I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular… :wink:
Lets talk Trucks!
-
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.
-
just doing some reading on the battle of Kursk, and found that because of the Allied landings in Sicily during the Kursk battle, Hitler gave orders to end Citadel and began sending units (ie trucks) to Italy, and immediately planning on going as close to Sicily as possible. Sicily being 2,000 miles away from Kursk, in one direction. so we do have trucks that accomplished the 1000 mile travel.
However, it was norm for trucks to travel 1500 miles, then fight, then pack up and do it again 1000 miles away. -
We have decided to include trucks in the new unit scheme. Use them if you like them, forget them if you don’t.
I have never used them in any game but Bulge… Could be an interesting addition to a huge game like AA50 though?
-
well you talking halftracks? If you making them AND trucks. The opel should be the choice for German and italian and the UK, USA, and Soviets should all have that one we have in AA bulge. Japan should have its own
-
@Imperious:
well you talking halftracks? If you making them AND trucks. The opel should be the choice for German and italian and the UK, USA, and Soviets should all have that one we have in AA bulge. Japan should have its own
Yes we will include Trucks AND Halftracks… :wink:
-
ok thats great. But in case nobody said this the scale MUST be in true AA scale…. the new pieces must be compatible with what we have. THat was the key thing missed when Pegasus hobbies made the War Game, because the pieces were huge
-
Exact to scale… better detail, more numerous. But now I have digressed this thread from it’s original topic (Sorry)
Back to Trucks and Truck rules…
-
Exact to scale… better detail, more numerous. But now I have digressed this thread from it’s original topic (Sorry)
no worries on that, sweetness are thy words! and a +1 for it all! (121)
-
Maybe trucks coluld be an off board abtraction of the overall motorization of your army. Right next to your tech chips you would put the trucks you have purchased. Each truck costs 12 IPCs and allows you to make addtional attacks after your first combat phase. Each truck allows you to attack again with 3 infantry/artllery or 5 tanks/fighters/bombers even if these units have already battled. For the second attack tanks have a movement of 1 and aircraft of 3.You do not lose the trucks each time you use them and you can buy more of them each turn. You do lose one truck for battles in the second attack phase for every 5 units the enemy kills, but only if you lose the battle.
I think 12 IPC’s is pretty costly, but that is becasue it is a special investment and is not neccisarily purchased every game by every country.
Suggested Topics
