Lets Talk Motorized Infantry

All I know is that I’m heading over to Larry Harris forum to get my $.02 in.

That’s right!

1 mine per turn. That’s it.
If your mine sink a ship, its removed from the gameboard.

You cannot put a mine a sea zone if you’re not at war

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

@Imperious:

slippery slope will follow that kind of rule. it should be one and if you do with 2-3 or even 4 it turns into WW3 ICBM game. Thats not really AA. It could be fun once, but a trick to be exploited. In all house rules you have to get away with the idea of allowing players to buy tons of items that can break a game. This would be the case with the old discussion on paratroopers and that “buck Rodgers exploit”.

I willl try to play a game soon with my a-bomb rules( which is really yours) , and tell you how it goes

I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.

Have all powers include sz in their NO’s like w/Italy in AA50. Separate sz from the NO’s and create new NO’s for the sea. That way you would have land NO’s & sea NO’s.
**NO’s have been introduced into the game, and would keep things sorta simple. I’m not sure I like that though because it would be an all or nothing deal. Have certain sz worth 1 ipc or so (as Bardoly said) and basically let each power fight over them. Sorry still not to crazy about Germany being in what would be considered a UK zone and getting paid for it. Assign sz to each power and if those zones are in enemy hands it cost you $ or damage markers at your capitol.(could be determined by dice but might cost to much with SBR & rockets) this makes sense because loss of ships would cost $. Assign 3-4 sz to each power as describe by myself and others. If you keep these zones clear of enemy war ships you collect a bonus per sz (1 ipc each) or have the chance of a larger bonus if all sz’s assigned to you are clear. You could in rare cases assign the same sz to 2 powers to add some spark (for Bardoly). In this case it is assumed each power gets more income but by not keeping your convoy zones clear you lose it, results from the ships being sunk.
**As I was typing this out I noticed it might be cool to combine #4 & #5. Say on Germany’s turn it takes control of 2 sz’s assigned to the UK. Uk places 2 damage markers on its capitol. On Uk’s turn it clears those zones so now it gets a bonus to help pay for damage. On second thought I think that would defeat the whole purpose, but in AA their is a counter balance for most things lol.

Yeah.  They can be captured as well.  Maybe each fort can modify defense of inf based on the level.

Level 1 boosts i inf defense

Level 2 two inf, and so on.

cost 7, if VS land targets:

these are 3-3 units moving 2 and each plane boosts the tank +1 at 1:1 basis

if VS Sea targets:

3-3 units moving 2 ( carrier based)…also possible modifier for attacks on surface ships ( not sure)

They cant move from land or from sea to attack the other on the same turn. So carrier planes cant attack land targets unless they fly first to land on the turn before and vice versa.

this will result is fighters staying on land where they belong with a few on carriers as escorts

my problem with German or Russian shock troops as infantry is that those units had alot of tanks, so why not just represent them with tanks.

For special  infantry they should be able to fall into one of the four catagories i already listed.