@coachofmany:
I also need Pillboxes
Here is a link from another forum about Pillboxes/blockhouses:
Lets talk Trucks!
-
All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.
represented by trucks because trucks also were used and many more of them were around than trains to move logistics around the front. Trains didn’t work too well in the Soviet Union when the gauge was a different size. What did they do then? They used horses and trucks.
-
@Imperious:
All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.
represented by trucks because trucks also were used and many more of them were around than trains to move logistics around the front. Trains didn’t work too well in the Soviet Union when the gauge was a different size. What did they do then? They used horses and trucks.
sure, all tranporation in the soveit union was hard. But the germans i belive had both european and russian gauge trains so the major movement represented in axis and allies is done my trains. Trucks were useful at the front, but movement at the front is not represented in axis and allies except by attacking and retreating
-
I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support. The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be. Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.
Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me. It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much. I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits. They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units. Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.
On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.
-
I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support. The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be. Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.
Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me. It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much. I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits. They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units. Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.
On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.
I agree, that is probalby the best way to represent them. excpet i dont see what is wrong with having to defend your truck from air attacks.
-
I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support. The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be. Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.
Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me. It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much. I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits. They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units. Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.
On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.
Thinking it over, perhaps trucks @ 2 IPCs would be reasonable, since they can’t attack, and therefore can’t take territory. In BOTB trucks could be “hijacked”, replacing the other player’s truck w/ yours. Perhaps that would be a good rule.
-
I’m w/ IL on the trucks debate.
Taiki, can you source this info on trucks being all but useless? I have all kinds of images in my head of US trucks trudging through the mud, linned uo in the mountains of Sicily, and George C. Scott directing traffic. Are all the references I have to the importance of trucks lies?
-
I did not i said trucks were not important, i just said they should not be represented in the game.
i agree trucks were extremly important, but not everything that is important is represented in axis and allies.
all the pictures of trucks you have seen most likely were pictures of trucks taking supplies from a a port or train to the front line usaully less than 100 miles away. In axis and allies many territories are hundrends of miles in length so you c that their is no point to representing trucks. trucks transporting units from germany to russia is simply unrealistic.
you could say they represent logistical infrastructure, but then dont call them trucks.perhaps if you still want to represent trucks as trucks you might allow trucks to give certain units double attacks which would simulate units suppllied by large numbers of truck can quickly follow up on succesful attacks and breakthrough the enemy lines
-
What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf. I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules. Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):
Piece Name Attack Defense Move Cost Special
Soldier 1 Light Infantry 1 2 1 3 N/A
Soldier 2 Marine 1 2 1 4 + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult
Truck Motorized Infantry 1 2 2 4 Can Blitz
Gun(1) Light Artillery 2 2 1 4 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Gun 2** Heavy Artillery 3 2 1 5 +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Half-Track Mechanized Infantry 3 2 2 5 Can Blitz
Tank 1 Light Armor 3 3 2 6 Can Blitz
Tank 2 Heavy Armor 4 4 2 8 Can Blitz
*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to). Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility. -
What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf. I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules. Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):
Piece Name Attack Defense Move Cost Special
Soldier 1 Light Infantry 1 2 1 3 N/A
Soldier 2 Marine 1 2 1 4 + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult
Truck Motorized Infantry 1 2 2 4 Can Blitz
Gun(1) Light Artillery 2 2 1 4 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Gun 2** Heavy Artillery 3 2 1 5 +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Half-Track Mechanized Infantry 3 2 2 5 Can Blitz
Tank 1 Light Armor 3 3 2 6 Can Blitz
Tank 2 Heavy Armor 4 4 2 8 Can Blitz
*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to). Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility.I like this very much although some units seem redundent. also only the american and japanese had units of marines that were used on a signifigant scale. paratroopers are a much more universal unit
id like to hear what IL thinks
-
For me everything is OOB prices…
new units:
Airborne Infantry: dropped by Bomber as per OOB, attack preemptively at 3 first round, attacks at 1 after that. When not used in a drop these are always normal 1-2 infantry. They cost 5 IPC and you can buy as many as you wish, but can only drop as many as you have bombers to support.
Armored Infantry ( Mech)
2-2-2, cost 4 they can blitz
Possible: in desert territory’s they can carry one infantry two spaces, but i think this would only be for German or British forces.
Special national units:
Soviets: Shock/Guard troops ( can only buy one per turn) cost 4 IPC… these are 3-2 units, move 1
Germany: SS Panzer ( can only buy one per turn) cost 8 IPC … these are 4-5 units move 2
American Marines: 2-2 infantry cost 4 (+1 on first round of invasion.),
Any Carriers built for pacific can hold 3 planes,
Any battleships built in pacific are 4-5 unitsBritish Commando: similar to paratroopers ( attack at 3 1st preemptively, then @1 , cost 6) except these can be moved over any TWO spaces ( including moving thru enemy spaces or water) and do not require bomber.
Japan: Imperial Marines, 2-3 infantry cost 4 ( +1 on first round of invasion) can only build one per turn.
Also all starting japanese fighters on carriers and small islands are 4-4 units. When they are destroyed they are not replaced ( representing better trained pilots at start of war). Also, 2 of Japans starting carriers can take 3 fighters each. When these are sunk, they can build only one more like this…thats it.
Japan starting BB is a super BB thats a 5-5 unit and takes 3 hits
Italy: Italy can always bring one infantry to Africa as long as they control at least one african territory, in addition to any transports they have.
Frogmen: one allied ship in Mediterranean can be attacked hitting at a 1 and sinking the ship. the ship does not fire back.
optional: Conscripts/Volksgrenadier infantry
only Russia or Germany can build these in home factories and are 0-1-1 units cost 2.
-
trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic
Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war… that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don’t have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.
your wrong, not one truck in the whole history of World War Two transported infantry or supplies single handedly a thousand miles. If you have ever looked at a map of Europe or the Pacific ocean this would be pretty obvious. Certainly you dont think their were trucks driving from the Factories in the Urals to the Kursk salient! All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.
I think that if you look at something like the red ball express which transported supplies from the beaches at Normandy to Chartres, which is about 240 km, I’m sure that at least one of those trucks drove that 8 times in the 3 month span of the operation you easily come up with a truck moving supplies 1000 miles. And since they had 6000+ trucks, they probably accomplished it.
http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-TWO-BALL-EXPRESS/dp/0711031924 -
trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic
Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war… that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don’t have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.
your wrong, not one truck in the whole history of World War Two transported infantry or supplies single handedly a thousand miles. If you have ever looked at a map of Europe or the Pacific ocean this would be pretty obvious. Certainly you dont think their were trucks driving from the Factories in the Urals to the Kursk salient! All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.
I think that if you look at something like the red ball express which transported supplies from the beaches at Normandy to Chartres, which is about 240 km, I’m sure that at least one of those trucks drove that 8 times in the 3 month span of the operation you easily come up with a truck moving supplies 1000 miles. And since they had 6000+ trucks, they probably accomplished it.
http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-TWO-BALL-EXPRESS/dp/0711031924LuckyDay you misdunderstood what i was saying and what the point of it was.
trucks do not transport in one direction to the front 1000 miles, so if they move peices across territories in A&A what exactly is being represented? -
trucks do not transport in one direction to the front 1000 miles, so if they move peices across territories in A&A what exactly is being represented?
trucks in this example are moving one infantry 2 spaces, representing strategic movement. Many more trucks existed than trains, more trucks facilitated movement in the war as a total aggregate than trains. In some cases horses did more of this than trucks, but nobody is gonna want a pony as a new piece.
I would not mind seeing a rail track to link territories together and having your bombers to bomb it and reduce it, but that may be too far for AA.
-
It is my understanding that trucks move units at the front and operate at the stratigic/opertional level but the mega stratigic movement of A&A is done by trains
-
@Imperious:
trucks do not transport in one direction to the front 1000 miles, so if they move peices across territories in A&A what exactly is being represented?
trucks in this example are moving one infantry 2 spaces, representing strategic movement. Many more trucks existed than trains, more trucks facilitated movement in the war as a total aggregate than trains. In some cases horses did more of this than trucks, but nobody is gonna want a pony as a new piece.
I would not mind seeing a rail track to link territories together and having your bombers to bomb it and reduce it, but that may be too far for AA.
If you wanted to simulate trains in AA, you could do it along the lines on the Siberian Railway NA in Revised. For Example, Germany can move units 2 spaces between France + Poland during non-combat. Likewise between East and West US.
Bombing it is certainly another thing, though. -
What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf. I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules. Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):
Piece Name Attack Defense Move Cost Special
Soldier 1 Light Infantry 1 2 1 3 N/A
Soldier 2 Marine 1 2 1 4 + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult
Truck Motorized Infantry 1 2 2 4 Can Blitz
Gun(1) Light Artillery 2 2 1 4 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Gun 2** Heavy Artillery 3 2 1 5 +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis
Half-Track Mechanized Infantry 3 2 2 5 Can Blitz
Tank 1 Light Armor 3 3 2 6 Can Blitz
Tank 2 Heavy Armor 4 4 2 8 Can Blitz
*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to). Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility.
I feel the need to explain my chart a bit more and why I made certain decisions, such as bumping tanks up to 6 IPCs.
I think the original concept for a Mechanized inf piece was the idea of IL, who suggested a 2-2-2-4 unit represented by a half-track or a truck, which is a really good idea. The whole problem for me came with FMG providing both trucks and half tracks, and not either/or. Really it’s not their fault. We as players need not assume they both have to be used once we get the set, but it seems a waste not to use both. I liked the idea of a “land transport” but it was a carry over concept from a tactical game that I feel can’t apply to a strategic game. Looking into the history of the Mech-Inf on the Larry Harris forum, I came across an idea that made a distinction between 'motorized infantry" (Trucks) and “mechanized infantry” (Half-tracks). I liked this, but couldn’t see how to get passed some obvious difficulties. These difficulties arise from a very simple economic principle called Gresham’s Law, a principle first stated by Late Scholastic thinker Nicolas Oresme (1325-1382).
Gersham’s Law states that if two currencies (say, gold and silver) exist side by side in the same economy and the government fixes a ratio between them that diverges from the ratio that they can obtain in the free market, the currency that the government overvalued will drive the other currency out of the market. A modern example of this would be if the government today announced that for all payments, three quarters will be considered the equivalent of $1, everyone would rush to break their dollars so they could make all their payments in quarters. The paper dollar would be pushed out of existence. I feel a very similar problem exists with the truck as a unit that transports inf side by side with a 2-2-2-4 infantry.
Lets say trucks were priced as originally proposed at 4 IPCs. This unit carries an inf and art. Essentially, you have 2 units that attack on 2 and defend on 2, moving two, that cost 3+4+4=11 IPCs, when you could get the same w/ 8 IPCs in two mech inf. To have price parity, you’d have to reduce the truck to 1IPC. However, this still consists of requiring 3 units to achieve the same effect as 2 units. It saves production efficiency just to buy the 2 mech inf. The 2-2-2-4 unit is simply too good. It takes up the 4IPC niche and crowds out everything else but the artillery. It was a unit designed under the concept of trucks and half-tracks being one and the same unit, but alas, they broke up.
It kept me up one night till it occurred to me that the only way to find a “niche” for every ground unit was to make room. I bumped the tank up to 6 IPCs, and beefed up the mech inf to a 3-2-2-5 unit, essentially making it into what the tank was before Revised. This provided room for 1-2-2-4 motorized infantry and the Marine from Pacific.
Now, you may have several gripes about why this is simply wrong:
Q1. “Doesn’t bumping the tank up to 6 IPCs make it too expensive, making it a bad buy, dooming us back to the dreaded Infantry Push Mechanic?”
A1: No. The whole reason for the Push Mechanic had nothing to do with cost/power ratio, and everything to do with fact that a unit that cost 5 IPCs defended at the same value as a 3 IPC unit. Tanks still defend at 3, making them heavy hitters and defenders. Also, planes supporting them by +1 adds value, essentially keeping them the same.
Q2: “You made the Mechanized Infantry the same as the pre-revised tank. Isn’t that just creating another dead unit?”
A2: No, the Mechanized Infantry is still an infantry, meaning it can be transported and supported by Artillery as any infantry can, making it much better than the Pre-Revised Tank.
Q3: “How do you justify making a Half-Track attack on the same value as a Tank?”
A3: George S. Patten said that the main weapon on a tank wasn’t the cannon, but the machine gun. Tanks are infantry killers first, and tank killers second. Also, I make the distinction between light and heavy tanks, also in conjunction w/ the new FMG pieces. Heavy tanks are not infantry killers as light tanks are, but specialized to kill other tanks. There main weapon is indeed the cannon.
In a way, I’m almost ashamed to admit that I’m proud of my new post-Revised Tank (kind of ironic, huh; being ashamed of pride). Perhaps my pride is blinding me, but the only problem I see with this new chart will be for new players who tend to get confused enough on what land units to buy when there are only 3 of them. Truly, this is something that follows in the Advanced-Deluxe Legacy of the early development of AA50, adding both volume and complexity, and ought not to be tried by a beginner A&A player. The whole thing seems rather elegant to me, making Land Combat almost as diverse and complex as Naval Combat.
Well, that’s the best argument I can make in favor of my ideas. I hereby await judgment.
-
turtle, i dont really know how much statagy your units add to the game, but at least all the units look balanced
the only way your going to add a really great unit to the game is if you give it a sepcail ability no other unit has other wise your just chooing between four quaters and a dollar
-
Hey Emp, I understand what you are saying, which is why I personally am looking at the FMG trucks representing half-tracks and such. On the logistical side of the trucks moving stuff, it’s like 850 miles from Cherbourg to Berlin, and that being the quick route which moves you through 3 spaces in AA50, not a 1000, but awfully close. Still, the world versions are too strategic in play for my thoughts to have a truck unit. I’d rather just do something like non-combative units get an extra move point or something.
-
If you give the trucks the ability to transport men 2 spaces the cost must go up at least 1-2 IPC.
here is a new idea:
trucks: considered like land transports and if attacked are removed and cant be soakers…
during NCM they can transport 2 infantry or 1 infantry and one Artillery TWO SPACES if they start in the same space.
the cost of these units is 4 IPC and again they dont attack or defend.
I’m still unsure if I would want to add trucks into the game. But if I did, I would go the way IL suggested.
-
your wrong, not one truck in the whole history of World War Two transported infantry or supplies single handedly a thousand miles. If you have ever looked at a map of Europe or the Pacific ocean this would be pretty obvious. Certainly you dont think their were trucks driving from the Factories in the Urals to the Kursk salient! All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.
Actually the Allies did use trucks for strategic movement of personnel and supplies. It was called the Red Ball Express. Thousands of trucks delivered tons of supplies and soldiers to the front line from Normandy, Antwerp and other ports after D-Day. The majority of truck drivers were American-Africans.
Suggested Topics
