Posts made by Maofator

In my opinion, if you are integrating several of these units into your games you should really make the small investment of at least D12 dice, if not D20’s.  This allows for better variance between different units. Personally, I do D20’s. HBG has a spreadsheet on their page offering suggestions on both D12 & D20.

However, in a D6 format I might suggest a few variations to the above mentioned ideas.

Trucks:  (as squadron commander pointed out the cost effectiveness issue) I use a cost of 2, moves 2, no attack or defense. Trucks can carry 2 infantry or 1 infantry & 1 artillery. They can be used to bring tools into combat zones and can be taken as casualties.

Air transports:  cost 6, move 4, no attack or defense, can deploy 1 paratrooper into combat (subject to AA), or 2 infantry from one friendly territory to another friendly territory.

LVT: cost 5, move 2, attack 2, defend, 2, acts like a reg tank but grants +1 to infantry attack rolls (paired) when used during amphibious attacks.

Jus some ideas……

Looking good Mr Johnson!

That table is extremely cool!  Awesome work. Very jealous.

We’ve use Xeno’s rules of rolling a dice 1-2 (D6), 1-4 (D12), or 1-7 (D20) assassination is successful. German player receives a permanent 5 IPC/turn increase. If the player rolls a 6 (D6), 11-12 (D12), 18-20 (D20) the German player must remove 2 Infantry and 2 Armor. Any rolls in between simply fail with no effects. This can only be attempted once per game.

In my opinion (and within our group) players prefer purchasing cruisers vs. battleships.  We prefer to pay the few extra IPCs to have 2 cruisers as opposed to a single battleship. I like the statistical odds of 2 rolls each turn at a 50% vs. 1 roll at 66.6%. Plus a damaged battleship drops your odds below 50%.  It also allows to spread the cost over turns rather than one large chunk of cash all at once. This allows me to do more with my money each turn.  This tactic alows you to divide your forces more effectively too.  Don’t get me wrong I love battleships, but can never bring myself to purchasing them.  I’m sure not everyone shares my view on this, but that’s my two cents. :-)

We you doing the type 1 Ho-Ha mech in both sets?

knp7765,
The idea I have kicked around would allow for example the US to build a RC in Alaska.  I would hesitate to allow them on islands to prevent a staging point build up like in the Philippines.  Keep in mind the idea would still take time to develop.  I’d say it still has to follow the same rules for construction as a factory.  The player must control the territory for 1 full round before a RC can be built.  So it’s a couple of round for a newly occupied territory to start producing Infantry.  They would not produce free infantry, just the ability to build and place them in a more cost effective way.  As far as China goes I’d say your right.  They would just be eliminated from play if liberated.

IL,
I imagine there aren’t that many original ideas left out there.  If I’ve suggested an idea that someone else has already developed, I assure you it wasn’t an intentional “theft”.  I’ve seen some ideas that I borrow and tweak, but try to give credit were it’s due.  Our 2 ideas are similar, but definitely tactically & strategically different.

Again, this is just an idea that I’ve been tossing around in my head. I’ve never played it.  Anyone can take what they like and leave what they don’t.  If anyone does try it, I’d like to know how it worked.

knp7765,
My vision would be like you said, 6 IPCs (half the minor factory cost).  I would say first off a recruitment would be considered a factory of sorts.  Therefor, no other “factory” could exist in the same territory.  With that said there should be a limit I suppose of say 3 units per turn.  For game play purposes I would say these units could be captured by enemy players.  The issue with the Xeno rules and other similar variants is that is slows the game down.  It creates an almost trench warfare feel to the game.

We use bonuses for artillery (reg & mech) when paired with armored cars.  The theory is that armored cars were used as scout or forward observation vehicles that could relay troop movements to make artillery more effective.

From HBG’s website; D12 and D20 suggestions:  http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/assets/images/HBG/HBG Rules/HBG D12-20 Chart.pdf

Xeno Games has rules that allow players to build infantry in territories they’ve controlled for one full round at no extra cost.  However, the number of units that can be produced in a territory is limited to the IPC level of that territory.  I use to play those rules for years, and enjoyed it very much.  In either case the idea makes sense.  I’ve thought about seeing if HBG will make a marker for a “Recruitment Center”.  This would be a cheaper version of a factory that only infantry could be produced at.  Just a thought.

Like I said I’ve played both versions bombers & air transports for paratroopers. There are advantages to both systems.

A bomber version system makes bombers very valuable, and a good investment.  A triple threat if you will: strategic bombing, tactical bombing, and para-drops.   Plus these units have a range of 6 making defending against paratroopers more problematic.  Personally I disagree with imperious leader allowing bombers to also attack during the first cycle of combat. Again, my opinion.

An air transport version makes para-dropping an investment for players. Lets be realistic, one paratrooper isn’t going to be much more than annoying. To pose a real threat with paratroopers, players would have to make a considerable investment buying enough air transports. I think a cost of 12 IPCs is reasonable. Too much more makes them too expensive and not worth the reward. I’ve found using a range of 4 for these units makes it easier to defend against. I also feel if players want to use air transports they should evaluate changing their starting set-up to include them.

As for regular troops never getting into a plane, as I understand it, I believe they did. 
Example: operation Flax where Allied forces shut down the air bridge from Africa to Italy. Germany was evacuating troops from Africa via air transports.

Nice looking units georgemak1!  As for values for a D12 system might go with cost 3, movement 2, attack 2, defense 2.  That’s assuming you play with infantry costing 3, attack 2, defend 4. The idea is to have a mobile infantry (same cost), and sacrificing defense to gain the movement. It’s an idea I’ve been playing with myself as I’ve been considering adding cavalry units.

Nice lookin stuff Mr. Johnson!

In my opinion this forum is designed for players to share ideas to enhance their gaming experience. You can take someone’s idea or leave it; the choice is yours. With that said there are people who want to add elements to the game that have a historical foundation like paratroopers.

I’ve been playing Axis since the 80’s and have used plenty of expansions, and house rules.  I personally like having the paratrooper option and have used them for years.  Not sure if it was Xeno or Gamers Paradise that first turned me on to the idea.  Over the years I’ve come to use the following rules.

Only the major powers are allowed to build paratroopers. It is not a tech and can be purchased as early as the first turn.

Paratroopers cost 1 extra IPC to convert an infantry. Max of 4 paratroopers in play at any time. Once converted to a paratrooper it will remain so until destroyed.

I’ve used both bombers and air transports to deploy the units. In either case the paratrooper and the air unit must begin the turn from the same territory.  Also each plane can only carry 1 paratrooper.

For air transports we use a cost: 12, move: 4, attack: N/A, defense: 1 (D6), 2 (D12), 3 (D20). Air transports can also carry 2 infantry during the non-combat movement phase. Starting set-up for air transports: Germany 2, Britain 1, Japan 1, Russia 0, US 1.

The biggest issue with adding new rules & ideas is maintaining game balance. I don’t feel like using paratrooper this way is unbalancing at all.

LHoffman, as you are just starting your infantry I’d like to offer you a suggestion to consider. From personal experience in painting infantry units I know how time consuming the process is, and how you want to have the best results possible. I’ve painted OOB, HBG, and 1/72 scale model infantry.  In my opinion I prefer the 1/72 scale infantry. They are better molded for that spacific purpose. The others aren’t exactly designed with painting in mind.  The model infantry have much better detail and are better proportioned as well.

With that in mind I’ve gone through several manufactures of model units to find the best combination of plastic consistency, and best over-all unit appearance.  I feel like the Ceasar units offer the best product. You can go to to see pictures, read reviews, and see actual size of units:

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/PeriodList.aspx?period=1

The down side to these units are they don’t have the circular base which allows you paint the roundel (which does look awesome). You’ll spend more money on units.  Also you will have various poses which some people won’t like, but I think looks pretty cool.

Like I said, just something to consider. Some people aren’t aware these exist, and are easily purchased online if you don’t have a local hobbie store that carries them in your area.

Absolutely knp. I guess I should elaborate. :-)  A research team is actually just a single die roll that is expended once rolled, but the result is permanent.

Example:  Germany goes after Jet Fighter construction that has a breakthrough value of 18. The German player buys 3 research teams (die rolls) that result in a 3, 5, and 2; for a total of 10. The 10 points is not enough to gain the tech, but the points rolled are permenant. On the following turn, the German player buys 3 more research teams towards Jet Fighters. This time the results are 6, 4, and 3 for a total of 13. With the previous balance of 10 the German player would have a total of 23 which exceeds the breakthrough value of 18 thus granting the player access to the Jet Fighter Tech.

We play that purchasing tech teams, and the tech rolls happen prior to purchasing units, so new techs would be available for purchase the same turn it was achieved.

As for what techs are available to each power, it’s nearly identical for each power except that each power receives a country spacific tech.

Germany: Jet Fighters
Britain: *Landing Craft
Japan: I-400 Subs w/ Aichi Bomber
Russia: Kaytusha Rockets
US: Flying Fortress Bombers

(* Although not really a British tech we find this has the best in-game application for the unit)

Hopefully, that sheds a little more light on the topic. If anyone is interested I can email some additional detailed info. Just message me with your email.

Swedo, I’ve looked at a lot of your stuff, and you do some rediculously nice work. A lot of time and effort put into that work. Impressive.

Hoffman, extremely nice work!  Love all the detail. Look forward to seeing more stuff in the near future.

I’ve been using a tech system for several years now that works like this:
1.  Only 5 major powers may develop techs
2.  Each power has a list of available techs on their set up chart with each tech having a breakthrough value assigned to it ranging from 12-26
3.  Each power may choose the tech they wish to research
4.  Each power may purchase up to 3 research teams each turn @ 3 IPC’s each
5.  For each research team roll 1D6, add totals. These totals are pertinent to ensure continued research will guarantee results.
It works well for us. I can’t say it’s a total original idea as we’ve pieced the mechanics together from several ideas different forums/games.