ANTI-TANK UNIT

[Derek]

@empireman:

@Uncrustable:

@empireman:

Yes railroads +1 movement to land units…… But, Land unit, Air, Naval, and Armor units.

since when is an armor unit not a land unit?

also im not sure what your saying anyway lol

a new class of units!!!

I couldnt be more against this. :P

[techroll42]

I agree with uncrustable.

[empireman]

what ever :-P so do we have a winner?

[GuamSolo]

Empireman, are you saying there is a difference between land units and armor units?  You are wanting two different classifications? Naval units are on sea, Air units are in the air, land units are on land, and armor units are on ___?

[Derek]

@Field:

Empireman, are you saying there is a difference between land units and armor units?  You are wanting two different classifications? Naval units are on sea, Air units are in the air, land units are on land, and armor units are on ___?

The moon ?

Or…the fifth dimension ><

[Derek]

Railhead

WINNER

Cost: 12
HP: 5
Any SBR damage renders that railhead inoperable until repaired. Pay 1 IPC to repair 1 damage marker.
Each railhead has built in AA. (Similar to ICs and naval/air bases)
Each ground unit starting in a territory with a Railhead gets +1 movement in either combat or nonconbat moves. (Similar to air and naval bases respectively)
During non-combat move only; Up to 3 ground units may move from one undamaged friendly Railhead to another (one way), provided that there is a direct land route of friendly territorys between them.
One could move 6 units total between two Railheads during noncombat move. (3 each way)

[Guest]

So with a railhead in Germany and East Poland I can get infantry from Berlin to Bryansk in 2 turns?

[Derek]

3 INF per turn per railhead to any other railhead one way

[empireman]

@Field:

Empireman, are you saying there is a difference between land units and armor units?  You are wanting two different classifications? Naval units are on sea, Air units are in the air, land units are on land, and armor units are on ___?

I said never mind with that@Uncrustable:

Railhead

WINNER

Cost: 12
HP: 5
Any SBR damage renders that railhead inoperable until repaired. Pay 1 IPC to repair 1 damage marker.
Each railhead has built in AA. (Similar to ICs and naval/air bases)
Each ground unit starting in a territory with a Railhead gets +1 movement in either combat or nonconbat moves. (Similar to air and naval bases respectively)
During non-combat move only; Up to 3 ground units may move from one undamaged friendly Railhead to another (one way), provided that there is a direct land route of friendly territorys between them.
One could move 6 units total between two Railheads during noncombat move. (3 each way)

Yah thats a winner!
How about anti tank unit winner?

[Derek]

No antitank unit for me. It is splitting hairs. An armor division would include plenty of antitank vehicles.

Play A&A Miniatures

[knp7765]

I think these would be good values for a tank destroyer unit:
Attack = 2
Defense = 3
Move = 2
Cost = 6
Special ability = on a roll of 1, enemy vehicle MUST be a mech infantry or tank.

So far I think we have 2 tank destroyers available to us thanks to HBG: the StuG III from his Axis Minors sets which will work for Germany and Italy (once we get the brown ones) and the M-18 from his US Supplement set. Of course, we will be getting more soon for France, Russia and Japan.

[Guest]

I see the idea of TD/SPG as filling a gap between tanks and mech infantry (ie a unit that moves 2 but attacks and defends like artillery and is cheaper than a tank).  Instead of adding a new type of unit, would the mechanics of the game be sufficiently tweaked by just using the rules for the Improved Mech Infantry tech (ie all powers are given this tech):

Improved Mechanized Infantry: Each of your mechanized infantry units that are paired up with a tank or artillery now has an attack value of 2. Also, your mechanized infantry may now blitz without being paired with a tank.

Some ramifications would be:

• Each one has to be paired with a tank so people couldn’t just buy a stack of these attack 2, move 2 units.

• Germany would have an easier time doing a fast Barabrossa with mechs to give extra punch.

• Russia would likewise have an easier time going after Berlin after a sea lion scenario.

• Japan could chase down the Chinese infantry stack with mech/tank/tac trios

• UK could build tank/mech combos in South Africa and keep Egypt secure

• USA would not need to build artillery for the first wave of an amphibious force.  They could use the 4 mechs they start out with as heavy units instead just boat fillers.  8 transports with 8 inf, 4 inproved mech, 4 armor would be as good as 8 inf, 8 art because after the 8 inf die in the first dice roll the remaining 8 units fire 4@2 + 4@3 instead of 8@2.

• Italy could do more powerful can opener moves with mech/armor

[techroll42]

Or if we want to keep it simple we can have inf/art/tank and a “mechanized improvement” (+1 move, +1 IPC) for inf/art…

[Derek]

I would like to see some sort tech (or additional unit) for artillery to keep up with mech and armor…

I dont think artillery should be able to move more than one space in combat move however,
I feel this would be historically inaccurate.

Noncombat move only artillery should be able to be paired with mech (1 to 1) to move 2 spaces.

Maybe researching improved mech inf would allow this

[Gargantua]

Again, the “Rail Movement” theory/facility/unit ought to be introduced, to account for that exact issue.

And any new additions/pieces/rules should suit an appropriate purpose, and support the inclusiveness of combined arms.

[empireman]

@Uncrustable:

Railhead

WINNER

Cost: 12
HP: 5
Any SBR damage renders that railhead inoperable until repaired. Pay 1 IPC to repair 1 damage marker.
Each railhead has built in AA. (Similar to ICs and naval/air bases)
Each ground unit starting in a territory with a Railhead gets +1 movement in either combat or nonconbat moves. (Similar to air and naval bases respectively)
During non-combat move only; Up to 3 ground units may move from one undamaged friendly Railhead to another (one way), provided that there is a direct land route of friendly territorys between them.
One could move 6 units total between two Railheads during noncombat move. (3 each way)

@knp7765:

I think these would be good values for a tank destroyer unit:
Attack = 2
Defense = 3
Move = 2
Cost = 6
Special ability = on a roll of 1, enemy vehicle MUST be a mech infantry or tank.

So far I think we have 2 tank destroyers available to us thanks to HBG: the StuG III from his Axis Minors sets which will work for Germany and Italy (once we get the brown ones) and the M-18 from his US Supplement set. Of course, we will be getting more soon for France, Russia and Japan.

Take a good look at are winners….

[Commander JayVon]

I’m still in favor of a mechanized artillery piece which can function as a TD.

[Derek]

@Admiral:

I’m still in favor of a mechanized artillery piece which can function as a TD.

Problem is…i don’t think there were any significant number of self propelled artillery in WWII.
Meaning blitzing artillery and artillery that attack on 2 spaces would be historically inaccurate.

A mech artillery unit that could move 2 spaces in NONCOMBAT move only would be more historically accurate.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok unit is a 3-2-1-5 unit.

But moves 2 in NCM

if it rolls one in combat, another tank or armor class unit must be taken as loss by defender.

[knp7765]

@Uncrustable:

@Admiral:

I’m still in favor of a mechanized artillery piece which can function as a TD.

Problem is…i don’t think there were any significant number of self propelled artillery in WWII.
Meaning blitzing artillery and artillery that attack on 2 spaces would be historically inaccurate.

A mech artillery unit that could move 2 spaces in NONCOMBAT move only would be more historically accurate.

So you don’t think the Hummel, StuG, M-7 Priest or M-18 could move 2 spaces or blitz? These vehicles were build on tank chassis and were somewhat lighter than tanks so they would be able to keep up with tanks and mechs. Even though they were limited by having a fixed gun that couldn’t traverse side-to-side, they were a little cheaper to make and had a few advantages over tanks. This is why I suggested keeping them the same cost as tanks (@ 6) with less firepower on attack (since they were usually more defensive in nature) and gave them the special ability to target enemy armor at a 1.
There were a lot of SPGs and tank destroyers built during the war, I know Germany made a lot of them. Tanks just got more attention.