Lets Talk Flack Towers

I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular…  :wink:

@crusaderiv:

Well heavy artillery for me means katyusha rockets,nebelwefer and 155mm long tom.
heavy artillery attack and defend on 3. May choose is target in the first round fo combat.

that just seems like another way to do regulare artillery.

And I agree I would rather have a rocket artillery unit than siege guns, but i think rocket artillery would have a more offenisve nature, not just generaly good.

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

@Imperious:

slippery slope will follow that kind of rule. it should be one and if you do with 2-3 or even 4 it turns into WW3 ICBM game. Thats not really AA. It could be fun once, but a trick to be exploited. In all house rules you have to get away with the idea of allowing players to buy tons of items that can break a game. This would be the case with the old discussion on paratroopers and that “buck Rodgers exploit”.

I willl try to play a game soon with my a-bomb rules( which is really yours) , and tell you how it goes

How about torpedo boats attack 2, defend 1, and cost five, otherwise the same as PT boats in terms of movement and hits.

the 5-5 comes from the Revised Most Powerful Battleships National Advantage for Japan.

The firing twice in the first round comes from a Revised Larry Harris Tournament Rule revision.  The NA was titled Naval Night Fighting Skills, yet only applied to the battleships.  Personally, I don’t think it was named well.  I simply fuse the two.

Also, I think most house rules I’ve seen give SBBs 3 hits.  I considered keeping it at 2 hits, but after I gave my supper carriers 2 hits, SBBs needed 3.