A new Tech available MOAB

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

I personally like to keep with the idea of allowing each nation to have the possibility to access each of the new units, because Even Japan and Italy had some heavier tank designs and prototypes, but they just never had the production to actually put them into full production. With the research system proposed however it does accomplish your goal to an extent. Since each research would be 4 stages to progress through, if a country has no bonus to what stage they start on it can take quite a few turns and money to get some researches especially if one has to roll a 6 or a 5+ with one die to progress one stage. Italy does not have the money to spare, and Japan probably wants to spend more money on ships and taking islands and tank upgrades wont suit them unless they are trying to crush Russia. I could also add another research of mass production which the US, and probably Russia has a bonus in, and it will reduce the cost of all of their units by one IPC.

You can find some good light tank pieces on Historical Board Gaming, they are about 0.65 cents per piece

Thanks for the inputs I think I will go with the advanced mediums, and I am currently taking a look at the board to see how some of these could be included in the starting setup

On Tanks.

Some players will for sure claim that if the opponent choose your casualties, nobody will buy Tanks any more, never again. The land battles will look like they did in the MB Classic games, with huge infantry stacks only. So how do we fix this, and I for sure don’t want to mess with the units cost or combat values. A Tanks should always cost 6 IPC, move 2 spaces, attack on 3 or less,  defend on 3 or less, and of course be able to Blitz. The only way to make rational players keep buying Tanks is to give them one more ability, and again from the A&A 1914 game with established and playtested rules.

An attacking Tank can absorb one extra hit. So it takes 2 hits to kill a tank.

This would be very strong if Tanks was chosen last as casualties, but perfect when chosen first. Tanks are actually the fodder that break through the enemy line, and make a hole in the line that the follow up infantry can exploit. Tanks that survived a real battle got so worn down that they would need months of repair before they could be used again. A Tank should be a hard hitting one round only unit. A Tank need a lot of fuel, supply and maintenance to work, and is really expensive to keep running. But in combined operations with aircrafts, like Tactical Bombers, they really put a lot of harm to the enemy. Tanks win battles. But they get used doing so. Infantry on the other hand live of the land and is cheap, and they can go on and go on forever, but they don’t have a strong punch.

So if you want to win a battle, you need air superiority, this is true for both attacker and defender.
If you want to successfully attack a territory, you also need Tanks and Tacs in Combined operation that gives a heavy punch to the defending stack. Since attacking Tanks will also absorb one extra hit, this first round will be devastating. We must assume that Tanks are taken first as casualties, so the next rounds are likely to be infantry fighting. And in that case, attacking infantry need matching artillery if they want to be hard hitting. And as always, artillery will be targeted in artillery duels, so in the latest rounds only infantry and aircrafts will survive. Just like in the real world.

Perhaps, to make trucks a bit more vulnerable, is make trucks susceptible to raids from enemy fighters and tac bombers. That way, there would be a way to counter the use of trucks, and force players to use them more sparingly. This would make sure that tanks are still being purchased. It might even be enough to eliminate mechanized all together as well.

In general I favour unlimited free rail movement during non-combat, which would make the TSR irrelevant for this.
It’s more a case of keeping the line open to gain western aid in a similar way as the Burma Road. Maybe the line allows the west to pay for upgrades of Russian infantry to mech infantry, which was one of the main benefits of the program.

@kbudm:

So my friends and I wanted to branch out from the WWII theme and sort of create our own version of this game. We decided on the time period of either the American Civil or Revolutionary War because we think it would be very unique and fun to play.  We’ll of course have to create a new game board and figures and the such, so this won’t be something that happens overnight lol.

I would suggest using Japanese artillery and infantry pieces for cannons and elite infantry (infantry with bayonets) and then using one of the other nations, perhaps the UK for the normal infantry (infantry without bayonets), also if you do civil war you will have to account for rifled barrels on muskets and cannons, possibly as tech.  Unit colors would have to be red for the British (Revolution), Blue for the Union (Civil war), blue for the patriots (Revolution), Grey for the confederates (Civil war), and some other color a lighter shade of blue perhaps for the French (American Revolution), other units you would need to account for would be spies, calvery, ironclads (Civil), and other warships. :-D hope this helps, if you come up with a rule set and map please share, sounds very cool!

Some people made them into technology, but i like them just as new pieces. and Table tactics makes mines already.

My only problem with LL type SBR rules are, they are a distinct advantage for the side that already has the lead.  Say a Japan earning 40+ vs. a Russia earning 20 or a US and UK earning a combined 55 vs. Germany earning 30.

Once you have the economic lead the cumulative effects can be devasting even if you are only doing 3 damage while also losing 3 each time.

I’ve thought about keeping the regular AA fire rules, but for the attacker 1’s and 6’s are removed.  So you can still do 2,3,4,5 in damage but once again the extremes are removed.

++++ or you can do this:

roll one D6:
1-2= 2 ipc lost
3-4= 4 ipc lost
5-6= 6 ipc lost

or
1-2=1 ipc lost’
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=4 ipc lost

I’ve also thought about making aa-fire two-fold.
First you roll, then if you get a “1” that means you’ve done damage to the Bomber.
So, a 1/6 shot at doing damage.
Now you roll to see how much damage.
On your second roll if you roll a:

1 or 6:  Bomber is destroyed (about a 5% chance when first roll is taken into account - I think)

2, 3, 4, or 5:  Cash damage to attacker

(alternative)
2,3,4: Cash Damage
5:  Non-lethal hit to bomber, no damage.

In the real war only 10% of sorties were lost on avarage due to flak batteries ( ground based causes)

under our system rolls one d6  if you get a one roll again

if you roll one a second time its destroyed, 2-3 it must return to base no mission. this is dont before any defender can even engage the SBR planes and/ escorts.