ANTI-TANK UNIT

You could actually add both of these kinds of units (stugs and antitank guns), and still have valid roles for artillery, mech, and armor.  They each fill a niche and you want to have some of each depending on the situation.  There are lots of naval units to fill all the niches and it feels like there needs to be at least 1 more ground unit that is sort of like artillery and sort of like mech but that is an antidote for tanks.  Stug and/or AT guns would fill that gap.

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

@Lozmoid:

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

no to this. HUGE NO actually

it would be spammed beyond control, noone would EVER build anything but this unit on the ground

it has to cost atleast 4, and the not hitting INF is a def no go as even at cost of 4 it would still be spammed beyond control

Infantry are now outdated, artillery are outdated, mechs are essentially outdated, save for blitzing tanks are outdated, planes are nearly outdated.

Although I think 3 IPC’s cost is probably a typo…

Sounds cool.

@empireman:

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

I’m a bit puzzled by the terminology.  Armour units (in the sense of tanks, SPGs and so forth) are all ground combat vehicles, so they’re a subcategory of Land units rather than a separate category.

Foot, Armor

lol…

I don’t think the SPG should cost 7. SPGs were generally cheaper to build than tanks. They should at least cost 6.

@techroll42:

Infantry are now outdated, artillery are outdated, mechs are essentially outdated, save for blitzing tanks are outdated, planes are nearly outdated.

This tbh.

I’m all for customization and house rules in a game, but considering the scale of the game an “armor” unit is not JUST tanks and would definately include SPG’s and other armored + softskinned vehicles.  To add a unique Motorized/Armored Anti Tank unit starts to get into a bit too much specialization if you ask me … especially since having such a unit under the suggestions here would, as techroll states pretty neatly, make all other land units outdated (ie : worthless)

Now, that’s not to say that they can’t be implemented well.  I just think on a D6 set of rules at this scale it will be difficult, unless you’re revamping EVERY section of the armed forces to compensate.

@empireman:

@CWO:

@empireman:

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

I’m a bit puzzled by the terminology.  Armour units (in the sense of tanks, SPGs and so forth) are all ground combat vehicles, so they’re a subcategory of Land units rather than a separate category.Â

Navy, Air, Foot, Armor

Substituting “Armour” for “Land units” creates the problem that it leaves out the artillery pieces and the half-tracks, both of which are land units and neither of which are armoured.

@Rorschach I was referring only to the SPG idea that was 2 atk 2 def 1 move 3 cost.

I like the idea in principle of a $5 SPG, but making it less than that is bad.

@techroll42:

@Rorschach I was referring only to the SPG idea that was 2 atk 2 def 1 move 3 cost.

I like the idea in principle of a $5 SPG, but making it less than that is bad.

Ah, I misread.

Even still, I really think the SPG/Anti-Tank unit needs some serious thought and consideration into its values and abilities (and anything less than 5 ipc cost is too little for sure) and probably a revamping many/most other units to account for this new unit.

It’s a great idea … in theory.  In practice, I think it needs a lot of playtesting and thought.

I think incorporating TRAINS would be a superior addition, over splitting the hairs between SPG/Tanks/AT-Guns.

Honestly those who are wanting to split those hairs should be playing A&A miniatures

Railroads would be a nice addition however (USSR trans-Siberian for an example)

@Gargantua:

I think incorporating TRAINS would be a superior addition, over splitting the hairs between SPG/Tanks/AT-Guns.

Mechanized artillery (SPA, whatever) should definitively be added, but I’m with you, I’m itchin’ for some railroads.

I remember seeing a somewhat decent model on the Harris Game Design forums;

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2264

Perhaps you guys have already seen it, but I personally like it. What are your thoughts?

Railway stations acting like airbases and naval bases are an excellent idea

+1 movement to any land unit starting in a territory with a railway station

YES!!!

But I think it should be 2 for every unit–trains move at a certain speed (2 per turn) whether or not they’re carrying tanks or infantry. But +1 fits the base model…

IDK.
Cost?
Bombable?

Ooh…another idea: Scramble Defense Team.

If a territory is being invaded, up to 3 land units from a neighboring tt with an operational railroad station can scramble (like planes).