New Special Unit Ideas?

Sorry if this has been suggested before!

I think that the game could benefit from a land unit scramble option into adjacent land zones from cities or a FOB.

I noticed a potential need for this when I was playing Germany and I had fighters in Paris so that I could better defend the French region. I was annoyed that I couldn’t have my armoured units (mech, med. tanks, etc) stationed there like IRL to respond to a seaborne invasion.

I think the rule should be either:

Up to three armoured units (or units with a movement of 2) can scramble out of a city to defend an adjacent territory. or; Instead of a city perhaps a FOB can be added into the game to act as a land unit airbase for scrambling purposes, or even movement purposes as well (I think that the game is too short and land units movement needs a buff, perhaps +1 movement from an HQ could help).

I think this would add quite a nice dimension to the game. Making cities more important and making it easier for nations to go on the offensive by not needing to stack as many units on every territory (think Japan on the Chinese coast).

Maybe the incoming scrambling land units can defend at a -2 on the first round of combat (minimum 1 defence) to simulate them coming late to the battle (not as fast as fighters).

Please feel free to critique this or add to it!

@trig said in Special Fortification Zones:

@noneshallpass
@JbuckBuddy
This isn’t exactly made clear, but I would go with the old A&A rule of, “if it has a land border, it isn’t and island.” Otherwise, what is an island. Is the UK? Is Australia? It goes on and on.

Australia is a continent, not an island. The UK and Japan are listed as island nations, and I would play them as exceptions to the special fortification zones, but I don’t see that in the rules. The New Guineas, Borneo, Sarawak, Ireland, etc., would qualify as islands, and special fortification zones, in my opinion.

@generalhandgrenade Thanks for the answer !

@trig either way - they have a close relationship. AND i have seen on numerous occasions the FAQ/Errata get updated almost immediately after having a conversation with GHG

@hbg-gw-enthusiast I would just add italicised texta clause saying something on the lines of “aircraft may not be placed on carriers during the place units phase” in that section, and a clause saying “newly built carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots for fighters and tactical bombers.”
It is rather obvious is you look for it, but I think a FAQ or a additional clause is needed.

You have to remember that the rail capacity in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and South America is only one unit. Linking Egypt and South Africa would only cost 4 IPP so that’s not too bad considering you can only move one unit. Going from India to Egypt though would cost 10 IPP because of the terrain and one more link. That might be too steep a cost to only move 1 unit. It would cost 18 IPP to complete the link from the US to South America. If the rail capacity were unlimited then such links might be ok, but spending that much to move only 1 unit is probably not worth it. Especially a long link that can be damaged or broken by the enemy in an exposed place like the Middle East. I really like the idea of Cape Town to Cairo though.

@super-semple Go with Tamiya. That’s what many use including myself and have never had paint chip off.

@Klaykowalski I think you may have misunderstood the term. What they are referring to is 3 nations that the USSR has conquered. In other words, nations that are newly part of the Commintern. Nations are not created in the game.