Solving the problem with the lack oftactical bombers and armored infantry pieces

Well, it could add some interesting flavor to the endgame, but if you’re down to two territories, then you’re not purchasing much of anything anyway, so there won’t be much tactical difference.

One of the strongest two-territory combinations is Moscow + Caucasus, which are often worth about 12 IPCs. So, instead of 4 regular infantry, you buy 6 citizen-soldiers…but they’ll defend roughly as well. 6 hit points and 6 defensive pips vs. 4 hit points and 8 defensive pips? It’s kind of a wash.

Even if you get the design of the citizen-soldier unit right, having the rule kick in when you’re down to only a couple of territories doesn’t quite satisfy the itch I’ve got, which is to punish countries that repeatedly over-produce infantry. The idea is that if you pour out the blood of your armies like water, well, then, eventually you run out of blood! But with the two-territory rule, you could build nothing but tanks and fighters the whole game, symbolizing your anxious concern to avoid risking any more lives than you absolutely have to – and then still wind up “running out” of infantry in the endgame when your enemies push you back to your capital.

There’s nothing wrong with designing custom units, and in fact I think your citizen-soldier unit is quite well-balanced, but I don’t think the “manpower tracking” problem can be solved with any kind or kinds of custom units. It’s just not that sort of problem.

@barney:

Hi Baron
You get the +1 A w/tank when you get Improved mech infantry tech. The tank just lets you blitz 1:1 same as OOB. Do you think the Mech at C5 needs to get the +1 A w/tank?  That seems a little too powerful. Also it would make the tech worthless but it could always be replaced w/ another one. Although improved mech would allow the arty to blitz as well.

But no it shouldn’t be too hard to add the +1 A to mech.

Hi Barney,
Is it easy to change a Tech so such Mech Inf Tech gives Attack 2 by itself?
And Attack 3 when paired 1:1 with either Artillery or Tank?

I asked because that way, it can be easier to accept the changes coming in Opening Post Mechanized Infantry unit suggested by YG.

@Young:

New G40 unit profile created through discussion and collaboration.

Mechanized Infantry

Cost - 5 IPCs
Move - 2
Attack - 1 (2 when combined with an artillery or tank unit)
Defense - 2

Special abilities:

_Each mechanized infantry unit may pull an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during the combat movement phase, or non combat movement phase (both units must originate from the same territory).

Mechanized infantry may blitz when combined with a tank (both units must originate from the same territory), however, mechanized infantry may not pull artillery units when blitzing with a tank._

@nerquen:

@Black_Elk:

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.

But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon.

Here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mbsptvi4jxi1ut/World War II Bombers HR.zip?dl=0 you can download the map with bombers having attack value of 0, but if paired with any land unit or a warship* in 1:1 ratio their attack increases to 4. Just unzip the downloaded zip file into maps subfolder of your tripleA installation. Once you launch tripleA select “World War II Global 1940 2nd Ed. - House Ruled Bombers” from the list of available games. I would be interested in any feedback if you try it. You can PM me or post here.

I excluded carriers here, as carriers have attack value of 0 themselves so it would felt weird if they could boost attack of bombers.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

There are a lot of tank destroyers available now so what I decided to use them for was an anti-tank gun similar to the AAA guns except that offensively they operate just like a tank. A3/ D 3D6@1 -OR- 3/ M2/ C8

Same for the panzerfaust Inf but with modification. A1/ D1D6@1 -OR- 2 (like regular Infantry)/M1/ C4.

The rifled field cap guys looked like perfect conscripts A1/D1/M1/C2

I have some others too.

@AlphaKappa:

 Which Neutral Powers would have the economic equivalent of a “Minor Industrial Complex”?

I think Spain, Turkey and Sweden are the obvious neutral powers that have a large enough industrial base to build their own tanks, planes and ships. Depending on how the sculpts are going to look, I think the Italian burnt orange will fit Spain, and maybe the french dark blue will fit Sweden. Turkey already got their units.

Maybe use the medium green for Brazil, and lime green to supply China.

Maybe even Canada can have own nation specific units ?

The Russian maroon will fit Mongolia I guess

7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.

1 bomber per carrier, but can’t “land” on a carrier out at sea.  It must be “loaded” from land onto the carrier in an adjacent sea zone, similar to how fighters can be immediately deployed on to a built carrier.