Lets talk Trucks!

[Upside-down_Turtle]

cost still 4 IPCs?  Would a “land transport” be worth that much?

[Upside-down_Turtle]

I just had a brain storm.  What if the trucks WERE the “supply tokens”?  Every turn, each player gets a certain amount of supply trucks.  They have no combat value.  They just supply the troops and move at 2.  Each truck can supply x amount of units.  Could that work?

[Upside-down_Turtle]

wait, wouldn’t you then have to have a naval supply unit?  :-( man…

[Imperious Leader]

If you give the trucks the ability to transport men 2 spaces the cost must go up at least 1-2 IPC.

here is a new idea:

trucks:  considered like land transports and if attacked are removed and cant be soakers…

during NCM they can transport 2 infantry or 1 infantry and one Artillery TWO SPACES if they start in the same space.

the cost of these units is 4 IPC and again they dont attack or defend.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

If you give the trucks the ability to transport men 2 spaces the cost must go up at least 1-2 IPC.

here is a new idea:

trucks:  considered like land transports and if attacked are removed and cant be soakers…

during NCM they can transport 2 infantry or 1 infantry and one Artillery TWO SPACES if they start in the same space.

the cost of these units is 4 IPC and again they dont attack or defend.

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

[Upside-down_Turtle]

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Imperious:

If you give the trucks the ability to transport men 2 spaces the cost must go up at least 1-2 IPC.

here is a new idea:

trucks:  considered like land transports and if attacked are removed and cant be soakers…

during NCM they can transport 2 infantry or 1 infantry and one Artillery TWO SPACES if they start in the same space.

the cost of these units is 4 IPC and again they dont attack or defend.

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

They don’t?  If they have gas, they do.

I’m still thinking that maybe trucks could count as supply.  How would fleets work?…Nah, supply would probably add more complication.

Trucks 0-0-2-4.  I agree.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Upside-down_Turtle:

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Imperious:

If you give the trucks the ability to transport men 2 spaces the cost must go up at least 1-2 IPC.

here is a new idea:

trucks:  considered like land transports and if attacked are removed and cant be soakers…

during NCM they can transport 2 infantry or 1 infantry and one Artillery TWO SPACES if they start in the same space.

the cost of these units is 4 IPC and again they dont attack or defend.

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

They don’t?  If they have gas, they do.

I’m still thinking that maybe trucks could count as supply.  How would fleets work?…Nah, supply would probably add more complication.

Trucks 0-0-2-4.  I agree.

all major movement in world war two is done by train, trucks only take crap from the nearest railhead to the front. If you moved all the equipment by trucks you would destroy all the roads and the maintence on the trucks would not be worth it
plus railroads are so much cheaper

[Imperious Leader]

trucks in this are also trains. Thats also including horses.

it just represents the behind the scenes movement of material to the front. we choose to use the truck as the icon to convey that, but a horse or train PIECE would be less than satisfactory.

[templeton]

@Emperor_Taiki:

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war… that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don’t have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.

The Germans used horses - the Russians and Allies used trucks.

TRUCKS were a war winner…

[Emperor_Taiki]

@templeton:

@Emperor_Taiki:

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war… that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don’t have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.

your wrong, not one truck in the whole history of World War Two transported infantry or supplies single handedly a thousand miles. If you have ever looked at a map of Europe or the Pacific ocean this would be pretty obvious. Certainly you dont think their were trucks driving from the Factories in the Urals to the Kursk salient! All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.

[Imperious Leader]

All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.

represented by trucks because trucks also were used and many more of them were around than trains to move logistics around the front. Trains didn’t work too well in the Soviet Union when the gauge was a different size. What did they do then? They used horses and trucks.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.

represented by trucks because trucks also were used and many more of them were around than trains to move logistics around the front. Trains didn’t work too well in the Soviet Union when the gauge was a different size. What did they do then? They used horses and trucks.

sure, all tranporation in the soveit union was hard. But the germans i belive had both european and russian gauge trains so the major movement represented in axis and allies is done my trains. Trucks were useful at the front, but movement at the front is not represented in axis and allies except by attacking and retreating

[dinosaur]

I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support.  The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be.  Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.

Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me.  It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much.  I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits.  They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy.  On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units.  Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.

On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@dinosaur:

I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support.  The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be.  Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.

Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me.  It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much.  I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits.  They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy.  On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units.  Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.

On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.

I agree, that is probalby the best way to represent them. excpet i dont see what is wrong with having to defend your truck from air attacks.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

@dinosaur:

I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support.  The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be.  Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.

Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me.  It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much.  I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits.  They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy.  On the other hand, I don’t think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy’s attack includes ground units.  Since a fighter can’t “capture” a territiry, I don’t think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.

On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.

Thinking it over, perhaps trucks @ 2 IPCs would be reasonable, since they can’t attack, and therefore can’t take territory.  In BOTB trucks could be “hijacked”, replacing the other player’s truck w/ yours.  Perhaps that would be a good rule.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

I’m w/ IL on the trucks debate.

Taiki, can you source this info on trucks being all but useless?  I have all kinds of images in my head of US trucks trudging through the mud, linned uo in the mountains of Sicily, and George C. Scott directing traffic.  Are all the references I have to the importance of trucks lies?

[Emperor_Taiki]

I did not i said trucks were not important, i just said they should not be represented in the game.

i agree trucks were extremly important, but not everything that is important is represented in axis and allies.

all the pictures of trucks you have seen most likely were pictures of trucks taking supplies from a a port or train to the front line usaully less than 100 miles away. In axis and allies  many territories are hundrends of miles in length so you c that their is no point to representing trucks. trucks transporting units from germany to russia is simply unrealistic.
you could say they represent logistical infrastructure, but then dont call them trucks.

perhaps if you still want to represent trucks as trucks you might allow trucks to give certain units double attacks which would simulate units suppllied by large numbers of truck can quickly follow up on succesful attacks and breakthrough the enemy lines

[Upside-down_Turtle]

What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf.  I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules.  Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):

Piece              Name                            Attack         Defense               Move          Cost                  Special

Soldier 1        Light Infantry                1                 2                   1               3                  N/A

Soldier 2        Marine                         1                 2                    1               4               + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult

Truck            Motorized Infantry          1                 2                   2               4                Can Blitz

Gun(1)           Light Artillery                2                 2                   1               4                 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Gun 2**        Heavy Artillery               3                 2                   1               5                +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Half-Track     Mechanized Infantry        3                 2                   2               5                Can Blitz

Tank 1          Light Armor                    3                 3                   2               6                Can Blitz

Tank 2          Heavy Armor                  4                 4                   2               8                Can Blitz

*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to).  Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Upside-down_Turtle:

What if instead of “land transports” trucks were “motorized infantry” distinct from mech inf.  I’m weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules.  Here’s my new land combat unit chart for FMG’s New Pieces Project (NPP):

Piece              Name                            Attack         Defense               Move          Cost                  Special

Soldier 1        Light Infantry                1                 2                   1               3                  N/A

Soldier 2        Marine                         1                 2                    1               4               + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult

Truck            Motorized Infantry          1                 2                   2               4                Can Blitz

Gun(1)           Light Artillery                2                 2                   1               4                 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Gun 2**        Heavy Artillery               3                 2                   1               5                +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Half-Track     Mechanized Infantry        3                 2                   2               5                Can Blitz

Tank 1          Light Armor                    3                 3                   2               6                Can Blitz

Tank 2          Heavy Armor                  4                 4                   2               8                Can Blitz

*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to).  Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility.

I like this very much although some units seem redundent. also only the american and japanese had units of marines that were used on a signifigant scale. paratroopers are a much more universal unit

id like to hear what IL thinks

[Imperious Leader]

For me everything is OOB prices…

new units:

Airborne Infantry: dropped by Bomber  as per OOB, attack preemptively at 3 first round, attacks at 1 after that. When not used in a drop these are always normal 1-2 infantry. They cost 5 IPC and you can buy as many as you wish, but can only drop as many as you have bombers to support.

Armored Infantry ( Mech)

2-2-2, cost 4 they can blitz

Possible: in desert territory’s they can carry one infantry two spaces, but i think this would only be for German or British forces.

Special national units:

Soviets: Shock/Guard troops ( can only buy one per turn) cost 4 IPC… these are 3-2 units, move 1

Germany: SS Panzer ( can only buy one per turn) cost 8 IPC … these are 4-5 units move 2

American Marines: 2-2 infantry cost 4  (+1 on first round of invasion.),
Any Carriers built for pacific can hold 3 planes,
Any battleships built in pacific are 4-5 units

British Commando: similar to paratroopers ( attack at 3 1st preemptively, then @1 , cost 6) except these can be moved over any TWO spaces ( including moving thru enemy spaces or water) and do not require bomber.

Japan:  Imperial Marines, 2-3 infantry cost 4 ( +1 on first round of invasion) can only build one per turn.

Also all starting japanese fighters on carriers and small islands are 4-4 units. When they are destroyed they are not replaced ( representing better trained pilots at start of war). Also, 2 of Japans starting carriers can take 3 fighters each. When these are sunk, they can build only one more like this…thats it.

Japan starting BB is a super BB thats a 5-5 unit and takes 3 hits

Italy: Italy can always bring one infantry to Africa as long as they control at least one african territory, in addition to any transports they have.

Frogmen: one allied ship in Mediterranean can be attacked hitting at a 1 and sinking the ship. the ship does not fire back.

optional: Conscripts/Volksgrenadier infantry

only Russia or Germany can build these in home factories and are 0-1-1 units cost 2.