I would love to hear more about your Most Precious Soviet Strategies. I love talking about strategy, especially if it’s about my favorite power when it comes to tactical decision making 😀
AARHE: Phase 2: Units
-
yes indeed!… get back to work! :-D
-
In AARHE INF (infantry) are built at VCs. Other units like ARM (tank) are built at ICs.
This was to stop massive infantry build and infantry stack at ICs.
We also have a cost model with INF costing between 2-4 IPCs.Now we introduced PARA (paratrooper) and MECH (mechanized infantry).
*where to build? need to stop them being massed in one turn in one spot?
*cost? US/UK INF (infantry) at minor VC costs 4 IPC alreadyI propose…
PARA: build at VC, cost “INF + 1”
MECH: build at IC with VC, cost “INF + 1”But then its weird if PARA or MECH becomes 5 IPC at some point.
-
Why not use the rules that we had in that other thread regarding paratroopers….?
It was the same one that had the bit about transport planes… about a month ago?
Also mech infantry is more like another armor unit. It should not fall into the limitations of infantry builds.
Its its own thing. The original idea should be kept
I think it was attack at 2, defend at 2 cost 4, move 2… can be allocated as armor hit when a tank or artillery would normall take the loss.
I think it should be boosted with artillery +1 at 1/1… this would give it the power in the game to be a needed unit. It would also allow for combined arms
they would also be able to blitz like tanks
on transports they count as armor.
-
Why not use the rules that we had in that other thread regarding paratroopers….?
It was the same one that had the bit about transport planes… about a month ago?PARA (paraptrooper), MECH (mechanized infantry) and TP (transport plane) are all in
yes MECH is 2/2 move 2 cost 4
I only make it to blitz when matched 1-to-1 with tanks though
I mean should mechanized infantry cut through butter the way tanks do?Also mech infantry is more like another armor unit. It should not fall into the limitations of infantry builds.
oh I was thinking mechanised infantry is still mostly infantry
have you got some stats about how many % infantry in mechanized divisions and tank divisions?so PARA built at VC right?
costs?
INF (infantry) at US/UK minor VCs are 4 IPC alright
without changes only PARA would come out of minor VCs lol -
Quote
Also mech infantry is more like another armor unit. It should not fall into the limitations of infantry builds.oh I was thinking mechanised infantry is still mostly infantry
have you got some stats about how many % infantry in mechanized divisions and tank divisions?++++++this would be different for each nation based on need… however the soviets had alot of mechanized divisions about 1/3 of all her land divisions in total were purely mech infantry, while italy had few… Germany had a bit more , while americans mostly had mobile infantry… you may even call them all mechanized infantry.
OK i guess it can be part of the infantry limitations, but it should be counted as an armor in terms of combat causalties. So if tanks get a hit the defender can now select artillery, mech, or tank as combat loss.
so PARA built at VC right?
+++++ yescosts?
+++++ Id would limit para builds based on nation it should cost 5 for parathey are at 2/2 but attack on first round at 3
Limits:
USA 6
UK 4
GERMAN 5
Italy 2
Russia 3
Japan 3INF (infantry) at US/UK minor VCs are 4 IPC alright
without changes only PARA would come out of minor VCs lol++= yea right. Para are specialized trained troops. they should be raised only in selected areas.
-
Maybe then also use build limits on Mech INF, but for the US unlimited.
-
Not sure about that… could be potential disaster… only infantry should be limited.
then we would have to also limit artillery and even tanks…and this is not good either.
why should their be limits on mech infantry?
-
@Imperious:
this would be different for each nation based on need… however the soviets had alot of mechanized divisions about 1/3 of all her land divisions in total were purely mech infantry, while italy had few… Germany had a bit more , while americans mostly had mobile infantry… you may even call them all mechanized infantry.
oh I see
yeah get that mobility NA for US doneOK i guess it can be part of the infantry limitations, but it should be counted as an armor in terms of combat causalties. So if tanks get a hit the defender can now select artillery, mech, or tank as combat loss.
ok then MECH built at IC with VC
yes the hit allocation is inId would limit para builds based on nation it should cost 5 for para
they are at 2/2 but attack on first round at 3actually we didn’t like changing combat value and last made it 4 IPC attack 2 defend 2
but 5 IPC would solve the straight problem of INF already costing 4 IPC at certain VCwe could make it 2 VCPs per PARA built, instead of a table of limits
yea right. Para are specialized trained troops. they should be raised only in selected areas.
if 5 IPC then you won’t be able to build them at 1 IPC locations
I guess we can also make it paratroopers can only be built at capital VC -
Quote
Id would limit para builds based on nation it should cost 5 for para
they are at 2/2 but attack on first round at 3
actually we didn’t like changing combat value and last made it 4 IPC attack 2 defend 2
but 5 IPC would solve the straight problem of INF already costing 4 IPC at certain VCwe could make it 2 VCPs per PARA built, instead of a table of limits
++++ ok great thats sound good. add that.
Quote
yea right. Para are specialized trained troops. they should be raised only in selected areas.
if 5 IPC then you won’t be able to build them at 1 IPC locations
I guess we can also make it paratroopers can only be built at capital VC+++ yes that is how it should be something very specialized… during the war these troops were very important once they were lost ( germans in crete) they were impossible to replace…
only build in capical VC is perfect make it so Tekkyy
lets finish NA’s and recap what we got.
-
PARA (paratrooper)
at division level its actually called Airborne rather than Paratrooper right?
but then the short form becomes AIR (airbone), which is confusing
-
Yes, so keep PARA instead. Better to understand for everyone.
-
“AIR (airborne)” is a confusing short form.
How about “PARA (airborne)” ?
A bit like “ARM (tank)”.
-
Para
-
which question are you answering :|
you mean there is paratrooper division ?
or leave it at PARA (paratrooper)
or change it to PARA (airborne) ?
-
PARA (paratrooper)
keep it simple. plus no established abbreviation for them so we have to invent our own…
AP will remain the only case where people will have to memorize that it means troopship
-
ok no change
yeah AP is probably the least obvious USS hull classification
-
Oh i forgot…
the german long range bomber is only one bomber per game…
the other way is WAY too powerful.
-
I know it was decided before to not change the setup, and that is fine. But I would like to come up with extra setup’s for optional units, so that players will faster start using them. So that we can add MECH, PARA and CA’s… Could we agree to this?
-
Funny you asked…
in another forum i got the same question about cruisers…
Should i research this?
I can say that:
Japan 2 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
Italy 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech
Germany 1 cruiser, 2 para, 3 mechSoviets 1 para, 3 mech
UK 3 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mechthis would be basically balanced and historical
now decide where they go.
plus look at other optional units.
Some will wonder about UK getting 3 cruisers… but look at the number they had compared to USA and youll agree
-
ok lets talk about it in the setup thread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8697.0
so far only change is FTR (fighter) on CV (aircraft carrier) is NAV (naval fighter)
Suggested Topics
