It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing. Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle. Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
The Nova game did not have elite infantry to every nation, it had one National Advantage, like Marines to USA, Radar to UK, SS-Panzer to Germany, Kamikaze to japan and mobile factories to USSR, if I remember correct.
If each nation should have an elite infantry, should this unit have the same ability for every nations ? US and Uk had large units of both marines and paratroopers, but Japan and USSR had almost none paratroopers. Should we split it ?
All elite infantry cost 4 IPC and move 1 space.
USA - Marines, attack at 2 in first combat round in Amphibious Assalt
USA - Paratrooper, attack at 2 in first combat round when dropped from a bomber.UK - Commandoes, attack at 2 in first combat round in Amphibious Assalt
USSR - Partisan, defend at 3 in all USSR home territories
Germany - Fallschirmjaeger, attack at 2 in first combat round when dropped from a bomber
Germany - Panzergrenadier, attack at 2 with a matching tankJapan - Imperial Marines, attack at 2 in first combat round in Amphibious Assalt
Italy - Alpini mountain divisions, defend at 3
or like this
US/ UK/USSR/Germany/Japan/Italy:
Elite infantry - cost 4, move 1
-Attack at 2 in first combat round in Amphibious Assalt
-Attack at 2 in first combat round when dropped from a bomber
-Defend at 3 in every home territory.Is this balanced ?
-
Another way is to give special units to some nations:
USA
- Heavy bomber. Sculpt of Superfortress. Cost 20, move 8, roll 2 dice
- Marines. etc
UK
- Radar tower. Fighters in this terr. defend on 5 or less.
- Commandoes
USSR
- Heavy artillery. cost 6, move 1. Attack on 3. Defend on 4 or less.
- Partisan. Defend on 3 or less in home territory
Germany
- Panzercorps. sculpt of Tiger. cost 6, move 2. Attack on 4, defend on 3 or less
-Fallschirmjaeger
-Rocket
-Jet fighter. sculpt of me262
Japan
-Kamikaze. sculpt of zero fighter. target capital ships on suicide raid- Banzai suicide submarines
- Human wave suicide attacking infantry
Italy
-White flag units. may retreat when defending -
I think elite infantry are too complex to insert into the game. The stats presented earlier by Emperor Taiki don’t work because they give the special infantry a defense of 1. I wouldn’t want to defend the point that US Marines defend at a lower value than standard infantry, nor would I want to say US airborne troops defend at a 1 (consider Bastogne <sp?>). I think Black Fox makes the correct point that game balance would be very tough to get right. Even with his system, a Mech unit costs 4, moves 2, attacks and defends on a 2. I doubt folks would buy artillery, except to take islands because any extra movement is lost in an amphib attack. If grunt infantry were reduced to a cost of 2 IPC, then tanks and artillery go down in value, a lot. I just don’t see the way to keep play balance, and the additional complexity would be tough to control. Also, if I have to deliver airborne troops with a bomber, do I lose a bomber attack of 4 in the process? A bomber attacking at a 4 is much better than an airdroped infantry that attacks at a 2 (or 3) the first round.
For my part, I would rather have a Chinese infantry piece and an Aussie infantry piece. It might be nice to have an Afrika Corps German infantry piece also.</sp?>
-
Emperor Taiki
That’s not a bad system you’ve created and I kind of like it but I see two draw backs.
The first is your stats for your Mech/Motor Infantry. Mechanized and Motorized Infantry are two different things. Motorized Inf. is essentially infantry that is moved by a large number of trucks. Mechanized Infantry is infantry that moves in armored transports and supported by light armor vehicles and tanks. The stats you created I think are well suited for Motorized Inf. but not Mech Inf. I would give Mech Inf, the following.
C M A D
Mech Inf. 4 2 2 2But here lies the problem. As I mentioned earlier, if you do this, you pretty much make all the other units worthless. The only way to really solve this issue is to essentially create a new cost system. For example make standard Infantry 2 IPC, Specialized Inf 3 IPC and Mech Inf 4 IPC.
The other drawback is that it adds a lot more complexity to the game. One nice thing about A&A is it’s simplicity. If you go that route with Infantry, you can easily do the same with armor, heavy, medium, light, tank-killers and aircraft too. Where would it stop? The biggest problem though is where would you find all the units to represent them?
One other thing I would change with your stats is the Marines. I would only give them a 2-attack for the first round of a beach assault. A 3 attack is simply too strong in my opinion.
I agree, playing with elit infatry really is not a good idea , i have played with many complex house rules and even bought mintures to represent units, but most of the time i still chose to play thre regular game ( i dont even like playing with the NOs now). i was just giving a possible list that would work if you had a enough time on your hands to play such a complcated game
-
Emperor Taiki don’t work because they give the special infantry a defense of 1.
I totally spaced that one. I agree with Dino that all infantry should have at least 2 in defense.
The only real specialty infantry I would use is paratroopers since they have big strategic value and I would make it available to all. I have created a rule for the use of paratroopers that uses existing pieces. Let me know what you think.
Paratrooper Rules Version 1
Each nation may choose to deploy airborne infantry. To activate, players must purchases an airborne marker for 1 IPC for each infantry unit that will be deployed by air.
A maximum of 3 Airborne markers may be available for use at any one time.
An Airborne unit may be deployed up to a range of 3 space (One way) from a friendly territory.
Airborne units are deployed in the attack phase.
Airborne units may be engaged by anti-aircraft guns as if they were aircraft.
An Airborne unit attacks on a 2 the first round. After first round. Airborne units operate as normal infantry.
If supply line rules are used, Airborne Inf. is not affected. Keep airborne marker with infantry to identify unit.My thought here is that paratroopers were not used very often. One reason was that they were expensive. Two, they were not heavily equipt and designed for prolonged engagements.
The purpose for paying to use them is to essentially to pay for the use of the aircraft. Also, it is to prevent them from being abused. People will think twice about using them if you have to pay for it.
Let me know what you think.
-
Paratrooper Rules Version 1
Each nation may choose to deploy airborne infantry. To activate, players must purchases an airborne marker for 1 IPC for each infantry unit that will be deployed by air.
A maximum of 3 Airborne markers may be available for use at any one time.
An Airborne unit may be deployed up to a range of 3 space (One way) from a friendly territory.
Airborne units are deployed in the attack phase.
Airborne units may be engaged by anti-aircraft guns as if they were aircraft.
An Airborne unit attacks on a 2 the first round. After first round. Airborne units operate as normal infantry.
If supply line rules are used, Airborne Inf. is not affected. Keep airborne marker with infantry to identify unit.yep this is what anybody should use, except your airborne units are like subs in that first round too all except Armor. This means if on the first round they hit its preemptive unless you got a tank ( which is kinda like a destroyer in this sence).
I would limit the total capacity to reflect more history:
Limits on # of Airborne at any time:
Germany: 4
Japan: 2
Soviets: 1
Italy: 1
UK: 2
USA: 4 -
the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete
id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.
I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.
they also cannot capture terriotry( but perhaps they can still stay in auncaptured terriory after a battle), and the 2 or less attack the first turn should be able to pick its causaulty if it results in a hit. This represents paratroopers ability to attack behind the lines where every they land and take out stratigic targets.
I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units. Bastogne is one example that is an exception, but even there the defenders were only rescued by armor and air support.
these rules stimulate historical play. paratroopers are very powerful weapons but only when supported by other units.
-
They only transport one infantry. How do they make 7 IPC transports less effective? Also, remember using the airborne as airborne costs 1 IPC… so its a waste unless you really need it.
Id make transport also cost 1 IPC, but at least it could help navy less nations ( hint: Italy after turn 2) to get something in Africa
-
Perhaps i do not understand Blck Fox’s rules but the way i understand it is i have the option
paying 8 ipcs( 6 FOR TwO INF +2 for two markers) and have a range of 3 and a 2 or less first strike.
or i could pay 15 ipcs(3 for inf, 5 for tank, 7 for tran) + i have to pay for all the ships needed to defened the tran from air and sub attacks in order for me to land two units with no first strike ability.
hard joice huh :roll:
i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.
a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.
also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.
i would like to hear some more critisim of my airborne units, for i think they are much more balanced and provided for deeper historical and stratigic play.
-
Hi
Paratroopers/Airborne Units could have these rules!
Airborne units should be dropped from bombers. One bomber could carry one infantry at a cost of 1IPC. (Airborne Marker)
Paratroopers attack on a 2 first round of combat.
If Paratroopers win, they defend on a 1, until they get supply, either through other friendly ground forces come to that area or through Airborne Supply (Airborne Supply Marker) dropped by bombers in the non-combat movement at the cost of 1IPC.
When supplied they are considered as normal infantry and defend on a 2.
If Paratroopers attack an area together with other ground units they revert back to normal infantry after the attack.I personal also like the idea of a special infantry/mechanized infantry for each major nation, but it should be a limit how many you can build each turn or you can have active in your game, maybe a limit of 6 and a limit of 2 build each turn.
-
i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them.
In terms of what was capable the Americans and Germans raised the most Airborne, UK and Japan had less of these, and Italy and the Soviets had even fewer, though the Soviets claimed they had a few units they were poorly trained.
a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.
Well Airborne units are not just raised in a vacuum tube. It take years to develop them, and once they are gone they were very hard to replace. Look at the Germans after Crete and how it effected subsequent operations and how rinky dink operations were like at the Bulge. The cap makes it impossible to create huge armies of airborne units dropping every turn in interior lines as a tactic. They should be used a few times per game, and represent elite trained forces and not large scale armies of airborne. Airborne units were never larger than division level, while Army level is what an infantry piece represents. So a realistic game about WW2 would have some reflection albeit a very casual treatment of reality.
also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.
Because Airborne are men with sub machine guns and are dropped with little provisions. Armor units are highly mobile and heavily armed units with lots of logistical support, So it stands to reason like at Arnhem when the largest airborne drop was made in History, that the airborne got wiped out because among other things it had to fight SS Waffen Panzer division that was resting. The same result may not have transpired if it was facing infantry like it was planned to fight.
For every advantage you must have some disadvantage or counter to also make a good game.
-
the main porblem with those rules is that you have made transports obsolete
id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war and airbourne units are very differently equiped from infatry units.
I now think airbourne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once. airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.
Emperor_Taiki
I understand your concerns and you do have some validity to your points. However I don’t feel that this rule will make Transports obsolete. Although it is cheaper in the short run, it is very expensive in the long run. With a transport, you spend 7 IPC for something that be used over and over and can be very cost effective in the long run (as long as it isn’t sunk). Plus you can transport armor. With the exception of the Pacific islands, no assault is going to survive in the long run unless you have armor. So transports will always be needed.
Also for clarification, the Airborne marker under my rule is a one time use. Once the unit has been moved by air, the marker is removed.
I now think airborne should cost 3 and the “airboune marker or transport” should also cost 3 and can only be used once.
I think 3 IPC to move Airborne Inf. is too expensive. At this cost I would never use it.
Personally I think 3 IPC for 2 Airborne Inf. is better but what do you charge for 1 Air. Inf.? The purpose of charging to move Inf by air is to prevent it from being over used and abused. You want to make cost effective enough so that you can use that option once in a while but make it too expensive to use it frequentlythey also cannot capture territory
I disagree with this. If you have boots on the ground and you’re in control. You own it.
airbourne units should also have range of only 2, i dont see any historical situation of airbourne use that would justify a 3 space range.
This is a game play issue and not a historical one. One issue that I always had with the AA map is that some zone in the Atlantic and Europe makes movement to easy. (I always felt that the Atlantic should have extra sea zones so that transport would have to sit a sea for at least one turn, to make them more vulnerable like they really were) Where in the Pacific everything is so far apart. If you limit Air. Inf. to a range of two, it will make this option useless in the Pacific. You’ll never be able to go from one island to the next unless you consider islands as part of the sea zone for movement purposes.
I also defend the airbourne units having a defence of 1, airbourne units are lightly equiped and can only take and hold terriotry if supported by other units.
I think their defense should be kept at 2 for two reason. One is for game simplicity. The other reason is that Airborne guys were tough. These guys were considered the cream of the crop and had a very long training time compared to your average soldiers. So even though they were not as heavily armed compared to your standard infantry unit. They made up for this with their extra training and toughness. So in my opinion I think it balances everything out.
i would also get rid of the limit, although IL’s are symetrical i have yet to hear the historical reasoning behind them. a good game limits units by their utility not by some artificial cap.
I agree with you on this. If the cost issue can be worked out right, then caps would not be needed. The cost alone will pretty much dictate how many can be built. That said though. There is still the potential for abuse. I remember the day where guys would build a factory in South Africa then pump out 6+ armor from it. The Germany would do the same in Libya. So I think a cap still may be necessary but it should be set the same for all nations, such as a max of 3, and not according to historical use. A&A has always been exploring about how things would have turned out if things were done differently (within reason of course).
also, if dont c how tanks keep airborne soldiers from getting to the rear and executing their first strike ability.
I think what IL is thinking here is that because they were lightly equipt that they were not as adept to take on armor. But I agree with you on the account of game playability. In Europe there is almost always least one in Germany, Western & Southern Europe where the highest chance of airborne will be used. If that rule is used, then most likely airborne will rarely get to use the first strike option. However, I think this one will need a little game testing to see how it will work.
id dont like the idea of upgrading units with paratorroper abilites in the feild, it is not what happened in the war.
You have a very good point. Perhaps a way avoid this is that when a player purchases an airborne marker, it starts from the factory with an infantry unit and remains with that unit until it engages in combat. Up until that point it can move as an aircraft.
Ultimately, the best way to resolve this would be to have some aircraft transport unit for both parachute drops and non-combat movement. Air transports were used heavily by all side to move troops around.
-
Airborne units should be dropped from bombers. One bomber could carry one infantry at a cost of 1IPC. (Airborne Marker)
supermestizo
I’m not fond of this idea. I have thought about this and have concluded that I would never use airborne under this rule. The reason is that a bomber is simply too powerful to use it to transport infantry and is a terrible waste of resources. Generally an attack last several turns. If I had a choice to use my bomber to fly an infantry in so it can attack at 1 per turn or use my bomber so I can pound at 4 per turn. Its pretty obvious which one I’m going to choose. The only way I would do this is if I pay 1 IPC to fly the Airborne unit in on the first turn, then allow my bomber to attack as normal on the following turn. But then that would be like flying in as a transport then turning into a bomber in mid flight to start pounding away. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
If Paratroopers win, they defend on a 1, until they get supply, either through other friendly ground forces come to that area or through Airborne Supply (Airborne Supply Marker) dropped by bombers in the non-combat movement at the cost of 1IPC.
I think using supply line rules creates unnecessary complexity into the game. And again, any use of a bomber to drop off supplies would be a waste of good resources.
-
Hi
Bomber should of course BOMB under the attack as well!
-
yes as per the rules under that technology.
I don’t like them dropping in Germany or any other home territories. Id rather like them used to retake islands or less important centers. Usually you wont find tanks around, so to defend against them to a limited extent at least you have to garrison a territory with a fancy tank. Again for play balance they gain something and for a price you can defend or limit somewhat the advantage with some counter.
Id add airborne duty with the attributes of a commando unit, so perhaps you can land these by ship and they can take out some unit like a rocket/aa gun or ?
just ideas.
-
Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread? I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.
Just a friendly request! :D
-
another aspect of the multiple Infantry sculpts, some may want to use multiple infantry sculpts for multiple theaters:
Atlantic/Pacific
UK/Commonwealth
European/African
Eastern E/Western E
etc/etc -
Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread? I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.
Just a friendly request! :D
you dont want to talk about paratroopers with us :cry:
-
Bangaroo’s request is a valid one.
I think Imperious Leader is the appropriate persone to direct this conversation to the proper section.
-
Any chance you guys could spin off this rules discussion into another thread? I keep seeing replies to this thread and come in hoping to see something new about the plastics and getting stuck with paratrooper discussion.
Just a friendly request! :D
you dont want to talk about paratroopers with us :cry:
Not really. It would be nice to hear ideas for what sculpts should be sought and purposes for them, but having to look through all the rules posts for an update on the project isn’t very much fun. You guys seem very interested in the rules aspects, perhaps you could spin it off into another thread?
Not trying to be a backseat moderator, just a friendly request! :D
Suggested Topics
