Mechanized Infantry?

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

@Valladares
There’s been a lot of discussion on CAs. Two of the more popular opinions seem to be letting them transport 1 Marine/Elite type unit for amphibious attack. The other is giving it some sort of AA capability.

As far as Mech, their mobility is their worth imo. Combine them with Bombers for striking power and they can be quite effective. Some countries will use them more than others. Germany and JPN and UK coming up out of Africa probably the most. I tend to not as much with USA as I like Inf/Arty to establish a beachhead in Western Europe. Then some speed units out of the factories, especially if I’m in Norway. I don’t usually go into Africa with them, but you’d want speed there too imo.

It’s nice to have a small mechanized force with Russia if you can afford it. Just having the threat of a Quick Reaction Force can limit some moves by the enemy. Or at least make them think about it.

Usually like a 2:1 ratio with Armor. Especially Germany. Not sure how others do it. I should probably study some more games others have played. It seems I always get sidetracked doing other stuff though :)

France paratrooper can also simulate commandos  along european shore.

Also, you can identify special infantry or Marines with a Control Marker below the sculp.
That way, you can increase their cost without having to buy 1914 or 1941 to get different Infantry sculpt.
I still wonder if a 3 IPCs unit can be a balanced cost for a weaker Marines unit able to move with Cruiser and BB.
As written elsewhere:

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

About Infantry moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship, it cannot simulate the initiative and offensive role being taken by Marines such as Guadalcanal.
As far as I understand, Marines were first almost everywhere in PTO while regular army troopers were mopping behind Marines and garrisoning conquered islands. Maybe the exception is Peleliu in Palau islands.

@barney:

Hi Baron
You get the +1 A w/tank when you get Improved mech infantry tech. The tank just lets you blitz 1:1 same as OOB. Do you think the Mech at C5 needs to get the +1 A w/tank?  That seems a little too powerful. Also it would make the tech worthless but it could always be replaced w/ another one. Although improved mech would allow the arty to blitz as well.

But no it shouldn’t be too hard to add the +1 A to mech.

Hi Barney,
Is it easy to change a Tech so such Mech Inf Tech gives Attack 2 by itself?
And Attack 3 when paired 1:1 with either Artillery or Tank?

I asked because that way, it can be easier to accept the changes coming in Opening Post Mechanized Infantry unit suggested by YG.

@Young:

New G40 unit profile created through discussion and collaboration.

Mechanized Infantry

Cost - 5 IPCs
Move - 2
Attack - 1 (2 when combined with an artillery or tank unit)
Defense - 2

Special abilities:

_Each mechanized infantry unit may pull an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during the combat movement phase, or non combat movement phase (both units must originate from the same territory).

Mechanized infantry may blitz when combined with a tank (both units must originate from the same territory), however, mechanized infantry may not pull artillery units when blitzing with a tank._

Yea,  they are great replacements.  Snipers, or like you said, just a cool pose.

So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?

Didn’t think of this happening. :| I guess you’d just have to have at least 1 defending unit fighting at any one time, regardless of the amount of paras.

Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.

I admit that realism is compromised here, but if elite infantry are allowed to fill all these roles, it will mean less unit types and therefore less compexity. Believe me when I say I’m still all for historical accuracy and realism, this is just my take on things.

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

Yes. The main problem is that in reality infantry is raising from population (territories). Not manufactured at factories (IC).

Phase 2 can be downloaded here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7188.0

Phase 1 can be read here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0