Infantry production w/o IC…

Don’t tempt me SS.  You know that French swear words are not included in the forum censorship.

Using BBs and CAs as bombers doing an SBR sounds pretty cool. I guess they would be impervious to interceptors though ? Maybe tacs could intercept ships only ?

Think it’s just a matter of finding the right numbers for your fortresses piscolar. You’ll just have to playtest it out. My concern would be that they’re not too powerful so they can’t be cracked. I like the idea of having a ground unit present to activate them.

@Zombie69:

Even though I don’t like house rules in general, I like the OP house rule in conjunction with the HR that allows submerging after one round against DD. The first HR makes subs a little weaker (can’t be used as fodder against planes) while the second makes them stronger (by letting them survive more battles). All in all, I think it balances out. It also has the advantage of being elegant and easy to use.

Glad you see it that way.
A still more simplified HR could be that keeping all OOB DDs rules with Subs and planes, each sides which have Destroyers must say whether or not Subs will be targeted in priority by planes.
If not, then anything but subs must be selected as planes casualties (unless their is nothing else except transports) by the owning player.

The value in this is for people who might want to get info for 1939 scenario to determine rules for American entry.

From fortune magazine:

The authoritative message :), curiously…

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

Making units obsolete/worthless is what I was getting at in my post. I don’t think that’s exactly the case, but it can sort of make it a speciality item, and I’m not sure if the incomes are high enough for that. Not sure if I’m wording this write either.

Reading what you wrote about the late war carriers, maybe you could make the rules time related. Meaning they are like automatic technologies that appear after a certain round and just replace the older ones. All infantry gets those bonuses with movement and everything, and still costs 3 IPC, after the 5th round maybe. Fourth, even.

I don’t know. I like the idea (especially the mech inf), but it’s hard to implment.

@bugoo:

I was wondering if it would imbalance the game or add to it if there were locations where nations could build only inf on a territory as if it had an IC.  For example, I would allow the UK to do this on Egypt, India, Australia, and Canada.  I’d remove one of the Russian ICs and make it function in this manner, or perhaps all but the one on moscow.  Also, allow Germany to use Algeria, and either Norway or Finland in this manner.  Thoughts?

yeah you could just let any territories with 2+ IPC deploy infantry
its easier for gameplay to have a system than to short list territories