G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

Here, I want to explore what can be 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits Battleship configuration if Fighter are at 8 IPCs.

ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1

Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB

Second version, 2 planes Carrier, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB, simpler interactions and 5-6-9-12-15-18 cost structure:

Transport, defenseless
A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C13, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/13^2) = 0.43

Transport working as warship (Military Armed TP being escorted by a few DEs)
A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
carry 1 Inf or MI +1 any ground unit (might help faster US deployment: MI+Tk)

Defense factor:
36*(1/9^2) = 0.44

Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
2Ds in Convoy SZ

Offense:
36*(2/5^2) = 2.88
36*(3/5^2) = surprise strike 4.32
Defense:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44
36*(1.33/5^2) = surprise strike 1.92

Destroyer
A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
ASA1D1,
1D in Convoy SZ

Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00

Escort Carrier (optional)
A0 D2 M2 C9, 1 hit,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
No dice in Convoy SZ

Offense factor:
36*(0/9^2) = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*(2/9^2) = 0.89

Escort Carrier and 1 Fighter
A3 D6 M2 C17, 2 hits,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
Offence:
36* (3/2)/(17/2)^2 = 0.75
Defence:
36* (6/2)/(17/2)^2 = 1.50

Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
Shorebombard @3,
1D in Convoy SZ

Offense & Defense factor:
36* 3 / (12^2) * 2.618034 = 1.96

Carrier
A0 D2 M2 C15, 2 hits,
carry 2 planes, damaged Carrier carry no plane
No dice in Convoy SZ

Offense factor:
36*[0/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.84

G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 2 Fgs A6 D8 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
   6/2  C31/2   2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.18

Defense factor:
   10/2  C31/2  2 additionnals hit/2
36*[5/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.96

10/4  C31/4  1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.5/ (7.75^2)]  = 1.50
Until further investigation, I believe this average is better: (1.96+1.50)/2= 1.73
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+2.25) = 1.78

G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 1 Fg+1 TcB A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
   7/2  C33/2   2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.21

Defense factor:
   9/2  C33/2  2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.56

9/4  C33/4  1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.25/ (8.25^2)]  = 1.19

average is better: (1.56+1.19)/2= 1.38
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+1.08) = 1.39

Battleship
A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
Shorebombard @4,
1D in Convoy SZ

Offense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (18^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.88

Strategic Bomber
A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6

Offense SBR only:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44

Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ

Offense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25

Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125

Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ

Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08

Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36

Anti-aircraft Artillery
A0 D1* M1 C4, 1 hit,

• @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
  It is preemptive shot.
  36*(1.33/4^2) = surprise strike 3.00 per plane for first combat round only.

Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69

Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2)= 1.56

---

It seems balanced between warships and such 8 IPCs Fighter.

Tactical bomber seems a bit weaker but it has Anti-Sub Attack and Defense.
In addition, it can be possible to introduce a special targeting against warships for tactical bomber in naval combat when playing F-2-F on boardgame.
Here is how I see the procedure: after Anti-Sub phase and Sub surprise strike phase, tactical roll first.
Any hits are allocated on a given warship unit according to TacBs owner’s choice.
Then all other units rolls.

This is more functional since Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier have multiple hits and make Subs rolls and TcBs less effective.

Since 10 IPCs TcBs are a bit weaker in this new configuration against 8 IPCs Fg and 2 hits Naval units, I wonder if there is some tactical impact to the game or plain unhistorical factor if combined arms is also allowed in defense?

Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A/D to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ

Offense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25

Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125

Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3-4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A/D if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ

Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08

Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36

Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D7 C16, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69

Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D8 C18, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(4/9^2)= 1.78

For Carrier defense, both Fg+Fg (C16) and TcB+Fg (C18) would provide 8 defense points but cost is not the same.
With 2 Fgs you save 2 IPCs. Keeping Fgs far more cost efficient for defense (2.25 vs 1.78) and still on par for offense (1.69 vs 1.56).

The only bonus TcB get is for Anti-Sub attack and defense which might sink Sub before doing any damage.

---

@toblerone77:

@Baron:

@Razor:

@Baron:

The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.

Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.

But then it will not longer be A&A

You are describing tactical situations which need to be translated somehow in a Strategical game.
I agree on this:
“the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.”

It is not an easy task, very often as I revised some old ideas I saw easily how far I am from it.
But, sometimes a simpler solution arise. And I’m the most happy man because of the simplest joy of the discovery. Â :-D

That is easily done if you leave the stats OOB, except allow TBs to defend at +1 when paired with a fighter. You could even do this with the StB if you really wanted to.

---

Also, with lower cost, 20% lower for Fg and 10% for TcB, it makes sense to compensate, by an additional Dogfight phase prior to the main battle, this increase in strength compared to ground units which are far less versatile and mobile.

AAA would be part of it and would allow defender to still protect his air fleet against invaders.

For further thinking on dogfight phase and get a reference to a Tactical Bomber thread:

@Baron:

@knp7765:

Okay, I think I see Baron’s problem with the attack/defense values of fighters, tac bombers and strat bombers in relation to the difference between air to air combat versus air units attacking ground targets. Yeah, if you look at one unit versus one other unit, perhaps the attack/defense values may not make as much sense in some cases. For example, a tac bomber or strat bomber attacking @ 4 against a fighter defending @ 4 does seem kind of ludicrous. Of course it seems equally ludicrous to think of an infantry defending @ 2 taking out a strategic bomber.
The problem is Axis & Allies had to provide a general attack and defense system to make the game playable and somewhat simple. To say unit A can attack unit B at this value but it can attack unit C at a different value and so on would simply make the combat too complicated and probably scare away all but the most hard core gamers.
Also, I’ve got to say increasing a tac bomber’s defense to 4 and lowering a fighter’s defense to 3 is just silliness. That is not the way to fix your problem, at least not with just general combat situations.
I think the best way to address air to air versus air to ground combat would be to have two separate combat phases (only if both sides have aircraft in the battle). First, you have a special air to air combat phase. Since fighters are definitely the superior craft in strictly air to air combat, perhaps they should attack and defend @ 4, tac bombers perhaps 2 or 3 because they do have some dogfighting ability, just not the same as fighters. Strategic bombers would be low, perhaps attack @ 1 or 0, defend @ 1 or 2. This air to air combat phase would continue until one side or the other has NO planes left.

Then, when the air to air combat phase is complete, then you go to the main battle. In this case, I could see fighters only attacking and defending @ 3 while tac bombers would attack @ defend @ 4. In fact, I would say that even defending strategic bombers could defend @ 4 because they would be defending the territory by flying over the attacking ground forces and bombing them from above (remember, at this point there would be NO attacking aircraft to pester the bombers).
In a case where it is aircraft vs. ground units, attacking or defending fighters would be less effective against ground targets than tac bombers or strat bombers so I could see changing their values now.
Another thing I have considered is the possibility of catching enemy aircraft on the ground. In a lot of the early blitzkrieg battles, one reason the Germans were so successful was that the Luftwaffe managed to strike at many enemy airfields thus eliminating effective air defense from their victims. The US was pretty successful at this as well in several of the later battles of the Pacific war (Philippines, Okinawa, New Guinea).
So, I was wondering if there were some way to incorporate that aspect into this game. Like if you attack an enemy territory that has aircraft, and you are attacking with aircraft, roll a die and if you get a “1”, you catch your enemy off guard and destroy their planes on the ground. A roll of 2-6 would accomplish nothing.
Would this be a good idea? Or too overpowering?

Without talking directly on a topic about HR development, I could say that you describe many aspects which I consider about the game or the historical aspect. I bolded them.
When it covers some HR dimension, I just see it as an illustration of where it could have go, having much time to think about. And now, there is also the 1914 A&A mechanics which can give other kind of Larry Harris endorsement rules mechanisms.

For now, I’m mostly concerned about the way “we see offence and defence” for air units, and specifically TcB, at a strategical games which is not intended to be a total war simulation of WWII.

[barney]

This can be played on triplea now. It’s under Experimental entitled “Global 40 House Rules”. It also has the Canada Mod that simon33 created “Global 40 House Rules with Canada”. The Canada Mod currently doesn’t work with the new techs.

The only main change from the previous test versions is the “SubsCanEvadeDestroyers” Tech. Destroyers will now fire at Subs when subs pass by in combat move or ncm. They have a 1 in 10 chance at a hit. They also have another 1 in 10 chance at a hit in the Combat Phase. Explained in detail in the Game Notes.

Next will be to integrate Canada with all the new techs and adding all of the BM house rules.

[Black_Elk]

Thanks Barney! Sounds killer

I was MIA for a while there, bunch of RL issues came crashing in on me and I had to give up the ghost for a bit to get caught up. Had to pull one of those semi-annual Houdinis, but its nice to see people are still around. I haven’t had a whole lot of time to play G40 lately or to mess about in tripleA (though I did swoop a backup copy of AA50 last time I was at the game shop, just in case things open up for me one of these weekends.) Anyhow, will have to download the latest tripleA build and see what’s new on that front.

To the rest of the gang, hope all has been well. Will drop back by from time to time when I get a free minute to talk shop. Catch you next round

ps. looks pretty rad man! Just loaded up the experimental to mess about for sec. Nice work!

[Witt]

You have been missed . Thanks for coming back to explain.
Keep well.

[barney]

heh heh good to hear from ya Elk.  :-)
Gotta a fix for the " Sphere of Influence " that needs to be put in. Russia nuts up after a few rounds. Can still play by edit but I’ll go a head and update soon

[barney]

Got Canada dialed in with the rest of the countries. Hopefully anyway : ) but confidence is high. Got a test game going now.

Anyway, added a “Canada Boost” Tech for the Canada Mod. BC, Yukon and Labrador all get a Loonie. Haven’t played to see how much splitting Canada away from England control affects the game, but it seems that Britain/Canada will be weaker than having no Canada.

Currently Canada has “1” National Objective if “Sphere of Influence” Tech is activated. Unfortunately for Canada, it is a negative Objective. : )

So question is, what National Objectives should Canada have ? Some Objectives are offensive and some defensive. Would be nice to see one of each imo.
2 PUs for control of all of Canada ? Would be similar to some of the US ones. One land unit in Western Europe is another 2 ?

Anyway, probably take some game play to shake it all out. :)

On a side note, don’t see myself playing Global without Canada much in the future. The Map just looks too cool. simon33 did a Great Job !

[barney]

Gonna hold off on the NO but gonna add another tech. Alberta +2 inf and Ontario a Tac.
Prairie Boys ain’t sitting this one out : )

Should it be called “Mobilize Canada” or “Canadian Mobilization” ?

Personally I like them both. Also UK might need to get a couple dudes in London. Yea they do maybe idk : )

[CWO Marc]

@barney:

So question is, what National Objectives should Canada have ?

Perhaps something to do with national prestige, possibly tied to securing the Allied convoy routes in the Atlantic.  At the beginning of WWII, the Royal Canadian Navy was tiny and was considered by Britain to be more or less just an extension of the Royal Navy.  By the end of WWII, the RCN had grown enormously (mainly in terms of escort vessels) and was playing a major role in the Battle of the Atlantic.  So perhaps Canada could have the goal of controling certain sea zones in the Atlantic, and could gain national prestige (and maybe some extra cash) from doing so.

[barney]

Good Idea CWO I like it. When the “Convoy” tech is on it adds a pile of convoy and blockade zones. Those are important to control anyway but giving Canada a 2 PU boost for doing so sounds good.

[barney]

Here’s the Canada Boost. : ) Obviously you can always boost more or less with edit.

“Canada Boost” which gives BC a extra 1 PU and Yukon, New Foundland each get 1 PU as well.

“Canada Unit Boost” Gives 2 infantry to Alberta and a Tac Bomber to Ontario.

This is a Objective. “Get 2 PUs if the Allies control 123 and 117 Sea Zones”.

Haven’t played a lot with Canada. UK might need a couple extra dudes at start. Idk. They lose the Canada dough so …

Will upload to triplea soon.

Anyway just another option : )

[barney]

Updated to triplea. Canada is full go now. Will start adding the rest of the BM house rules

[barney]

hmm…:)

[General Veers]

This is on the subject of map modifications but I wonder if the designers intentionally gave the Kra Isthmus to Shan State to allow a connection to Malaya and cut off Siam to make a Japanese invasion a little more laborious? A land connection would allow an easy dumpoff of air units to Siam for a J2 attack without needing an amphibious assault. I’d be curious to see how this would play out in addition to a decent French presence (2 inf) in FIC to prevent the Japanese from walking in.

[barney]

yea Idk how to do map graphics. I’ll look into seeing if it can have some sorta icon show up to represent the connection. Not sure if one can trigger a TT connection or not though.

Actually triggering a canal might work. Not sure if you can do that either though.

Yea i bid a couple French guys one time. They got slayed but was one more thing Japan had to deal with.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Here’s the Canada Boost. : ) Obviously you can always boost more or less with edit.

“Canada Boost” which gives BC a extra 1 PU and Yukon, New Foundland each get 1 PU as well.

“Canada Unit Boost” Gives 2 infantry to Alberta and a Tac Bomber to Ontario.

This is a Objective. “Get 2 PUs if the Allies control 123 and 117 Sea Zones”.

Haven’t played a lot with Canada. UK might need a couple extra dudes at start. Idk. They lose the Canada dough so …

Will upload to triplea soon.

Anyway just another option : )

From historical POV, Ontario was more industrialized than Quebec and other TTs, it should deserve 1 PU. Also, I believe the main training ground for pilots was in AlSaMa rather Ontario, so I would place TcB in this TT instead (but this is a secondary issue). Maybe CWO might chimed in on these two…

[barney]

Right on. I’ll move the tac to the prairies. Think I’ll hold off on giving an extra buck to Toronto for now. Probably will be just fine to do though. Gave The Yukon a buck in case Japan takes AK. A minor bonus if the Allies are screwing up. Also they built the ALCAN and shuttled Lend Lease planes through there.

Gonna give UK two inf as well. Pretty sure there were some Canadians over there in 1940. I think that’s when Dieppe went down. I’m gonna start a play test in a couple hours for the next update. The split income probably makes UK pretty susceptible to sea lion.

Just have to playtest stuff out to find a semblance of balance. For now it’s just cool having Canada in there. The map looks sweet : ) Thanks again simon.

[baron Münchhausen]

We talked about Canada as minor power around these pages:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1646373#msg1646373

Around the time of Sea Lion, I read on web there was two fully equipped Canadian Infantry Divisions defending London against a German Invasion.

[barney]

Triplea update. Added BM Vichy Rules and Marines and a couple other things. Separated Russia’s +3 NO for no Allies in original Russian Territory from the “Russian National Objectives” tech.

Also added a +1 PU boost every time you conquer a Mediterranean Island in “PacificIslandAndPU_Change”.

Fixed a couple things and some minor changes.

Will add the rest of the BM rules next.

@General Veers

Yea you can’t trigger Territory connections, so it would have to be a separate xml/mod. i don’t know how to do the graphics but I’ll try and get a xml for you to try before too long

[baron Münchhausen]

The wizard of the code is striking again!
Thanks for your dedication Barney.
I hope some people will like to spice up their game with a few touches of your long hours of work.
+10 ;)

[baron Münchhausen]

This is a unit profiles first draft for G40 Redesign, I will try to test on my boardgame.
(The finished results is posted below.)

The Depth Charge sequence for Destroyer is inspired by YG’s 3G40 project.
This allows to not block Sub’s submerge (which is realistic from a ship-to-ship POV).
I also used SS long time play-tested HR, Destroyer blocking Sub’s Surprise strike on a 1:1 basis.

These two abilities seem better at depicting Sub warfare with not so complex mechanic.

Keeping 2 basic units of G40 Redesign cost structure:
DD A1 D1 C5 (0.96),
SS A2 D1 C6 (1.33, 0.67)
But all other units are adjusted to keep
Cruiser A3 D3 C8 (1.13) and
Battleship A4 D4 C15 (1.12) better in combat compared to Destroyer (0.96) but both even combat ratio based on same IPC basis (1.12).

Carrier A0 D2 (0.87) still carry only 2 aircraft and is stronger than OOB Carrier (0.49) on same IPCs basis, but weaker in absolute combat values.
However, both aircraft have special abilities which can compensate and also because of cheaper Full Carrier compared to OOB units.

TcB A3 D2 C8 (1.13, 0.75) now gets targeting capacity on Sea and Land units, which includes submerged Subs.
Fg A2 D2 C7 (0.98) directly fire at aircraft first, as usual for my HR. But treated as OOB when there is no enemy’s aircraft.
StB cannot be part of regular combat, but get A1 in SBR dogfight.

This units profile allows a full spectrum of combat values for Naval combat:
DD A1 D1, Sub A2 D1, Fg A2 D2, TcB A3 D2, Cruiser A3 D3, BB A4 D4

Now, Cruiser is taking the middle place of Destroyer in OOB roster
Of course, setup will need adjustments because of cheaper aircraft and Carrier.
Also, cheaper boats will increase the pressure on Axis much earlier in game.
However, Subs are still potent offensive units with pretty good elusive capacity.

---

Destroyer (0.96) (Depth Charge: 1.92 max)
Attack 1
Defense 1
Move 2-3
Cost 5
1 hit
Block Submarine’s First strike on a 1:1 basis
Cannot block submerge but can Depth charge submerging Sub:
Depth charge against submerged Subs, after Submerge or First Strike phase and prior to regular combat:
1 roll @2, only for on going combat round, up to 1 roll per submerged Submarine max.
Destroyer doing Depth charge can still roll in regular combat.
1D in Convoy SZ

Submarine (1.33, 0.67 / FS 2.00, 0.89)
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 2-3
Cost 6
1 hit
Stealth Move: Submarine CM or NCM is not block by Destroyer and
in Combat Move, only Subs attacking do not allow scramble from adjacent Air Base
Submerge or First strike prior to General Combat phase,
First strike: Destroyer blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis
Submerge: Destroyer does not block submerge but can Depth charge
Cannot hit Submarines nor aircraft.
2D in Convoy SZ.

Transport (variant M3-4) (0.00)
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 2-3
Cost 7
0 hit
taken as last casualty,
Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

Transport (reg combat variant) (0.38)
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2-3
Cost 8
1 hit
Carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

Cruiser (1.13)
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2-3
Cost 8
1 hit
Variant: M3-4, Cost 9, 1 hit, (0.89)
Shore bombardment @3
1D in Convoy SZ

Fleet Carrier (0.00, 0.87)
Attack 0
Defense 2
Move 2-3
Cost 12
2 hits
Carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB):
2 Fgs (0.72, 0.94),
1 Fg & 1 TcB (0.77, 0.87),
2 TcBs (0.83, 0.79)
Air operation allowed for 1 plane, if damaged.

Battleship (1.12)
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2-3
Cost 15
2 hits
Shorebombard @4
1D in Convoy SZ

Fighter (0.98)
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 4-5 (M6 from AB as escort for bombers)
Cost 7
1 hit
Hit aircraft first, then AAA, then owner’s selecting his own casualties as usual.
SBR A2 D2,
1D in Convoy SZ.
Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs.
Can air retreat 1 adjacent TTy after first combat round (announce before attacker’s retreat).

Tactical Bomber (1.13, 0.75)
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 4-5 (M6 from AB for TBR only)
Cost 8
1 hit
Can target any land or naval enemy’s unit (excludes aircraft) if rolling a hit
TBR A1 D1 dmg 1D6 on AB & NB
1D in Convoy SZ
Needs no Destroyer to hit Subs
Can target submerged Subs in same combat round that Subs submerged.
Can retreat aircraft 1 adjacent TTy, after first combat round (announce before attacker’s retreat).

Strategic Bomber (0.00/ SBR: 0.96)
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 6-8 (M8 from AB for SBR only)
Cost 5
0 hit in regular combat,
SBR 1 hit, A1 D0, dmg 1D6

Air Base
Cost 12
Giving +1M, +2M on SBR or TBR only,
Give +1 Defense to 1 Fighter defending AB’s territory.
Allows up to three units to scramble, either Fg or TcB
Do not allow scramble if only Submarines attacking an adjacent SZ.

Anti-Aircraft Artillery (0.00, 3.00)
Attack 0
Defense 2 or 2AA@1
Move 1
Cost 4
1 hit
Instead of regular defense @2, can either roll 2@1 vs up to two aircraft, 1 roll max per aircraft.
This is not preemptive fire: roll in regular combat phase.
Move as any ground unit in CM and NCM.

---

Here is additional units which are optional and require new sculpts to play with:

Militia
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 2
1 hit

Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 3
+1 Attack in amphibious assault,
TP can carry 2 Marines, can load 1 on Battleship

Bunker
Attack 0
Defense 3
Move 0
Cost 5
2 hits
Requires 1 Inf, MI, Art, Elite, Marines or militia to work.
1 such unit must share same TTy to repair damage.

Mobile Artillery
Attack 2
Defense 2-3
Move 2
Cost 5
Can blitz but cannot give blitz to Mech Infantry,
Gives +1A to Inf or MI, paired 1:1
Gets +1D paired 1:1 with Tank

Elite Infantry unit
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Cost 5
Can load 1 on Battleship, or 2 on TP,
Gets +1M paired 1:1 with Tank and blitz with it,
Can load 1 on Air TP during move CM or NCM,

Air Transport
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 5-6
Cost 7
1 hit
Load 1 Elite unit CM or NCM.

Escort Carrier, as a Sub Hunter (0.49)
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2-3
Cost 7
1 hit
Carry 1 Fg (0.73) or 1 TcB (0.85, 0.64)
Escort Carrier blocks Submarine’s First strike on 1:1 basis,
Does not block Submerge.

Military Base
Cost 12
Allows to built up to three Infantry and can be built on 0 or 1 IPC TT or Island.
Has 6 damage points, not operational if 3 or more damage.
Built-in AAgun.