AA Guns

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Bear with me, I don’t get a lot of sleep anymore, puppy and all.

Mechanized Infantry have a base move of one territory in combat, except when paired with a tank.
Mechanized Infantry have a base move of two territories in non-combat.
Mechanized Infantry may move through one friendly territory on the way to attacking an enemy territory during combat movement.

So basically, why can they move through multiple territories just because a tank happens to be present?  Indigenous population ran out of sticky bombs suddenly, so there is no partisan resistance to drive through?  Or is it because that panzer tank over there, with it’s top speed of half that of a jeep, is making the jeep drive twice as fast?

Panzer Speed: 33 mph - highway
Truck Speed: 65 mph - highway
So why is the panzer, which is going half the speed of the panzerwagon (I am taking a little speed off the wagon assuming that machine gun might be causing a bit of drag here) making the panzerwagon go twice as fast?

If that’s the case, think of how fast that panzerwagon’s going to be with an AA Gun being dragged along behind it!  It might set an all new land speed record!

*Disclaimer, mph numbers come from wikipedia

Ouf! I can breath now.

With the double truck speed, you are adding another historical reason to be able to travel 2 territory with AAA in a NCM when paired with an MechInf.

For not allowing MechInf blitzing 2 territories by himself, I think it is an historical and tactical matter which is decisive here:
motorized infantry never made a blitzkrieg alone (they need more road/ have not the same mobility than armor, same attacking punch, etc.) You need some vanguard Panzer divisions first to make a hole in a defensive position. Infantry must get down the vehicule, and walk to fight not an armor division. That’s how I rationalize it.

Maybe you can HR this about MechInf on the basis of pure truck speed.
For my part, I still prefer the actual OOB for blitzing.

[Jennifer]

To my knowledge, and admittedly WW2 was NOT my focus in my studies, mechanizing infantry was not a matter of blitzing, but a way to move infantry from the rear to the front and casualties from the front to the rear.

When I first heard of this unit, I thought “cool, a way to transport your infantry by land!  I bet a truck will carry 2 infantry like a transport can, but on land instead of water!”  I was not happy to learn it was just a unit and couldn’t move infantry at all.  Hell, it still makes more sense to me that an infantry should be able to NCM two spaces if paired with a mechanized infantry and not bring tanks into the equation at all!

And yes, I was thinking the AA Gun could be dragged two spaces with a Mech Infantry or no spaces without one.  Either go, or no go.

[baron Münchhausen]

About moving AAA on transport,

I would make this House Rule:
you can bring AAA on board an attacking TT along with 1 Inf.
So you can outboard the Inf in the amphibious assault.
But, you must wait the NCM, if you win the territory (of course), to offload the 1 AAA.

It is a slight bend of the actual rule, and it improve just a little the mobility of AAA.

What do you think?

[Jennifer]

Works for me.

Then again, I’ve house ruled Battleships having AA Gun ability since Axis and Allies Revised, Enhanced was released.  Just makes the BB worth buying in my mind.  (they fire their AA guns in opening fire like a real AA Gun would, but after that, they act like a battleship does per the rules.)  Otherwise, you’re far better off with Cruisers.

And yes, I know, it was the Aircraft Carriers that had the uber AA Gun defense screens.  Got it.  But there’s no issue convincing people to buy ACs, it’s the BBs I rarely see being put down on the board!  And since they are a capitol warship whose only redeeming quality that I see is that they take two hits to sink, and usually, those hits are by blind submarine gunners who get shot in the head because they hit the useless battleship instead of the destroyer that is now coming to sink them, giving them an AA Gun screen seemed appropriate somehow.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

To my knowledge, and admittedly WW2 was NOT my focus in my studies, mechanizing infantry was not a matter of blitzing, but a way to move infantry from the rear to the front and casualties from the front to the rear.

When I first heard of this unit, I thought "cool, a way to transport your infantry by land!� I bet a truck will carry 2 infantry like a transport can, but on land instead of water!"� I was not happy to learn it was just a unit and couldn’t move infantry at all.� Hell, it still makes more sense to me that an infantry should be able to NCM two spaces if paired with a mechanized infantry and not bring tanks into the equation at all!

And yes, I was thinking the AA Gun could be dragged two spaces with a Mech Infantry or no spaces without one.� Either go, or no go.

Never thought about it this way.
In another A&A version from Gamers Paradise, you could buy a truck for 1 IPCs to move 1 inf 2 ttt but it was a waste. Because when a German unit, for instance, get to the front, it was destroyed by russian counter-strike. It was better to better plan your Inf move to keep a steady flow up to the front.

Maybe your idea can be an interesting HR to upgrade the value of MechInf:
If paired with a mechanized infantry, 1 infantry  is able to move two spaces only in NCM.

Global has many territories, it could help a bit getting just a little more mobility for Inf.
I like this idea very much.  :-D

[Jennifer]

I’d say 2 infantry, 2 spaces and the mechanized infantry is reduced to 1 defense value with 0 attack value - like an old transport (old defined as pre-global 40.)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I’d say 2 infantry, 2 spaces and the mechanized infantry is reduced to 1 defense value with 0 attack value - like an old transport (old defined as pre-global 40.)

Your idea is more like a fast link by train.

I suppose you keep the same cost: 4 IPCs?
You won’t like it to see this unit being destroy in the front line, unless keeping it 1 tt away from the front.

I prefer to add something more to the MechInf,:
Imagine some very overcrowded trucks (in NCM), not made to lauch any attack but just helping foot soldiers getting closer to the front.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Works for me.

Then again, I’ve house ruled Battleships having AA Gun ability since Axis and Allies Revised, Enhanced was released.  Just makes the BB worth buying in my mind.  (they fire their AA guns in opening fire like a real AA Gun would, but after that, they act like a battleship does per the rules.)  Otherwise, you’re far better off with Cruisers.

And yes, I know, it was the Aircraft Carriers that had the uber AA Gun defense screens.  Got it.  But there’s no issue convincing people to buy ACs, it’s the BBs I rarely see being put down on the board!  And since they are a capitol warship whose only redeeming quality that I see is that they take two hits to sink, and usually, those hits are by blind submarine gunners who get shot in the head because they hit the useless battleship instead of the destroyer that is now coming to sink them, giving them an AA Gun screen seemed appropriate somehow.

I prefer ImpLeader House Rule on Cruiser:

A3D3M3C12 Bombard, 1AA shot first strike against 1 plane on defense, and hit 1 plane anytime offense and defense you roll “1”.

I never felt BB doesn’t worth their 20 IPCs for me it was the CA (cruiser) the problem.
I find the hit soaker thing very usefull when you paired it with another one.

[Jennifer]

Eh, changing it as described I would make it the same price as a transport ship.  Or, maybe not, maybe the same price as a tank or at the least, upgrade the cost to 5 IPC.  So basically, 5-7 IPC for a fleet of troop transport trucks or silversides (train cars)

And yes, it would be wise to use them to shuttle troops up to just behind the front lines.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Eh, changing it as described I would make it the same price as a transport ship.  Or, maybe not, maybe the same price as a tank or at the least, upgrade the cost to 5 IPC.  So basically, 5-7 IPC for a fleet of troop transport trucks or silversides (train cars)

And yes, it would be wise to use them to shuttle troops up to just behind the front lines.

I’m pretty sure someone working on 1914 train moves and infrastructures will provide us something to accelerate Inf move.

Sorry but I won’t buy a unit with this rationalization behind.
I would rather pay for a fixed line of faster communication (highway and trains) between some homeland territories.

It will cost no moving point to pass on this tt.
Allowing 2 Infs to move 2 tts in a turn in NCM.

1 IPC for building com. lines in 1 tt inside homeland territories.
Like one in Poland to reach Baltic States and Eastern Poland in 1 move from Germany.
Or  one in Slovakia to reach Romania in 1 move from Germany.

2 IPCs for building com. lines in 1 tt outside homeland territories.
Like one in Western Ukraine to reach Bryansk and Ukraine in 1 move from Eastern Poland.

Being destroyed when territory is conquered.

(It will become a sort of snakes and ladders thing. :-D )

[Derek]

Omw
I’m sure glad you 2 are not the game developers lol

I imagine the mech inf represents a mechanized division
Distinct from an infantry or armored division
I believe USA calls it an armored Calvalry division however

A division is a large military unit (10000-30000 soldiers) capable of independent operations due to it’s self sustaining role and it’s range of combat personal and suitable combat support forces

Infantry division
Mechanized division (armored Calvalry)
Armored division
Artillery division
Anti aircraft division

Capable of independent operations
Due to…combat support forces

An anti aircraft division does not need to be towed around by a mechanized division lol
It’s perfectly capable of moving itself

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Omw
I’m sure glad you 2 are not the game developers lol

I imagine the mech inf represents a mechanized division
Distinct from an infantry or armored division
I believe USA calls it an armored Calvalry division however

A division is a large military unit (10000-30000 soldiers) capable of independent operations due to it’s self sustaining role and it’s range of combat personal and suitable combat support forces

Infantry division
Mechanized division (armored Calvalry)
Armored division
Artillery division
Anti aircraft division

Capable of independent operations
Due to…combat support forces

An anti aircraft division does not need to be towed around by a mechanized division lol
It’s perfectly capable of moving itself.

Good you’re there helping keeping our feet on the ground.
I better see the nonsense of a AAA paired with MechInf.

However, what is your opinion on this one, is it too much for WWII armored Calvalry?

If paired with a mechanized infantry, 1 infantry  is able to move two territories, in NCM only.

I imagine some very overcrowded trucks (in NCM), unable to lauch any fast moving attack but just helping foot soldiers getting closer to the front.

Global has many territories, it could help a bit getting just a little more mobility for Inf.

[Derek]

No because a mechanized division would not be capable of transporting an additional 10000-30000 soldiers around. That’s double the soldier count with the same epuipment

Divisions are often formed to organize units of a particular type together with appropriate support units to allow independent operations. In more recent times, divisions are more often organized as a combined arms unit with subordinate units representing various combat arms. In this case, the division often retains the name of a more specialized division, and may still be tasked with a primary role suited to that specialization.

Again note from above: appropriate support units; independent operation; primary role; specialization

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

No because a mechanized division would not be capable of transporting an additional 10000-30000 soldiers around. That’s double the soldier count with the same epuipment

Divisions are often formed to organize units of a particular type together with appropriate support units to allow independent operations. In more recent times, divisions are more often organized as a combined arms unit with subordinate units representing various combat arms. In this case, the division often retains the name of a more specialized division, and may still be tasked with a primary role suited to that specialization.

Again note from above: appropriate support units; independent operation; primary role; specialization

Thanks, that’s a fast answer.
But I feel  :cry:.
On a game level, it could had a little something for strategical maneuver of reinforcement.

So the last option would remain a Fast Com Line in a specific tt in which AAA, Art and Inf can make a 2 tt move.
Have you ever think about this?
I’ve read some posts on it and it is far more complex than what I suggested above.
I saw that many would like to be able to bombard it like SBR.

[Derek]

Could use railroads as faster movement

I bought a set of rail markers from HBG but have yet to use them

Use the naval/airbase mechanics, but with a unit cap(let’s say 3): a railroad give +1 movement to up to 3 land units per turn per territory that has a rail marker. Cannot be used to enter a hostile territory.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Could use railroads as faster movement

I bought a set of rail markers from HBG but have yet to use them

Use the naval/airbase mechanics, but with a unit cap(let’s say 3):
a railroad give +1 movement to up to 3 land units per turn per territory that has a rail marker.

Cannot be used to enter a hostile territory.

So, if I don’t want to “derail” :wink: this tread,
that would mean AAA in such tt will be able to fireback against TacB and StrB bombing them.
And need to worth somehow the cost and the risks.
A complex matters…

[Jennifer]

Well, there was a national advantage that Russia had in a version of AAR in which they could move infantry at twice the normal rate in certain territories.  It was not only feasible, but used extensively (you had to select a couple from a list, and this one was selected often)

Coupled with the fact people pay for transports all the time and transports currently cant engage in combat anyway, I see a merging of these two as feasible, warranted and would be used if available.

Perhaps, maybe, a rule that stipulated that infantry may non-combat move two spaces within your own country only?  So Britian would get a boost, Russia would get a boost, to a lesser extent Germany would.  Italy doesn’t really have the territories neither does Japan and the American ones are so bloody far away, it’s not worth it for them either way.  What, they can deploy from DC to California faster?  So what!  lol.

[Derek]

Railroads would cost 8 (effectivly half of naval/airbases)
They would have the same health for SBR as air/naval bases and all the SBR rules would apply the same too including built in AA

Scuttle, I believe all facilities should have this option:
You can inflict maximum damage to any of your current facilities during the purchase new units phase
Note that any facilities scuttled would be unusable until the purchase new units phase of your following turn (if you decide to repair them at that time)

If an enemy is about to take one of your tts with facilities in it, on your turn you scuttle everything. Effectivly denying the enemy using them without paying to repair them

[DizzKneeLand33]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm….

Shouldn’t this be moved to House Rules, like all those other evil threads that aren’t exactly about the real game?

Thanks!  ;)

[Jennifer]

That requires work on my part.  What’s innafo me?  (sound it out, go slow, you’ll understand what I said.)

:P

Later.  I have showings today and can’t be bothered to do it right now.  I only get to rest for half hours between, so…lol