Carrier and Plane Movement

Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.

Coach I would go with the scale you use for tactical bombers. Even though there is no intention to use them with WWII era aircraft, sizing them in the tactical bomber scale provides a more consistent line-up between products. In other words there are many who use HBG pieces for many uses and would like the consistency of scale that HBG provides with your other product’s. IMO it keeps the product line more linear.

@Uncrustable:

Maybe just limit this 2 moves to 1M unit for Non-Combat Move.
It is difficult to deploy units in combat order while travelling by train.
So all other M2 units will still get an advantage over the rail movement.

Not sure what your saying here, but it makes no sense to limit rail to certain units. And like i said would unbalanced land purchases.
It is a noncombat only move.
I thought it was also possible to make an attack move for 1M unit. Otherwise, why would a 2 Move units can have an interest to pick a 1M unit place? This 2M units can go as farther, and anywhere.

SORRy, I reread the post, you add+1 to all ground units. Fine.

Your IC idea makes sense.
But how would you do it?
It would most likely create confusion yes?
No difference from a regular SBr, just watch how many damage token under IC and reduce the number of unit moving 2 spaces by the same amounts. Damage on StRail is included in the regular damage on IC from the SBR.

Another way to limit it is never allowing SM from any VC outside of ‘friendly home territories’
So the Axis would never SM from a VC in Allied territory, but they can within each others home lands. OK, I agree.
Likewise for the Allies.
This both adds historical realism (destruction of the land/cities and everything within during the battles fought to occupy enemy soil)
and keeps it from being too powerful

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

Cool idea, but I kind of like the dedicated Railhead idea discussed in the “ANTI-TANK” thread. It suggests a seperate facility that could be SBRd. Of course, you would have to buy at least two of them to make it work, plus own all territories in between to use them.

I added to my own WAW game.
Light bomber.
Air transport.
Stuka.
Navy and air force fighter.

For the carrier i don’t agree.
Come on guys, A carrier cannot attack!!!

Carrier defend at 3, Move 2, 2 hit, 2 airplanes.
Escort carrier = defend at 2, move 2, 1 hit. 1 airplane.

AL.

But Shinano (same hull as Yamoto) took 1 submarine with 1 torpedo spread (one torpedo hit the I beam supporting one of the torpedo blisters and turned the I-beam into a battering ram that went through the boilers…)

While Yorktown was hit at Coral Sea, damaged, limped back to Pearl, and then fought again at Midway.

In both cases these carriers lost their battle with little against them… so id keep the one hit idea. If a Yamato class carrier can be sunk by a sub and the yorktown plus those 4 japanese carriers go down by a few planes i dont see why these ships need a two hit thing. The battleships should however. Do you not aggree?