Lets Talk Landmines

I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular…  :wink:

Here’s our WAW rules.

Mechanized infantry=

Move 2 (units can retreat after one round of combat).
att = 2
def= 2
Cost = 4

(Japan,france and China cannot produce mechanized infantry).

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

@Imperious:

Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?

1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.

I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice.  So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several.  But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations,  (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports?  Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units?  This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.

enough space, but not enough money from WOTC to develop both.

With the above post in mind, I propose the following for both Escort Carriers AND Naval Fighters.  Also, with Naval fighters being slightly weaker than their land-based counterparts, I propose that the regular aircraft carrier’s IPC cost be slightly tweaked.

Regular Aircraft Carrier

1    Attack
2    Defense
2    Movement points
11    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 10 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    May  hold up to 2 naval fighters.

Escort Carrier

1    Attack
1    Defense
2    Movement points
7    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 6 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
-    May only hold up to 1 naval fighter.

Naval Fighter

2    Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3    Defense
3    Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters MAY be used on land.

Regular Aircraft Carrier + 2  naval fighters

5    Combined attack value
8    Combined defense value
3    hits
27  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

Escort Carrier + 1 naval fighter

3    Combined attack value
4    Combined defense value
2    hits
15  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

These stats seem to fit a little better into the naval chart.

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.