Reasoning behind unit stats

@Megatron it is a large drawback, which is why subs are the cheapest naval unit.

Addressing the issue of unit size, individual pieces in Axis & Allies typically depict the Corps or Army level, as I understand it. However, there are a few deviations to depict smaller, independent commands, such as the two British infantry in Hong Kong and the French and British infantry scattered in West Africa south of the Sahara.

I understand the desire to be able to build every type of unit, but I think that scarcity places correct emphasis on those troops’ elite status. The mobilization rule would be a quirk: the Legion has periodically fought on the mainland (as during WWI, for example). Its frequent foreign deployments are rather a reflection of the fact that the Legion’s peculiar non-national composition gives French politicians greater latitude to pursue foreign policy that has some blood cost.

I think that Frogmen should get to roll a d6 against every capital ship, hitting on a 2 or less. They should have no independent combat value because they operated as small units, not at the division level.

When it comes to Marine infantry, the question is whether you view naval units of any type as indicative of fleets (e.g., a Destroyer could stand in for a single capital ship), or whether you want them to represent actual unit types, in which case I don’t think a Cruiser or Battleship should be allowed to carry Marines. Historically speaking, Cruiser divisions sometimes fielded Marine and naval landing parties, but these comprised perhaps slightly over 100 men when multiple ships combined their detachments.

Think about whether you want to confer advantage to certain units only for certain rounds of combat. The difficulty of remembering when and how to roll for them can be partially mitigated by player aids.

One additional unit type for which HBG makes a piece is the Armored Car. This is especially good if you want to game out the inter-war period. I have developed rules allowing attackers to re-roll a die when an Armored Car is present in the attacking force. This is a play on their role as reconnaissance elements. Think about Cavalry, also. Perhaps Cavalry strike harder versus infantry when they outnumber defenders.

I’ve used cards to trigger the appearance of special units denoted by markers. They can also be used to grant nation-specific bonuses for a single round of play, etc. This works better on much larger maps with a game that is expected to go on a while, especially because the cards can be used as interrupts, which prevents players getting bored between turns.

It’s all great! Artillery is great for Russia, Mechs are great for Germany, crusier and tactical bomber are useful for Japan USA and UK, and AAA add nice defense.

@CWO:

One low-cost way for you to experiment with this concept to see if it works, and to then help you decide if you should invest more money in the way you described to give each nation  its own special HBG unit, would  be to:

Pick up a copy of A&A 1941

Extract from it the unique sculpts that represent weapons which were actually used by the nations which produced them, and ignore the ones which are “national mismatches” (American IS-2 tanks, and so forth)

Designate them as special units and create (or find) house rules to govern them

To give some examples:

The tank sculpts in 1941 represent German Tiger and Russian IS-2 tanks, both of which were heavy tanks.  Those two nations would therefore have the ability to build heavy tank units.

The battleship sculpts in 1941 represent the British Hood class and the Japanese Kongo class, bot of which were battlecruisers.  Those two nations would therefore have the ability to build battlecruisers.

The other units aren’t as clear-cut as examples, but you could use a similar technique.  The American Sumner-class destroyer could be used to represent destroyer escorts (which, I admit, they weren’t).  The British  Lancaster could be used to represent a bomber with a super-heavy lift capacity, the Lanc being the only Allied bomber which was long enough and powerful enough to carry the Grand Slam super-heavy bomb.  And so forth.  The point is that one single copy of this game, which is fairly inexpensive, would give you lots of unit types with which to test your concept.

Interestingly enough, I actually had a new 1941 at one time (I got it as a Christmas Present), but returned it for the very reason that each nation didn’t have unique sculpts. I grabbed the Seafarers expansion for Catan instead.

But thanks for the idea.

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

@Vareel:

some units just don’t seem to have any nitch.

’

All the units in AAP40 have a niche, you just have to think about it more. Some are not as sexy as they used to be (tanks, battleships) and some are certainly bought less by certain players, but in general this is representive of history.

This set of unit stats is the best to date.

Why should crusiers be able to be traded with fighters?

the tac bomber rules already give them a clear role and make alot of sence except they are simpler that yours.

I do like your rules for infantry supporting tanks on the defence, except I dont like tanks costing five. tanks are big things that take alot to produce they should be expensive and players should not be able to build stacks of them (unless they are the russian player, in AAE40 the USSR should not be able to buy mech inf and instead can buy tanks at 5.)

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink: