I think defending at 1 could create some interesting casualty selection decisions. If the same cost at 3 ipcs was preserved just like infantry. I think I see where you’re driving with it, and from a gameplay perspective that would likely encourage marines to be used in their traditional role, offensive amphibious opperations, where the primary goal is to storm the beach. I like it
@CWO:
Each choice would be done on a country-by-country basis, with the aim of selecting an elite force that would be interesting to play, whose name would be easily recognizable, and that could be considered a good representative of each country.
I agree that the elite infantry unit should be viewed entirely separately from the paratrooper concept. Paratroopers already exist in G40, as a tech upgrade of the existing normal infantry unit, and to me that sounds perfectly fine.
Yes. I agree entirely. This is an excellent compromise and probably the best solution. Leave paratroopers alone as they are, a tech or special ability and not a particular unit/sculpt.
@CWO:
So I don’t think that adding a distinct elite infantry unit (on a one-per-country basis) would complicate things unduly, in the sense that we wouldn’t be dealing with three fundamentally different infantry types (regular infantry, paratroopers, and elites). We’d really be dealing with two fundamental types: normal infantry (some of whom have a paratrooper movement bonus) and elite infantry.
I don’t think, however, that we should give two elite infantry units to each country (one Marine-type and one non-Marine type). First, that would create unit-type overload . Second, it would go against the idea that the elite unit should be something with a high recognition factor, high prestige, and which had high importance in WWII.
Perfect analysis. This essentially reflects what I was driving at, however, it will add a national flavor to each, rather than being roundly generic.
I would even argue that Elite units only be available to Big 5 (or 6 including Italy) Powers. Or the UK could supply them to ANZAC.
The units would reflect historical specialties and ‘a good representation’ of each Power’s special warfighting ability. For Germany - Waffen SS, for USA - Marines, etc… Each would have characteristics based on historically founded use. (Eg… US Marines would have amphib advantage that the Waffen SS lacks and Waffen SS has land advantage that US Marines lack)
I do think that, for simplicity and consistency, cost for all “Elite” level units should be the same.
I would even argue that Elite units only be available to Big 5 (or 6 including Italy) Powers. Or the UK could supply them to ANZAC.
It’s funny that you mention this because my classified plastic trays of sculpts at home include an “Other Infantry” tray where I’ve put the variant-colour versions of the normal US, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan infantry units, which have been issued in several different colours over the years before the current colour standard was established. The ANZAC, Italian, Chinese and French infantry units have only ever been issued in one colour, as far as I know, so they’re not in that tray.
I don’t include in that tray the Big Five colour variations which I don’t like (like the olive-brown Americans) or which are too limited in number to be worth counting (like the salmon pink British). As I recall, the variants in that tray are the dark green American troops supplied as Marines in the original Pacific game; the blonde British troops; the dark brown Soviet troops; the grey German troops; and the amber/yellow Japanese troops. (One of the ironies of the current colour convention is that the “standard” German pieces are black, which puts the older grey ones in the position of being “special” troops, even though in principle it should be the regular Wehrmacht troops that are grey and the (presumably Waffen SS) special troops which are black.)
I haven’t included three of the variant colours in that tray because I’m thinking of using them (and their associated equipment units) for other purposes: the cherry-red Japanese ones for the Axis minors, the seafoam-green British ones for the Allied minors, and the wine-purple Russian ones for the Mongolians.
I am of the mind that how to represent a given unit is easier than determining how they function and what their cost is.
There are many ways to represent normal infantry versus elite infantry; a person can pick and choose as they like. Using special HBG pieces, different color shades or paint schemes… lots of possibilities.
Marc, I see no reason why you couldn’t make your normal German infantry the grey ones and the SS units black. Its totally up to you.
Marc, I see no reason why you couldn’t make your normal German infantry the grey ones and the SS units black. Its totally up to you.
I should have put a smiley after my “irony” comment because it was just meant to be a quirky observation, not an issue that I was actually bothered about. I actually like black much better than grey as the standard colour for Germany’s main forces: it looks stylish, and it differentiates very clearly from the other sculpt colours on the map. Besides, since the black troop and equipment sculpts in my collection vastly outnumber the grey ones (and offer a much greater range of unit types), so it makes practical sense of them to represent the Wehrmacht and the grey ones to represent the Waffen SS. (I’m reminded of the Mad Magazine parody of the original Star Wars film, in which somebody – making reference to the Imperial Stormtroopers – comments that in this movie the bad guys wear white. The person he’s talking to asks, “Well, what about this Darth Vader guy?” The first person answers, “Well, his armour did start out white, but with all of his dirty work…”) :-D
@CWO:
Besides, since the black troop and equipment sculpts in my collection vastly outnumber the grey ones (and offer a much greater range of unit types), so it makes practical sense of them to represent the Wehrmacht and the grey ones to represent the Waffen SS.
I figured this was your dilemma, which I totally understand.
As a first draw on what can work as a special Infantry unit on land:
@LHoffman:
…
However, when I drew up the above unit profile, it was with the thought of an SS Corps/Division in mind… not really an airborne or commando style unit. For those, yes, they are lighter armed and have survivability issues based on their insertions. However, simply as an Elite infantry unit within the overall army, they would have the same supply and mobility of any other unit. E.g… they are not behind enemy lines somewhere and have full access to supplies, communications, mobility and friendly support.
The attack could probably be reduced to normal max for infantry A2 (no bonus for tanks). But I am pretty insistent on defense of 3. More than attack, Elite units are renowned for their penchant of fighting determinedly and to the death in defense. Their roll should reflect that. If Defense drops to 2, then they are no different from regular infantry.
Thinking along what was asked by LHoffmann, here is what can be imagined:
Elite Infantry: as Shock troop (Waffen-SS or USSR Guard)
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2-3
Move 1-2
Sea movement:
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or
Mechanized Infantry +Tank (blitz along with Tank+MI).
Combat bonus:
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery or
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Gets +1D combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Maximum attack value remains 2.
No limit production capacity on this Elite unit.
On land, they need Mechanized Infantry to get M2.
And the best trio is as Shock troops with MI+Tank, A2 D3 + A1 D2 + A3 D3.
But paired with Tank only, this Elite unit cannot get Move 2.
Speaking of “shock troops” (which, loosely speaking, are military units intended to spearhead an attack), here’s an odd application of the concept: the “Women’s Battalions” formed by the Russian Provisional Government in 1917. They had catchy names like the “1st Russian Women’s Battalion of Death” and the “3rd Kuban Women’s Shock Battalion.” A couple of these units were actually used in combat, where they apparently gave a good account of themselves. Their intended purpose was to shame the (by this point of the war) demoralized Russian male soldiers into continuing to fight. It didn’t work.
@Baron:
Back on the Battle of the Atlantic issue… Ultimately, I think there has to be some intrinsic motivation for Germany to reach out into the Atlantic. Simply giving them more money to spend or reducing the cost of subs probably will not be enough reason to make them buy more. As it stands, the war will still be decided against the Soviet Union (Moscow). If there is a viable strategic gain to be had, such as strangling the UK or subs utilized to buy time against an invasion, then maybe a Battle of the Atlantic would take place.
Also, it looks like HBG has overhauled the Convoy Disruption System. I am not sure what can be done with it if you still plan to use the G40 map, but on HBG’s new GW game it looks like there are lines around the oceans denoting convoy routes. (You have to look closely and zoom in.) I don’t know how they have structured the mechanic, but it looks nicer, IMO.
You touched some interesting points.
About how units values impact the Atlantic Submarine Warfare, there is some features added in previous discussion (on Subs, DDs and TPs) and put in my roster which can provided favorable circumstances.First rule: No Sub vs Sub can create a similar situation in ATO (Atlantic Theatre of Operation) because US and UK will not buy Sub to fight U-boat, for sure.
OOB, it was possible to buy a few cheaper Subs to use as cheap fodder (for DDs and TPs) against U-boats.
Now, it is clear that UK and US Destroyers only can protect TPs against them.(In addition for PTO, US and ANZAC can throw Sub at Japan, while IJN can do the same against UK, US and ANZAC. There is an increase possibility that US & Allies can recreate their historical Convoy Raiding against Japan, if IJN have not enough DDs.
OOB, IJN Subs could protect TPs against Allied Subs.)Second rule: Sub’s A2 first strike, on a 1 Sub vs 1 DD, U-boats are better now than OOB and let the player feels each Sub have a better offensive capacity (in fact, on same IPC basis, 6 Subs A2fs vs 5 DDs D2 keep a similar combat odds as OOB 8 Subs Attacking @2 vs 6 Destroyers defending @2). Still the first strike ability increase the Submarine survivability because the defender cannot retaliate.
Third rule: DD blocks on a 1:1 basis Stealth Move and Submerge for first round only. Now, a single DD blocker cannot freeze U-boats in Baltic Sea. An Axis player can move beyond first DD blocker and play a cat and mice game with an improved stealth move (or a less effective blocking capacity).
Also, a many aircrafts and only 1 DD combined attack on many Subs defending @1 can no more result in a U-boats slaughter. Only 1 Sub would be trapped and unable to submerge. In addition, it would be a one shot attack since DD blocks only submerge for the first round. All this would increase the U-boat survivability.Fourth rule: Transport are defenseless vs warships but can escape 1 at a time by the end of each combat round. This can probably increase the number of Transports still alive after a U-boats assaults and also be an incentive to buy them instead on relying upon costlier Luftwaffe (and more exposed to TPs AA fire) to sink them. OOB, no Transport survive if 1 U-boat is still alive. Now it can and it makes some units still moving on the board after an attack.
Example: 2 Subs against 1 DD and 1 TP, only 1 U-boat get a hit. The defender can either loose the TP and fight another round or loose the DD and save 1 TP. It seems an interesting tactical dilemma which never occur in OOB game.That’s it for now, but there is probably one thing or two which can be said on this units interactions matter. Maybe later…
@Baron:
Unit type
Cost Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth MoveDESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.
I want to let you know that, if near OOB cost structure is chosen, there is also a way to have simpler interaction between Destroyers, Submarines and planes balanced at these cost:
Unit type
Cost Combat values
Special abilities
SUBMARINE
7 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Submarine or Aircraft
Submerge before combat (unless DD present) and Stealth Move (unless blocked by DD)
Unsubmerged Subs can be hit by aircrafts even when DD not present.
DESTROYER
8 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.
Submarines at 7 IPCs unable to be hit by Subs is less interesting as an all around naval fodder.
Destroyer at 8 is much more a better naval fodder.
And from same ipc basis cost ratio, it is similar to OOB.
8 OOB Subs (C6) vs 6 OOB Destroyers
A. survives: 87.6%D. survives: 11.7% No one survives: 0.8%
8 Subs A2fs C7 vs 7 DDs A2 D2
A. survives: 88.4%D. survives: 11.6% No one survives: 0%
Here’s the latest update:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/drie3w
Elite Infantry:
A1, +1 bonus when paired with artillery, air transport, tactical bomber or armor on a 1:1 basis. May only receive 1 bonus at a time. D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech infantry on a 1:1 basis. May blitz when paired with armor and mech. BBs and CAs may transport 1 elite each. May move 2 elite up to 3 TTs (must have Airborne Forces tech activated) into an existing combat when starting at an AB. Must move both units to same TT. Other land units (non air) must be in existing combat. C4.
Maximum attack is 2. Requires 2 units to receive movement and attack bonus during same turn. No bonus for amphibious attack.
Returned Tac Bomber to OOB abilities. Since TBs are rarely bought and slightly weaker due to fighters now having the option to boost bombers instead of Tacs, they now provide Close Air Support for infantry, elite and mech infantry units by giving +1 attack. May only support 1 unit per attack. Does not stack with any other bonuses. This promotes some tac buys and makes for some fun counterattacks and amphibious landings.
Militia have had their build limits removed. May still only be built in original TTs.
Air Transport:
Air trasnports A0, D0, M5 +1 with AB, C7. May transport 1 elite infantry unit into battle or during ncm. Gives +1A to elite units on a 1:1 basis. May not attack past first enemy TT. This allows for air invasions such as Crete.
AACruiser:
Are now C12 with 3 bombard. May transport 1 elite or marine unit. This still encourages some buys as it’s nice to have some AA firepower in your fleet, but at 10 they were all over the board. Reduces elite infantry spamming as well.
cruiserAA3:
Has had its AA ability removed. Gives +1M to DDs and Escort Carriers.
Marine
Is a naval infantry unit. A1, D1, M1, C3. Receives +1A during amphibious attack. Receives no other attack bonuses. Battleships and Cruisers may transport 1 Marine, transports 2.
The Strategic Island NO has been reinstated for Japan and The US. Hopefully this encourages some Midway action. Also if Japan does a J1 attack, the US will receive the bonus first rd (JPN could forgo Borneo and take Guam, but you probably want to take the dough away from UKP). So it gives JPN a little something else to think about.
A few other minor changes are clarified in the game notes.
Haven’t tried a game with the new marine units yet. Judging from previous tests with the elite unit, if the Italian fleet survives they can definitely get some more dudes into Africa. Japan and US will utilize them also. UK can bring guys up from SA as well as over from Canada. Should be interesting to see how it affects Western European landings. Should see some more action in the Pacific as well.
Militia spam doesn’t seem to be a problem. UKP probably uses them the most but JPN has still taken India on both J1 and J2 attacks. Not always though. The mech boosting the elite movement allows 1 trprt to carry 2 mobile units. Should make Wittman happy. :)
If you try the move 3 cruiser you’ll have to player enforce how many units you want it to support. I suppose trprts could be added. Instead of looking at it as boosting the physical abilities of range, you could think of it as the CA providing protection allowing it to sail farther. IDK the CA can still pack a dude by itself so you can get some troops into battle. Worth a test for those that want to try it I guess.
Any more ideas on the country specific units ? Will try and get those done as soon as they’re ready. What are thoughts about neutral blocks ? Would be cool to get them into action as well.
As usual this is for testing. Disregard any units you want.
AACruiser:
Are now C12 with 3 bombard. May transport 1 elite or marine unit. This still encourages some buys as it’s nice to have some AA firepower in your fleet, but at 10 they were all over the board. Reduces elite infantry spamming as well.cruiserAA3:
Has had its AA ability removed. Gives +1M to DDs and Escort Carriers.Marine
Is a naval infantry unit. A1, D1, M1, C3. Receives +1A during amphibious attack. Receives no other attack bonuses. Battleships and Cruisers may transport 1 Marine, transports 2.
You wrote cruiserAA3.
Why AA3?
I like this Cruiser.
I can really live with +1M to DD and Escort Carriers only, since it can load 1 Marines, no need to pair with TP.
Is it paired 1:1 with?
It is a fast moving task force 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer and 1 Marines (A1-2 D1 M1 C3).
I like the limitation and the opportunity it can create small skirmirshes for islands.
sadly you must player enforce a rule of 1:1 movement boost as it will boost any that are in the same zone as it is. Not really a big deal as that’s what you would do playing ftf.
The reason it is called AA3 is it originally had AA capability. I didn’t want to go through and change the name everywhere as it’s time consuming. If it’s decided to use it in the final version it can be tidied up then. Personally I’m not real big on the cruiser move 3 thing but I haven’t tried it either.
Here’s the latest update:
Returned Tac Bomber to OOB abilities. Since TBs are rarely bought and slightly weaker due to fighters now having the option to boost bombers instead of Tacs, they now provide Close Air Support for infantry, elite and mech infantry units by giving +1 attack. May only support 1 unit per attack. Does not stack with any other bonuses. This promotes some tac buys and makes for some fun counterattacks and amphibious landings.
What are the abilities of redesigned Tactical Bomber now?
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
Gets +1A when paired with Tank or Fighter ?
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry
And the issue about previous Tactical Bomber, is that this one was too costly to be interesting?
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 12
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry
and also because revised Strategic Bomber abilities was like this, always in need of Fg bonus?
Attack 3-4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Gets +1A when paired with Fighter
@Baron:
What are the abilities of redesigned Tactical Bomber now?
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
Gets +1A when paired with Tank or Fighter ?
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry
These are the current abilities. What little feedback I saw 4A seemed too powerful. OOB my experience was Tacs were rarely purchased. So far this seems to be working good. Using them as flying artillery has been a lot of fun. They get purchased a little more often now as well.
From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.
I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2
It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.
yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.
I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.
yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.
I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.
My minimal POV on SBR combat is this one:
St Bomber should get preemptive AA attack @1 vs up 2 Fighters, whichever the lesser.
D6+2 damage
Tc Bomber gets 1 preemptive attack @1.
D6 damage
Fighter gets Attack @2 and Defense @2.
But Fighter interceptors always hit bombers first, either StB or TcB, owner’s choice.
The main programming issue is to give StB this combat values.
It balance things out for interceptor D2, which in itself is too big deterrent if STB have only A1.
And a swarm of STBs is also a deterrent against few Fgs unless StBs attack like AA, so cannot roll more than 1 dice per defending Fg.
@Baron:
From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.
Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.
StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.
In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.
That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.
Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.
Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.
Leaving aside the fact that the OOB rulebook concept of “pro-Allied neutrals” (and of neutrals in general) is one of G40’s problematic mechanisms, I’m wondering what such a situation would be supposed to reflect. Why would Normandy change into a “pro-Allied” neutral (whatever we define that to be) from the status it has before the change? That starting status theoretically has three possible values, and I can’t imagine how Normandy would convert to a pro-Allied neutral stance from any of them: Normandy as part of a France which is an Allied power, Normandy as part of a France which is under Nazi occupation, or Normandy as part of a France which is under collaborationist Vichy control.
