@Narvik:
If you really consider to give a defense value to a Tranny, then we are back to the classic A&A issues. There will be no reason to buy surface warships. I only need to buy a stack of Trannies, and all the one eyes they roll will sink all the attacking battleships, for a cost of some cheap Trannies. This is the reason that A&A Trannies have no defense today. And even worse, if Trannies got a defense value, you can use them as cheap fodder. There are no excuse for a unit with combat value to be taken last as casualty. A game changer
That’s a terrific observation. I think, on that basis, they can be reduced to 0. I certainly don’t want roving wolfpacks of transports.
@Ichabod:
1. ARTILLERY - I think regular artillery and self-propelled artillery should attack at the same die level. The increased cost for self-propelled artillery should only be a direct reflection of the 1 extra movement point.
From a realism perspective, the guns are normally the same caliber. Only when you get to the category of “Heavy Artillery” are they required to be pulled and are rarely motorized.
think if you say you had two types of artillery, regular OOB, and self-propelled, you could add an extra 1 IPC purchase cost. I thought about doing this for Axis and Allies Global 1940 2nd edition. It would fill the empty 5 IPC slot. Just like mech, I’d say that self-propelled artillery could blitz when paired with a tank.
You won me over with the argument on caliber. I had originally looked at it with the perspective that a more mobile gun was necessarily more effective tactically as well as strategically, but I think they can be put on par. Gives folks more reason to buy Heavy Artillery.
I am also happy for SPG to be allowed to blitz with armor.
2. TOO MANY CATEGORIES: I think 3 categories of artillery is a lot. You only have 2 categories of armor. 5 categories of infantry is not worth it. How about normal infantry and marines but with a paratrooper rule. That’s plenty? I suggest only 2 categories of infantry, artillery, and armor (if you so desire to add that extra layer of complexity). Otherwise, I think the board would get too busy with 3 different types of each. Global 40 is already very busy on the board as it is.
Variety is a basic objective of mine.
3. PLANE TYPES: What is the difference between a “Pursuit” and a Fighter? Is it really necessary to differentiate and add another category? I thought the normal 3 categories were plenty (fig, tac, bomb). At the same time, I always thought perhaps another plane type, transport, could make for some interesting roles like dropping paratroopers or transporting infantry to a forward location. So, I do like how you listed Transport Plane as another plane type.
Minor nations start with Pursuit Planes. Major nations start with Fighters.