G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[Black_Elk]

Agreed

I’m in favor of it actually. I think what this roster needs is a battle board schematic to clarify the relationships visually.

Somehow the sub/destroyer dynamic OOB just never felt fully articulated to make subs an attractive purchase for a player like Germany, they’re too easy to neutralize, so I much prefer a scheme like the one you propose.

Price is indeed a tricky issue, in general I think naval units will be more entertaining and accessible with a cost reduction. I can see the merits of the 6 ipc slot on the water, extending to include the destroyer, so that their fodder role is preserved at the new baseline of 6 rather than 8.

I think the first scale would make the naval arms race more engaging, and I prefer how the units pair off in infantry increments (3’s) for the combat vessels.

6 ipcs Sub/DD = 2 infantry
9 ipcs Cruiser = 3 infantry
12 ipc Carrier deck = 4 infantry
15 ipcs Battleship = 5 infantry

By returning the transport to the traditional 8 spot, I think this serves as the core “remainder” ipc naval unit to buy at purchase. Which is probably a good thing, since transports are the reason the naval game exists in the first place haha. I like the casualty taken last rule with a combat role of some kind, as we’ve discussed in other threads.

Convoy rules should be revisited, which may also improve the value of naval units at purchase, making them more attractive.

I am reluctant to lower the cost of Air though. The fighter has cost 10 ipcs across several editions now, and its special combat role (maneuverability and the ability “not having to occupy” the territory or sz being attacked) is very potent. Even if there was a dogfighting type combat introduced, I think it would be helpful to keep the core cost from OOB at least for the fighter and the strat B. Raising the TacB to 12 seems viable if it was more potent on attack as you proposed. I like the mobility vs defense trade off, rather than attack/economic raid trade off in OOB, so I think that might work. Though again, having a battle board for all this is what is needed. We should create a graphic, for whatever the final determination is there.

What I would like to see overall is an incentive to purchase more naval units (since the OOB game heavily favors air builds over sea builds) I would worry that lowering the scale air on top of this would just exacerbate the same problem.

For price I miss the 5 spot. If the 5 spot remains only the AAgun, then I definitely would like to see that unit promoted to a more combat worthy role, whatever form that takes. My other thought would be to give the sub the 5 spot, though with a more potent attack this would perhaps be too deadly. So the 6/6 sub/dd feels pretty good to me right now. I’m not sure how many others would like to play, but if it was all drafted into tripleA that would clearly help to test the concept.

As for the other land units, I say keep the ground game essentially the same as OOB, in price structure and combat relationships, so that players have a proper grounding and point of orientation for the other changes ;) Too many alterations to the roster I think will be off putting, so if we focus mainly on naval units, and certain “problematic units” like the AAgun, mainly using price structure rather than a host of new combined arms type abilities, I think that approach is the most likely to be readily adopted.

[barney]

unfortunately I don’t think you can have DDs negate the submerge of subs on a 1:1 basis in triplea. It may be possible with some sort of negative triggers but IDK.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Agreed

I’m in favor of it actually. I think what this roster needs is a battle board schematic to clarify the relationships visually.

Somehow the sub/destroyer dynamic OOB just never felt fully articulated to make subs an attractive purchase for a player like Germany, they’re too easy to neutralize, so I much prefer a scheme like the one you propose.

Price is indeed a tricky issue, in general I think naval units will be more entertaining and accessible with a cost reduction. I can see the merits of the 6 ipc slot on the water, extending to include the destroyer, so that their fodder role is preserved at the new baseline of 6 rather than 8.

I think the first scale would make the naval arms race more engaging, and I prefer how the units pair off in infantry increments (3’s) for the combat vessels.

6 ipcs Sub/DD = 2 infantry
9 ipcs Cruiser = 3 infantry
12 ipc Carrier deck = 4 infantry
15 ipcs Battleship = 5 infantry

What I would like to see overall is an incentive to purchase more naval units (since the OOB game heavily favors air builds over sea builds) I would worry that lowering the scale air on top of this would just exacerbate the same problem.

For price I miss the 5 spot. If the 5 spot remains only the AAgun, then I definitely would like to see that unit promoted to a more combat worthy role, whatever form that takes. My other thought would be to give the sub the 5 spot, though with a more potent attack this would perhaps be too deadly. So the 6/6 sub/dd feels pretty good to me right now. I’m not sure how many others would like to play, but if it was all drafted into tripleA that would clearly help to test the concept.

I like the “3 IPcs” increment very much too. I didn’t realized that my first revised cost was based on it.
On a boardgame, it is easier to make the calculation. 2 Infantries= 1 Sub or 1 DD. One less Infantry= 1 upgrade on the warship scale.

About the 5 IPCs spot for Sub, my only concern is about the disparity with a 6 IPCs DDs.
I don’t like the Aircrafts needs Destroyer to hit unsubmerged Submarine.
This gamey (and unhistorical) rule was built-in because without it, 6 IPCs Submarines becomes the best naval-fodder vs 8 IPCs DDs.
Maybe a ratio of 5/6 isn’t that much to still let Destroyer be the best fodder.
But AACALC gives to A2 first strike Sub a high odds (88% vs 12%) against D2 Destroyer.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=6&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=5&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=
It is the same high odds than OOB 8 Subs A2 vs 6 DDs D2 (48 IPCs).
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=8&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=6&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=

I would still keep my anti-Sub fodder rule: “Submarines cannot hit submarines.”
And maybe, that way you can come back to the 1 Destroyer negates an infinite number of Subs’ Submerge and Stealth Move (and keep it easier to implement on Triple A).
I would like that DD’s blocking Sub’s Submerge is only for the first round, though.

On the other hands, this could be Destroyer which can receive the 5 IPCs slot.
AACALC gives Sub 47% vs DD 53%.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=5&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=6&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=
If DD A2 D2= 5 IPCs, in that case I would rise Sub Defense to 1 first strike,
so Sub A2 first strike and D1 first strike 6 IPCs.
But it would be clear that Destroyer is the best fodder.
An Atlantic battle can be a more complex matter to handle for Germany if both Subs and planes are costlier than Destroyers and Transports.
At least, an important number of U-boats would be required on the opening set-up.
Still, a 5 IPCs Destroyers vs a 6 IPCs Subs is kind of thinking outside the OOB box.
(In my next post, I will suggest a different way to handle Transport which can have an impact on this issue on DD and Sub costs.)

However, the 3 IPCs increment for naval, starting at 6 IPCs is pretty appealing for calculation and a consistent scale with no exception, easier to memorized.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

By returning the transport to the traditional 8 spot, I think this serves as the core “remainder” ipc naval unit to buy at purchase. Which is probably a good thing, since transports are the reason the naval game exists in the first place haha. I like the casualty taken last rule with a combat role of some kind, as we’ve discussed in other threads.

I am reluctant to lower the cost of Air though. The fighter has cost 10 ipcs across several editions now, and its special combat role (maneuverability and the ability “not having to occupy” the territory or sz being attacked) is very potent. Even if there was a dogfighting type combat introduced, I think it would be helpful to keep the core cost from OOB at least for the fighter and the strat B. Raising the TacB to 12 seems viable if it was more potent on attack as you proposed. I like the mobility vs defense trade off, rather than attack/economic raid trade off in OOB, so I think that might work. Though again, having a battle board for all this is what is needed. We should create a graphic, for whatever the final determination is there.

What I would like to see overall is an incentive to purchase more naval units (since the OOB game heavily favors air builds over sea builds) I would worry that lowering the scale air on top of this would just exacerbate the same problem.

For price I miss the 5 spot.

On Transport, I prefer in-built incentive rather than a straight forward rule like Taken Last.
If I keep up with such a scale:
5 IPCs Destroyer A2 D2
6 IPCs Submarine A2fs D1fs
8 IPCs Transport A0 D?* **, 1 hit

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?
1, the higher cost 8 vs 5 or 6. Even a 9 IPCs Cruiser is not that far from 8 IPCs.
*A defensive hindrance. Hence, a Last Strike (opposite of a First Strike).
Last Strike is made that you cannot retaliate (have a defense roll) with this unit if it is taken as casualty.
**A defensive benefit ?
Here is an old idea, in a new context (5 IPCs DD and 6 IPCs Sub).
Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

On the other part, this would emphasis the role of Submarines warfare (especially for Germany) against transports.
And the owning player would have to chose between loosing a cheap 5 IPCs DD defending @2, or a costlier TP at 8 with no defense. Either ways, the Sub commander gets something in return.
And, in the case of a combined attack with planes, loosing a TP means lesser odds to use the Transport AA defense.

To summarize:

TRANSPORT A0 D0* M2 C8, 1 hit
*Last Strike AA defense:
If the transport is not taken as casualty, each Transport gets 1 AA shot @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, each combat round.
No defense against warships.

Such a special defense and a still lower sea-fodder at 5 IPCs, can probably make the case for 10 IPCs Bombers and 8 IPCs Fighter.

OOB cost ratio for Fighter/Destroyer is 10/8= 1.25
10 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD= 1.667
10 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD = 2

9 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD = 1.5
9 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD= 1.8

8 IPCs Fighter / 6 IPCs DD = 1.333
8 IPCs Fighter / 5 IPCs DD= 1.6

OOB 12 IPCs Bomber/ 8 IPCs DD= 1.5
12 IPCs Bomber / 6 IPCs DD= 2
12 IPCs Bomber / 5 IPCs DD= 2.4

10 IPCs Bomber / 6 IPCs DD = 1.667
10 IPCs Bomber / 5 IPCs DD= 2

Otherwise, I’M OK with keeping 6 IPCs DDs and Subs because it makes the very versatile planes a bit less powerful at OOB cost.

EDIT: Another issue about 5 IPCs DD is that it makes 9 IPCs Cruiser and 15 IPCs BB weaker than in OOB.
At 5 IPCs, it would create a Destroyer spam dynamic. I don’t think it is a good idea.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?

I personally don’t like the mandate that Transports must be the last casualties. Nor do I like that your opponent can have 6 Transports in his fleet and essentially absorb that many hits before their combat ships take the heat. Maybe we can craft a middle ground.

Pricing a Transport at 8 is not cheap and I don’t know that they could be considered quite so disposable any more. That can work in our favor. Let players choose if they want to take hits on 8 IPC transports or not.

To further incentivize keeping Transports, I would propose that they somehow be given the option to escape from an attack. Maybe one of these scenarios:

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, any remaining Transports may roll (1) die each. On a roll of (1) - or (1 or 2)? - that Transport may retreat to one adjacent sea zone. All Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

OR

• If all the defender’s combat ships (not including submerged subs) and aircraft have been destroyed, the attacker may roll (1) die per remaining attacking unit. Any hits are assigned to the defender’s remaining Transports. Any surviving Transports escape to any adjacent sea zone. All surviving Transports do not have to escape to the same sea zone.

This is not a very complicated rule and would give Transports a level of survivability without an offensive punch. It would at least let the defender decide which how to assign hits but give them reason to not just off them as first casualties. Low Luck players should like the fact that a transport can’t take out a superior unit. Under either rule, if the attacker gets enough hits in a single round to knock out the defender’s remaining combat units AND remaining transports, then all defending units are destroyed. Transports can’t escape in that case.

@Baron:

Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

1 AA shot per transport, per combat round is powerful. I am thinking that under Baron’s system aircraft will need to be super-cheap because there are so many units targeting them directly: AA guns, Cruisers, Transports, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers. That virtually ensures mutual aircraft annihilation.

@Baron:

EDIT: Another issue about 5 IPCs DD is that it makes 9 IPCs Cruiser and 15 IPCs BB weaker than in OOB.
At 5 IPCs, it would create a Destroyer spam dynamic. I don’t think it is a good idea.

Yes, I agree. 5 IPCs is a sweet-spot for cost. I would be wary of what kind of units are placed at 5 IPCs or less.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some attacking planes.

1 AA shot per transport, per combat round is powerful. I am thinking that under Baron’s system aircraft will need to be super-cheap because there are so many units targeting them directly: AA guns, Cruisers, Transports, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers.

Don’t forget that Transport has only AAA Last Strike, so a destroyed TP is never dangerous. Also, two planes against 10 TPs for example, only allows 2 rolls AA @1, not more.
Also, they stay unable to defend against warships. So, no risk with a naval only attack against only TPs group.

This last situation makes me liking your idea about escaping TPs  instead of total destruction.
How about 1 Transport can choose to escape in an adjacent SZ after each combat round?
Defender must decide after each combat round.
This would be a very easy mechanic to manage.

[baron Münchhausen]

I really believe this cost structure can work actually.

Unit type  Cost revised from 1st scale
Submarine    5  IPCs A2fs* D1 Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.

Destroyer      6  IPCs A2 D2 Block Sub’s Submerge and Stealth move on a 1:1 basis.

Transport      8  IPCs 1 hit, Last Strike @1…?, no Taken Last casualty rule…? Escape?

Cruiser          9   IPCs  A3 D3, Shore Bombard 3, one time First Strike AA @1 capacity
Carrier           12  IPCs A0 D2, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, damaged still carry one?
Battleship     15  IPCs A4 D4, 2 hits, Shore Bombard 4, one time First Strike AA @1 capacity

Fighter          10 IPCS A3 D4 M4
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

Tactical Bomber    12 IPCS A4 D3 M4
TBR: A1fs Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.

Strategic Bomber  12 IPCs  A4 D1M6
SBR:  AA A1fs up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage :  D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

If an optional feature can be added in this enhanced A&A game, such as any planes vs planes on a 1 or 2 roll, planes should be 2 IPCs lower.

[barney]

Good Action

Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?

[Flashman]

Development of my suggestion for national gold reserves:

Each nation (including neutrals) has a national gold reserve worth 1/3rd (rounded up) of its starting IPC income. Some suitable tokens for gold would need to be utilised; GRs are stored in capitals.

UK dominion nations (Canada, Australia, NZ & South Africa) have their own GRs.

Any nation at war adds the GR value to it’s income when collecting money. This represents the increased borrowing during wartime, and selling of war bonds.

When a capital is captured (or a neutral activated) all GR held there is immediately transferred to the capital of the capturing power and becomes part of its reserve.

All other capture-the-capital rules are deleted; so a nation losing its capital can still collect income and build units in the tt it still holds.

Possible addition: selling gold

A nation may during its own collect income phase sell gold to the bank at x3 face value.

Possible addition 2: Fort Knox

Before America goes to war, other Allies may sell gold to the USA at x3 face value. The advantage is that this GR will eventually be used to boost the Allies again, but only when America is at war. Further, units built from it will have to be built in America and transported to the battle fronts.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

Don’t forget that Transport has only AAA Last Strike, so a destroyed TP is never dangerous. Also, two planes against 10 TPs for example, only allows 2 rolls AA @1, not more.
Also, they stay unable to defend against warships. So, no risk with a naval only attack against only TPs group.

Oh, my mistake. I read it to be that Transports get 1 AA shot per combat round (1:1 up to the number of attacking planes). Seems I was incorrect.

@Baron:

This last situation makes me liking your idea about escaping TPs  instead of total destruction.
How about 1 Transport can choose to escape in an adjacent SZ after each combat round?
Defender must decide after each combat round.
This would be a very easy mechanic to manage.

This would be good too. Less hassle than rolling more dice.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Good Action

Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33650.msg1286876#msg1286876

Last and better version:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919

[The Hessian]

@Baron:

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines A1 D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 units in a regular Transport.
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.

If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).

[LHoffman]

FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+  D3  M1  $5.   Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.

Cost of $6 is too much; would be better to just buy a tank. Needs to be greater than $4 based on superior capabilities to Art/Mech. $5 is the only slot left. By definition, this unit needs to be demonstrably better than normal infantry at base A/D values. There is very little room to fudge the numbers in a D6 system at this low a cost.

Based on the way Baron has been calculating relative unit value/power… (2) normal Infantry should be somewhere in the ballpark of (1) Elite in terms of cost and base hitting power.

[baron Münchhausen]

@The:

@Baron:

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines A1 D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 units in a regular Transport.
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.

If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).

I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

@The:

If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).

I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead.

I agree. No point in giving them enough advantages to totally offset the difficulty of the task. For Pacific, I think it was just some excuse to include the USMC as a unit.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@The:

If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).

I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead.

I agree. No point in giving them enough advantages to totally offset the difficulty of the task. For Pacific, I think it was just some excuse to include the USMC as a unit.

Glad, we are likely minded.
On that point on beachlanding and debarkment, I believe it could be interesting to bring one of the 1914 A&A game feature.
Gives to each Artillery unit a single preemptive defensive strike @2 against offlanding ground units.
This pictures the coastal defense a Power can deploy to prevent beachlanding attack.
Something which could act like the Atlantic Wall, if German’s player put a few of them in a given TTy.
Maybe this can outweigh the usual retreat in-land tactic when a European TTY is dead-zoned by debarkment force.

I would go as far as giving a matching pairing bonus with Artillery to Infantry on defense against sea invaders.

ARTILLERY
A2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Gets one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault,
Gives +1A to Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, paired 1:1,
Gives to Infantry paired 1:1, one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+  D3  M1  $5.   Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.

Cost of $6 is too much; would be better to just buy a tank. Needs to be greater than $4 based on superior capabilities to Art/Mech. $5 is the only slot left. By definition, this unit needs to be demonstrably better than normal infantry at base A/D values. There is very little room to fudge the numbers in a D6 system at this low a cost.

Based on the way Baron has been calculating relative unit value/power… (2) normal Infantry should be somewhere in the ballpark of (1) Elite in terms of cost and base hitting power.

Such range of combat value is near my HRed Mechanized Artillery.
MECH ART A2-3 D2-3 M2 Cost 5, +1A to Inf and MechInf, gets +1A/D if paired with Tank.

Going higher than A2 D2 seems weird to me when talking about Infantry, even if they are Elite ones.
Paratroopers A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 4, are within acceptable limits.

But the issue is to beat the Inf-Art combos (A4 D4 cost 7 IPCs) within a D6 system to make any Elite troops interesting and balanced from an optimized game-play perspective.
2 Artillery units are already less interesting (A4 D4 cost 8 IPCs).
It is a real challenged.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@barney:

Good Action

Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?

It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry). It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.

Maybe this could fit the bill for a generic special Infantry unit:

Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.

The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.

Better and simpler version, here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919

[LHoffman]

I am intrigued by some of your ideas Baron. Since we have mostly been talking about existing pieces and adding some new ones, I am going to start a new thread here in House Rules to continue the discussion. I feel like we are getting Black_Elk’s topic off point.

I have been wanting to get opinions on the revised unit structure I am formulating, so this appears to be the best time.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Another thought I had, which is perhaps too radical for some tastes, would be to award actual units rather than just ipcs, each round. With some limited number like 1 land 1 air 1 sea (with the actual unit type determined by a roll) and severely restrict where they can be placed, such as 1 per factory territory. The idea here is that the “bonus” unit doesn’t cost you IPCs, it’s a freebie for the player, but has to be placed somewhere specific. Again it might be too much of a departure from the traditional system. But perhaps something like that could be used to encourage players to mobilize units in two theaters or multiple theaters, instead of just building in one direction?

Does something like that seem workable?

I’ve played with the +1 ipc battle bonus in AA50 and it typically produced between 3-10 ipcs per nation per round. Everyone had a much greater incentive to “actively fight” because each battle fought put +1 ipcs at stake.

No battle is a complete destruction of all armies involved on one side.
For each battle, allows the winner to save 1 of his costlier unit taken as casualty, to be produce at no cost in his own IC on the next game round.
Allows the looser to retrieve 1 cheapest unit casualty, at no cost on his production center on the next game round.
There must be at least 1 unit lost on each side to occur.