Stats for New Units from Historical Boardgaming?

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

Nice one video!  :-)
Thumbs up!

Cavalry should attack on a 1, defend on a 1, and move at a 2. They could be combined with other units to up their abilities. For example, they could defend on a 2 if paired with infantry. THey could attack on a 2 if attacking with infantry. They should cost 3 IPCs.

The real role of cavalry should be to harass the enemy. If cavalry are in a battle, the other units cannot retreat nor engage another contested territory until the Cavalry are cleared out of that territory. In effect the unit is stuck there. This would simulate cavalry cutting supply lines and communications etc.

Also, cavalry could disrupt IPCs by entering into a vacant territory and in effect scorching the earth. The territory would lose 1 IPC for every Cavalry performing this task in that territory. A marker could be used to denote the territories new value. Cavalry themselves could not conquer a territory by themselves. They would need to be paired with an infantry.

On the map, all the territories on the Western front are occupied so this tactic would not really be used. However on the Eastern Front there are a couple of open territories mainly in Russia where it could be used.  Also, The middle east and Africa are more wide open. This rule conjures up images of Lawrence of Arabia!

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

Here is the Dark Grey Minor Set with a Panzer III of each color in front.
Axis minors-250.jpg

wow didn’t think the idea would be this well recieved ok well here’s a total run down of the Lead-Lease rules I use.
First throw out the Soviet NO of lead lease. 2nd any power may purchase supply tokens not just USA. Both Germany and UK provided there allies with Lend Lease type aid. The supply tokens cost 1 cashed in at major or minor IC for 1 IPC, 3 worth for a Minor, 10 for a Major. Supply Tokens are cashed in during the “Collect Income” phase of your turn. So it’s possible for the USA to move Supplies to the Island of Great Britian and on the next turn move them to Russia only to have the UK cash them instead. Due to the fact BotB is a tactical game and '42, '42 or Global is well a Global game then I down sized the trucks ability to carry supplies limiting it to 3 supplies per truck. Transports carry 6. Trucks cost 2 move 2 carry supplies or carries Inf. like in BotB but it’s 1 inf or suppllies not both. Trucks end there movement when they unload, Like transports do. and like in BotB they are captured not destroyed. I have the HGB pieces so I also have transport planes Transport Plane: Cost 7 move:4 can carry 1 inf. or 1 supply (so not to weaken the usefullness of sea transports), they can fly over impassible territories (not neutrals) but it cost 3 movement to do it. (Flying supplies over the hump). Nations that don’t have a truck piece for themselves just use either US or German with a nation token under the truck.

I’m still working on the Burma Road thing as of right now I leave it alone but i do want to figure something out. The biggest hang up is the lack of a Chinese IC and that the Burma Road is two (chinese) territories so just letting cash them in at one while the other is in Axis hands has an unbalancing effect. But they should be able to cash them in after the road has been cut because of the Air Lifting supplies over the himalayes. So I’ve been alittle stuck but then again to be honest I need to put more thought into it.
Transports can carry one unit plus 3 supplies or 1 inf and 1 other unit. I use the 1 unit plus 3 supplies (1 truck, 3 supplies) because the OOB setup doesn’t take these rules into account so it speeds up getting things going because in Global with no Lend Lease NO. Russia could use some help in getting the supplies flowing faster. It’s atleast 2 turns after German attacks before Russia cashes in supplies the first time.
The answer to your question about the UK. As long as the supplies are at an IC they can be cashed in. So unloading supplies on the Island of Great Britian and cashing them in without the trucks is fine. The thing with the trucks is the supplies have a move of 0 so you have to have other units to move them. In this case USA built them in Eastern USA and moved them with transports got them to another IC so you’re all set. Trucks is just letting them move over land.
Oh and in games not named Global any IC will do. If your using Minor and Major IC in your '42 games then i suggest using the rule of 3 for minor 10 for major.

These rules were written after BotB was released and was first used with Revised. I have only updated them to keep them current.

i think that the cargo unit should cost 3, move 2, capacity 5 i.p.c. with no defense.
i think that buying the unit’s would stop excessive funding of other national power’s, and the capacity would mean that even though the unit’s might be more numerous, they have a cost which would be factored into the descision to send them, the cargo can be distributed to a territory that has an i.c. and can be used at that i.c. until the cargo has all been spent. i.e. a territory with an i.p.c. value 2 get’s 15 i.p.c. worth of cargo, build’s 2 tank’s at the next purchase unit’s phase, save’s 5 i.p.c., which can then be used at the next purchase unit’s phase to buy 1 tank.