy tt using its 2nd move (could toss in they only get their 2nd movement if they kill the enemy in one round of battle).
Expanding on mavericks idea:
Allow all 2 IPC tt (or more) to have limited rail movement in noncombat (would not need card board chit). This is a good place to start as 2 IPC shows some infrastructure as it is also needed to build an IC. Any ground unit starting in such a tt (2 IPC or better) gives all your (or your allies) ground units there 2 moves in non combat only. If your ground units start at an IC then they would get +1 for movement (3) still only in non combat. You could extend the +1 to any AB or NB assuming there would be better transportation near them as well. You could also allow for SBR to damage/limit rail capacity, even on tt w/o a facility. Your IC, AB, and NB would double as rail stations (it is assumed they would have one any way) so again you would not need a new card board chit IMO. This would also self limit places like Africa/China that didn’t have much as far as rail.
My group has allowed limited rail movement for AA50 capping the # of one move units you can rail through each tt based on its IPC values, but AA40 will have many more tt giving to many alternate routes. It think it would be a nightmare to track. The above would be a much easier system. -
I just think that if they are treated like airbases and naval bases then it would be easy, any territory can buy them, and they give an extra move if the unit starts at that location.
Suggested Topics
