Expanding on Units - New and OOB Types

I am sure that in all 81 pgs of House Rules there is a thread similar to this, but I would like to start the discussion fresh. I know I am long winded so I will try to be succinct.

I assume you get the point of this thread and you voted. Obviously, I would like to add new units to the game because HBG has already produced some very cool extras and I am itching to see them move across the board. That said, I have my own unit system in the works which has been influenced by many great ideas from people on the forums.

My goal with this thread is for people to express their opinions on this issue, both by voting in the poll and just taking the time to tell everyone why they think the way they do. There are good reasons on all sides of the debate and I think that many creative solutions spring up when we work off each other’s ideas. I do not expect to come up with one system that everyone will sign on to, but if we can find one or two universally recognized improvements I think we will have done a good job.

This is not a game revision thread like Black_Elk’s G40 Redesign (which I think is a more important discussion). This should be viewed as a tinkering with the existing mechanics to introduce fun and USEFUL results for Axis & Allies and even HBG’s Global War. Since HBG’s Global War is very closely related to A&A G40, much of this information on unit types should be thought of as interchangeable. I look forward to seeing Global War’s 2nd Edition rules in November of 2015. Maybe they have thought up some better things already.

Any units are fair game here, including bases, fortifications and industrial complexes. I am personally intending for any added or revised units to somehow enhance game play. That could mean to make it more dynamic, more fun or faster. Pieces or combat mechanics that require more rolls and more phases slow things down and make the game more of a drag. My personal intentions are to expand but streamline. Hopefully those are not mutually exclusive.

I have said too much.

GOOD LUCK…

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I agree. No point in giving them enough advantages to totally offset the difficulty of the task. For Pacific, I think it was just some excuse to include the USMC as a unit.

Glad, we are likely minded.
On that point on beachlanding and debarkment, I believe it could be interesting to bring one of the 1914 A&A game feature.
Gives to each Artillery unit a single preemptive defensive strike @2 against offlanding ground units.
This pictures the coastal defense a Power can deploy to prevent beachlanding attack.
Something which could act like the Atlantic Wall, if German’s player put a few of them in a given TTy.
Maybe this can outweigh the usual retreat in-land tactic when a European TTY is dead-zoned by debarkment force.

I would go as far as giving a matching pairing bonus with Artillery to Infantry on defense against sea invaders.

ARTILLERY
A2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Gets one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault,
Gives +1A to Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, paired 1:1,
Gives to Infantry paired 1:1, one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault.

I will have to give this one more thought. It kinda makes sense and I do think the amphibious assault could be looked at for improvement. As it stands, amphib assaults are rarely contested; meaning in my experience the attacker normally wins. Maybe that is just because they choose to attack when they know they should win handily. Nothing wrong with that.

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+ � D3 � M1 � $5. �  Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.

Such range of combat value is near my HRed Mechanized Artillery.
MECH ART A2-3 D2-3 M2 Cost 5, +1A to Inf and MechInf, gets +1A/D if paired with Tank.

My current Self-Propelled Artillery sits at A3  D2  M2  $5.

This is a hard one because I think my characteristics fit the unit well (better offense, decent defense), but the cost of $5 really makes this almost like having 5 IPC tanks again. That may be a problem. But like I said, you can only fudge the cost figures so much when you are between 3 and 6 and don’t want a bunch of units to be identical. I think there is a critical mass to unit diversity and we are quickly discovering it.

Maybe A2+  D2  M2  $5 is a better solution. A3 when paired 1:1 with…… tank? At least that way it is less like having 5 IPC tanks.

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+ � D3 � M1 � $5. �  Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.

Going higher than A2 D2 seems weird to me when talking about Infantry, even if they are Elite ones.
Paratroopers A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 4, are within acceptable limits.

But the issue is to beat the Inf-Art combos (A4 D4 cost 7 IPCs) within a D6 system to make any Elite troops interesting and balanced from an optimized game-play perspective.
2 Artillery units are already less interesting (A4 D4 cost 8 IPCs).
It is a real challenged.

It is a challenge. You are introducing me to the perspective of combined values though, which is proving insightful.

Here is my current table of combat units. I think I am going to need to heavily revise this:

Land Units

Infantry A1+  D2  M1  $3 (OOB, no change) - A2 with 1:1 Artillery or SP Artillery support.
Mechanized Infantry   A1+ D2  M2  $4 (OOB, no change) - A2 with 1:1 Artillery or SP Artillery support.
Elite Infantry  A2+  D3  M1   $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. (maybe a cap on the number allowed?)

Artillery A2  D2  M1  $4 (OOB, no change)
Self-Propelled Artillery   A2+  D2  M2  $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units.

Armor A3  D3  M2  $6 (OOB, no change)
Heavy Armor   A4   D4   M2   $9 (maybe a cap on production allowed per turn?)

Air Units

Fighter A3  D4  M4  $10 (OOB, no change) - Air Superiority: when Fighters roll a “1” the opponent must assign the hit to an air unit first, if available.
Jet Fighter   A4  D5  M4  $13  (probably needs either delayed ability to purchase or a tech roll, not sure which yet) - Air Superiority rule but on “1” or “2”. Requires Heavy Carrier for naval operations.
Tactical Bomber   A3  D3  M4  $11 - Target Strike: In land combat, a roll of “1” must be assigned by the opponent to an Armor or Heavy Armor unit first, if available. In naval combat, upon a roll of “1” you may choose which enemy ship will take the hit. The Target Strike ability works both as attacker or defender.
Medium Bomber   A3  D2  M5  $11 - Convoy Disruption: Med. Bombers may conduct convoy disruption in the same manner as ships. (Need to work on this one… not even sure if it is worth having this unit)
Strategic Bomber   A4*  D1  M6  $11 - Industrial Bombing per Baron’s rules of 1D6 +2 IPCs. Therefore, minimum of 2 IPCs even if bomber is shot down by AA. Strategic Bombers attack in sea zones @3, not 4.
Heavy Bomber   A4*  D2  M6  $15 - Heavy Bombers roll 2D6 for all attacks (both dice count!). Heavy Bombers attack @3 in sea zones, not 4.

Naval Units

Transport   A0  D0  M2  $7 - Mostly same as OOB, except may escape to adjacent sea zones if last unit left in a battle. Still working on that rule.
Submarine   A2  D1  M2  $6 - Similar to OOB rules but are countered by Destroyers on 1:1 basis. Also, they may submerge if not destroyed in first round of combat. Cannot hit planes. First Strike, unless countered by Destroyer 1:1.
Destroyer A2  D2  M2  $7 - Counter Subs First Strike 1:1. (Not sure about cost, A/D values yet… may revise to A1 D2 $6)
Large Submarine   A3  D1  M2  $8 - First Strike, Submerge same as regular Sub. Target: Large Sub when attacking may target all shots, regardless if Destroyers are present.

Cruiser A3  D3  M2   $9 - First Strike AA: may roll 2D6 per Cruiser against aircraft; hit @1 as normal AA. Shore Bombardment @2.
Early War Battleship/Battlecruiser   A4  D3  M2  $11 - Shore Bombard @3. -1- hit to sink.
Battleship A4 D4  M2  $14 - Shore Bombardment @4. -2- hits to sink
Heavy Battleship  A5 D5 M2  $21  -  Shore Bombard @5. First Strike AA: same as Cruiser. -3- hits to sink.

Light Aircraft Carrier   A0  D1  M2  $8 - May carry (1) Fighter or Tactical Bomber. -1- hit to sink.
Fleet Aircraft Carrier   A1  D2  M2  $12 - May carry (2) Fighters/Tac Bombers. -2- hits to sink.
Heavy Aircraft Carrier A2  D3  M2  $18 - May carry (3) Fighters/Tac Bombers/Jet Fighters. -2- hits to sink.

@SS:

Crusa, where is your reply.  :-D :-D :-D

I am thinking he would have a field day here.

@Flashman:

The only new unit I have any time for is the heavy tank as a tech development. That is, you can now build heavies rather than upgrading existing Mediums. USSR starts with heavies.

What would you propose its roll and cost to be? Unless cost remains at 6 because it is tech?

I haven’t thought everything through yet and most of the above was just spitballing based on things I have written down.

@SS:

HA HA HA Wait. Its coming. I have his game rules too and play it.

Might need a cap on Elite Inf.  Also a cap for Heavy Tanks and can’t be built until turn 3 at least.
Watch the Heavy Bombers. If somebody gets 5 of them at 2D6’s will be lights out with SBR.

Have cap for H. Bombers if rolling 2D6’s or Can buy right away with only 1 D6 damage.

Had game where got tech and could use Heavy Bombers at start of turn 6. US bought fighters for a few turns for escorts and then bought 5 H. bombers ( caped ) and went to London with escorts and then bombed the hell out of Germany. Averaged 35 to 42 per roll.
But the game doesn’t have Factory damage. You just pay to bank. So that was adjusted to only 1 D6 roll.
But I’m assuming you will have Factory damage up to 20 ? If thats the case I make it a tech.

Also you rolling for tech or are you gonna get  techs at certain turns ?

Tech… I am undecided on yet. I like being able to upgrade your stuff, but I don’t like that it is used very little. Instituting a Turn based roll out of developments (free to everyone) is looking like a better idea. I also don’t like the idea with Tech that you have to pay to get it and then pay again to use it (in the unit structure I outlined).

Same for Industrial Complex damage… I am not sure yet. Like Black_Elk, I am interested in pursuing revisions to factories, Naval and Air Bases. I am also not too certain about the (2) die roll for heavy bombers. I know it is a ridiculous amount of firepower, so that may have to be changed. I just like the thought of it; in practice is another matter.

I considered (2) hits for a heavy tank unit, but I am not sure about it yet. In any case, I feel that offense or defense needs to be raised to -4- regardless. It has to hit harder if it is a Heavy unit. So, that will have to be reconciled with cost increase and the ability to take (2) hits.

@Black_Elk:

I like the idea of a heavy tank class. I’d probably be content with 2, just light and heavy.

Yeah. I call it Regular (or Medium) and Heavy, but same thing for the game. Even though HBG makes the light tank sculpts, I think it would be troublesome to fit them in. Plus, who the heck wants to buy a light tank?

@Black_Elk:

I’m probably in the minority, in that I don’t have much interest in National unit types  (units available exclusively to one nation.) I think most of that could be handled with special bonuses based on the nation, or via technology. Keeping my sculpts organized for easy play can already be a chore haha.

I am not into Nation-specific unit types either. Advantages… maybe, but I like everyone having the same choices for units, allowing  them to outfit their forces as they see fit. The only ‘unit’ I could see as being nation-specific would be V-Rockets for Germany. HBG came out with a darn cool looking V-2. Problem would be if I wanted to have the Rockets tech for everyone. But at this point I don’t mind losing it because the guys I play with don’t like it much anyway.

@CWO:

I’ve been away for a few days, so I’m doing a quick catch-up on discussion threads.  Most of the categories in your table use terms that sound clear and accurate to me, but there are some terms which are problematic:

I try to be very clear and consistent in my choice of words. Especially since they are often interpreted in a legal manner during gameplay. People need specifics and turn into lawyers if things are the least bit up to interpretation. That said, I have explanation for the below items.

@CWO:

Strategic Bomber and Heavy Bomber  
I don’t know what this distinction is supposed to refer to.  “Strategic bombing”, strictly speaking, doesn’t refer to an aircraft type, it refers to a mission type (the bombing of strategic targets – which generally means cities – rather than tactical ones).  The Blitz against London was a strategic bombing campaign, but as far as I know it was carried out by medium bombers because Germany had few heavy bombers.  “Heavy bomber” in WWII terms generally equates with big 4-engine types like the B-17, the B-29 and the Lancaster.  Such bombers were well suited to strategic bombing missions (the B-29 particularly so, given its very long range and huge bomb load), but they weren’t limited to strategic bombing missions; for instance, B17s and Lancasters were involved in tactical bombing missions against shore fortifications on D-Day.

What I should call these units is Strategic Bomber and Heavy Strategic Bomber. The Heavy Bomber is just a larger and more capable version of the Strategic Bomber. Ideally, this would fill the “Heavy Bombers” tech slot. Although I haven’t reconciled the Tech aspect yet.

My current conception is that sculpts like the B-17, B-24, He-111, Stirling, Lancaster, etc… would all be in the Strategic Bomber category. B-29, Ju-488, etc… would then be considered Heavy Strategic Bombers.

Since I am well versed in aircraft types, ship classes and tanks, it is easy for me to visually distinguish all of the different kinds individually. I doubt some others are so familiar, so I am sure others will simplify by reducing to a single unit for each class. To each his own.

@CWO:

• Early War Battleship/Battlecruiser
  I would argue that this actually reverses the evolutionary line of dreadnoughts.  In the later stages of that evolution, battleships and battlecruisers merged more and more into a ship type which supplanted them both: the fast battleship.  An “early war” battleship would in fact be more differentiated from a battlecruiser than a “late war” one, rather than less differentiated.  In essence, battlecruisers traded firepower (fewer main guns) and protection (less armour) for higher speed.

I am aware of the differences between the two, including the relatively limited run of usefulness for the battlecruiser platform. My intent was to combine the limited capabilities of each into a single A&A unit type which would represent both. This unit would need to be inferior to the WWII era Battleship unit. It would be represented by a good attack combined with a slightly lesser defense. Hence the A4  D3 with the ability to only take only 1 hit. I have considered using this unit type to also represent Heavy Cruisers, but I think that may end up differentiating sculpts to a TOO detailed degree, as if I haven’t done so already.

The Early War BB/Battlecruiser type may not be purchased much in the game… just as they were not produced during WWII. Where I see this being used is to include this unit on the map for the starting set up, replacing some of the existing “Battleship” pieces. This also presupposes an HBG Global War level game, where a little more detail is possible. I think this unit in particular is completely superfluous in G40.

@CWO:

• Light Aircraft Carrier, Fleet Aircraft Carrier, Heavy Aircraft Carrier
  The terms “light carrier” and “fleet carrier” were indeed used in WWII, and the terms definitely refered to two distinct types of carriers.  The difference between a light carrier and a fleet carrier is basically that light carriers were smaller and could carry fewer planes; both had equivalent speed and both carried the same types of planes.  (This distinguishes them both from escort carriers, which were not only small but also relatively slow and which carried less capable aircraft). “Heavy carrier”, as far as I know, isn’t a term that was used in WWII.  I also don’t know what it might refer to.  Just because some carriers were called light carriers doesn’t mean that this implies the existence of heavy carriers.  Fleet carriers were “heavy” if by “heavy” you mean “really, really big,” but they were called fleet carriers, not heavy carriers.  Shinano doesn’t count: she was a Yamato-hull conversion, so she was inherently oversized, but she was a one-off (Japan built only one, and no other nation built a similar carrier), and I think she was also rather slow by carrier standards.  Her combat history amounted to being torpedoed and sunk by a single US sub.

Correct. The Heavy Carrier designation presupposes further carrier development had the war continued beyond August 1945. Namely, this would be represented by the Midway class and Shinano class using HBG units. Shinano is a poor historical example, because it was, as you said, a conversion rather than a purpose-built carrier. It was hastily re-designed during construction and was under-capable. However in my rationale, the use of the Shinano in-game would assume a better development period with increased capability. Midway was a step forward in carrier design and was the immediate precursor to the US supercarrier. Shinano was the largest aircraft carrier ever built and remained that way until the first US supercarrier (Forrestal) was launched in 1954.

Basically, the Heavy Carrier unit is meant to fill that category in the Light-Med-Heavy capital ship system which HBG has been using. Last I heard, HBG had come up with designs for a Midway-class sculpt. It should be noted that a Heavy Carrier is needed to operate Jet Fighters at sea. My hope is that all (Major) Powers have the ability to buy all units, so I hope HBG comes out with Heavy carrier designs for Germany and the UK at the very least.

Besides… who doesn’t want to see this being built on one of your US turns?