What if mechanized infantry could tow an artillery piece

It is to add to the blitzkreig warfare mantra that was so popular in WWII. I like the piece personally and I think why it cannot blitz by itself is if you think about it, all they are are transport trucks holding infantry, they can’t really fire on the run, or at least not as effectively as armor. And also this would make the pieces unbalanced.

I think that infantry would still be best on defense.

On Offense 14IPCs gets you:
6-Tank                         3 on attack
4-artillery                      2 on attack
4-mech infantry              2 on attack (with artillery right?)

so you get 3 units and 7 hit points for 14 IPCs

On Defense 15IPCs gets you:
3-infantry       2 on defense  (x5)

So you get 5 units and 10 hit points for 15IPCs

Edit: Corrected tank cost

The idea of a half track towing an artillery gun halfway across Europe to get to the front line is hilarious.

I’ll say it again and again: land units all moved to the front by train.

Since I sense that LH is coming round to the need for rail movement, Mech inf will have to be revised to survive; since the 2 space movement becomes redundant then the blitz ability will have to become more important.  However I’m not keen on artillery moving into combat at all, never mind blitzing!

@Flashman:

The idea of a half track towing an artillery gun halfway across Europe to get to the front line is hilarious.

I’ll say it again and again: land units all moved to the front by train.

Since I sense that LH is coming round to the need for rail movement, Mech inf will have to be revised to survive; since the 2 space movement becomes redundant then the blitz ability will have to become more important.  However I’m not keen on artillery moving into combat at all, never mind blitzing!

The games scale is not small enough for artillery to bombard adjacent territories if that is what your getting at, but I do agree, although it is a long AA tradition, tanks making strategic movement faster than infantry it is quite unhistorical and instead mech and tanks should have somekind of second attack ability.

I kinda doubt that LH will incorporate rail movement, only way I could see this happening is to extend movement of a unit, kind of how naval bases and air bases work. Maybe if the unit is in Berlin it can move one more space than normally to simulate the rail system in Europe. But that is all I can think of that will really be feasible in this game.

@maverick_76:

I kinda doubt that LH will incorporate rail movement, only way I could see this happening is to extend movement of a unit, kind of how naval bases and air bases work. Maybe if the unit is in Berlin it can move one more space than normally to simulate the rail system in Europe. But that is all I can think of that will really be feasible in this game.

Simple make a railyard cardboard piece.  As long as the territories are connected and have this piece units may move from one end to the other during NCM.

Well, I don’t know why really the purpose of the Mec Infr in this game, meaning I don’t know why Larry didn’t keep the same rules as he did for Battle of the Buldge, cos the trucks in this Pacific game don’t carry anything, seems pointless, except supporting power to tanks and men ( like arti gun does ).
It would be more exciting having your Mec Infr more usful, pay more for them for a reason to transport land units further, just like transporters, supported with tanks say it’s no free hit ( like subs on transporters/destroyers rule ).

Bravehart

I like the concept of rail movement in AA. With that said I think there should be some limits. I wouldn’t want you to be able to move your entire German army (say 15 inf/10 tanks) from the Russian front to the French coast 6-7 tt away or vice versa. There would need to be some internal mechanism worked out for limits. As Flash said all ground movement would need to be modified (see note below).

Note: The above would make all ground units 1 move units (in combat). Your 2 move units could now be used to blitz into a 2nd battle, or retreat from the front lines. Tanks could still blitz through un-occupied enemy tt using its 2nd move (could toss in they only get their 2nd movement if they kill the enemy in one round of battle).

Expanding on mavericks idea:
Allow all 2 IPC tt (or more) to have limited rail movement in noncombat (would not need card board chit). This is a good place to start as 2 IPC shows some infrastructure as it is also needed to build an IC. Any ground unit starting in such a tt (2 IPC or better) gives all your (or your allies) ground units there 2 moves in non combat only. If your ground units start at an IC then they would get +1 for movement (3) still only in non combat. You could extend the +1 to any AB or NB assuming there would be better transportation near them as well. You could also allow for SBR to damage/limit rail capacity, even on tt w/o a facility. Your IC, AB, and NB would double as rail stations (it is assumed they would have one any way) so again you would not need a new card board chit IMO. This would also self limit places like Africa/China that didn’t have much as far as rail.
My group has allowed limited rail movement for AA50 capping the # of one move units you can rail through each tt based on its IPC values, but AA40 will have many more tt giving to many alternate routes. It think it would be a nightmare to track. The above would be a much easier system.

I just think that if they are treated like airbases and naval bases then it would be easy, any territory can buy them, and they give an extra move if the unit starts at that location.