Proposed unit values for FMG and COI using D6 or national D12 values


  • More on the Leader piece.

    I think the General could act as a Liason Officer in Joint Operations and Combined Arms Operations.


  • I think you basically like the proposed idea…

    At the end of your turn you place your leader in any territory of sea zone where you anticipate attack. ON defense a leader can retreat his units after any complete combat round. ( any moving unit: land- sea- air)

    ON attack a leader is added to the board ( just place it in any area you moved too). All units in range of 2 spaces of where you dropped off leader can now move to the same space as leader.

    You must use a leader for sea invasions.

    Leaders cost 20 IPC and can be destroyed if the last unit they are with is lost.

    All players start with one leader.

    Optional supreme commander rules:

    The leader can control units of the following nations in one attack:

    Germany and Italy
    USA and UK

    Units used in this attack may not move on their own turn.


  • As always I love your ideas, man, but we keep bickering about important issues.

    I dont like that a Leader can be taken off the board in one phase and placed anywhere on the board in next phase, because that is a new “Special Rule” that add more complexity, and we dont need that.
    Leader cost 20 IPC, move 6 spaces, 0 att/0 def. New Leaders must be placed at an IC just like the other units.

    It takes time to develope skilled leaders and HQ’s that work. No neutral nation should start with a Leader, and you may only purchase one each turn. So how many should the nations start with ?

    • Russia should start with none. Stalin had just purged the officer corps, and this was proved in the Winter War against Finland, the poor invasion of the Baltics and East Poland, and the “victory” at Khalkin Gol.

    • USA should start with none. At peace and ignorant, the US HQ’s was not at a high enough level to justifie a Leader piece on the board.

    • Italy start with none. They used royal princes, baron’s and counts as poor leaders.

    • UK had some good Admirals, but not as many skilled HQ’s as Germany.

    • Germany should start with a lot. The german Blitzkrieg; Infiltration- and Auftrags-taktik was based on skilled leaders, and Whermacht put great effort into develope good leaders. And German HQ’s got experience from 1936 in Spain, and 1939 in Poland, where they developed their skills. How many to start with is a good question, but they must start with more than the others.

    • Japan had been in war with China from 1937 and had gained some experience, even if the Emperor and the Bushido cult did not give the local leaders too much freedom of decisions, like their fellow germans did enjoy. Also a lot of the early japanese victories could be blamed on poor allied leadership. The taking of Singapore, Hong Kong and Phillipineas was just plain luck with the dice, and the attack on Pearl Harbour was a failure since they did not destroy the carriers, the oil depot on Hawaii nor the port facilities.

    • China, France and ANZAC are to small to get leaders . Maybe even let Italy join this club.

    Set-up 1940
    Germany 3 leaders
    Japan 1
    Italy 0

    USA 0
    Russia 0
    UK 2
    ANZAC 0
    China 0


  • @Imperious:

    General : with this unit on defense you can retreat. ON attack you can move any units one extra space as long as they end up with the general at the end of the move.

    I think a Leader unit should be able to do this with both land, air and naval units. A Leader is the brain that see possibilities in combat situations. A Leader can be a General, an Admiral or an Air Marshall.

    Defense :If land/air units with a leader in a territory is attacked, they may retreat after any round of combat. If naval/air units with a leader in a seazone is attacked, they may retreat after any round of battle.

    Attack: If the attacking land/air units go with a leader, they may move one extra space if they conquer the contested territory. They may now non-combat move to a friendly territory or make a continious combat move to another enemy territory. The Leader must go together with them.

    If attacking naval/air units go with a leader, they may move one extra space if they sink all the enemy ships in the contested seazone. They may non-combat move to a not-hostile seazone or make a continious combat move to another hostile seazone. The Leader must go together with them.

    Amphibious Assaults need a Leader.


  • Drop fighters to 6 ipcs. Also, Will Tacs still increase fighter attack value +1?


  • fighters at 6 is a bust. A flying tank that covers 2 more spaces and can more efficiently react to many combat situations is worth 4 IPC

    I don’t believe in all these bonuses. Only tanks should effect any other land units with combined. Artillery boosting infantry is nonsense. No infantry got double strength on attack any more than any other units fighting together would.

    not finished with fighter-bombers, they may get some “if they roll a one they choose hit type of thing”


  • APs should defend at 1. but why not at planes? seems the only defence that transports really had was small anti-aircraft guns against fighters and tacs. I would have it transports ONLY defend @1 against fighters and tacs


  • Definately like the idea tacs choose hit on roll of 1.


  • APs should defend at 1. but why not at planes? seems the only defence that transports really had was small anti-aircraft guns against fighters and tacs. I would have it transports ONLY defend @1 against fighters and tacs

    some merchant ships were armed or even Q ships

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantman
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

    as you can see the reason they were armed were to surprise and fight enemy subs and small vessels attempting to sink them. They have no record against fighting airpower. They mostly had a hidden deck gun which was only suited to get a shot at the surface ship attempting to sink them

  • '10

    What cost would you make the trucks?


  • Not sure yet. Probably about 6 IPC-8 IPC each. Depends on playtest. The other units have been tested many times over many years.


  • What I miss is a selfpropelled Artillery piece.

    We got 2 kinds of infantry, 2 kinds of tanks, 2 kinds of fighters, but only one King of the Battlefield.

    Selfpropelled artillery, cost 5 IPC, move 2, attack 2 and def 2 and boost one matching infantry.

    The inf/art combo cost 7 IPC and move 1 space.
    The Mech/Sp.Art combo cost 9 IPC and move 2 spaces.

    Tank/Mech cost 10 IPC and attack with 4 pips.
    Sp.Art/Mech cost 9 IPC and attack with 4 pips.

    Nobody will buy tanks anymore ?
    Unless the Blitz- rule says tanks, and tanks only, may move one additional space after combat in the first place. Then tanks could retreat and hide in a friendly terr (superior strafe attack unit) or blitz into next enemy terr.

    Anyway, the Selfpropelleds sure look good:


  • @Imperious:

    fighters at 6 is a bust. A flying tank that covers 2 more spaces and can more efficiently react to many combat situations is worth 4 IPC

    I don’t believe in all these bonuses. Only tanks should effect any other land units with combined. Artillery boosting infantry is nonsense. No infantry got double strength on attack any more than any other units fighting together would.

    not finished with fighter-bombers, they may get some “if they roll a one they choose hit type of thing”

    This is where I propose the having two hits for heavy bombers idea: heavy bombers, who couldn’t target as accurately but could drop more bombs have 2 attacks at a 2 or 3 and tac bombers, who could do precision attacks, have one attack, but at a 4


  • Bombers with two attacks like in The War Game?  Naw thats too radical and bombers would get priced too high for that advantage. If you lost the bomber you would never rebuild it.


  • @Imperious:

    Bombers with two attacks like in The War Game?  Naw thats too radical and bombers would get priced too high for that advantage. If you lost the bomber you would never rebuild it.

    That’s exactly what I’m thinking (and I freely admit that that’s where I got the idea; I’d been experimenting for years with d12-based systems before I got TWG but their multiple attacks idea was, I thought, genius.)  I don’t remember off-hand how much they cost in TWG, but I don’t remember them being exhorbitant.  I also like their idea of giving CA’s and BB’s an additional attack/defense for their secondary (at a 2, since BB/CA secondaries were similar and/or identical to DD-guns in their punching power) which makes the larger ships more worthwhile (as opposed to having massive fleets of only small ships: there’s a reason why they didn’t do that in the real world…)


  • I think the secondaries for BB/CAs should only be for AA fire.


  • but I don’t remember them being exorbitant

    In that game (where i was a play-tester and worked on the map), Bombers are very pricy and seldom bought. The player who is cash rich and needs something to attack and sink a navy will buy them. This is only the US player and seldom any other player except sometimes the UK player who cant buy a fleet because it will be sunk.

    They average about 30 IPC ( compared to 5 for infantry and 11-14 for a tank). IN that game they are not used for SBR, but for killing navy with subs as fodder.


  • @Imperious:

    but I don’t remember them being exorbitant

    In that game (where i was a play-tester and worked on the map), Bombers are very pricy and seldom bought. The player who is cash rich and needs something to attack and sink a navy will buy them. This is only the US player and seldom any other player except sometimes the UK player who cant buy a fleet because it will be sunk.

    They average about 30 IPC ( compared to 5 for infantry and 11-14 for a tank). IN that game they are not used for SBR, but for killing navy with subs as fodder.

    Well, that makes them 6x the price of infantry rather than 5x like the original MB version (and remember that the nations had roughly twice the IPC values as in AA, so the sticker shock should be mitigated due to the general TWG “inflation” of all units.)  I’d say that 5x is about right… maybe even reduce them to 4x infantry to make them more attractive to buy.  I know that even at that rate more pragmatic players rarely buy pricey units (I know that I treat all high-value units, even tanks, like gold, and rarely buy many more than I’m initially given… but I also use the games I design partly as a way to teach students about military history and I’m hardly an ace “tournament” player like you, Imperious…)


  • So at 5x and assuming TWG is balanced after 21 years of play ( it originated in 1990), to extrapolate the bomber in cost with the infantry being 3 IPC makes the bomber like 15-18IPC if it was introduced in AA, so you can see that such a unit would not be replaced often.


  • What I miss is a selfpropelled Artillery piece.

    We got 2 kinds of infantry, 2 kinds of tanks, 2 kinds of fighters, but only one King of the Battlefield.

    Selfpropelled artillery, cost 5 IPC, move 2, attack 2 and def 2 and boost one matching infantry.

    The inf/art combo cost 7 IPC and move 1 space.
    The Mech/Sp.Art combo cost 9 IPC and move 2 spaces.

    Tank/Mech cost 10 IPC and attack with 4 pips.
    Sp.Art/Mech cost 9 IPC and attack with 4 pips.

    Nobody will buy tanks anymore ?
    Unless the Blitz- rule says tanks, and tanks only, may move one additional space after combat in the first place. Then tanks could retreat and hide in a friendly terr (superior strafe attack unit) or blitz into next enemy terr.

    Anyway, the Selfpropelleds sure look good:

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 9
  • 2
  • 18
  • 9
  • 21
  • 7
  • 36
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

64

Online

17.6k

Users

40.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts