AA50: Mech infantry as a tech

[allboxcars]

OK I’m sorry but if my lab guys come to me and say:
:oops: “Yeah that radar thing and jet engines aren’t working yet but come on out to the parking lot and see what we figured you can do with a bunch of trucks….”
:-o
sorry but these “geniuses” are exchanging their sliderules for rifles and heading for the front faster than I can hand in 3 IPCs!

IMHO It’s a tactical doctrine breakthru but not a tech breakthru.
So I’d be thinking Mech Inf should be a standard unit: $4 A2 D2 and yes, Move 2 when combined 1:1 with Armour.

And while I welcome people’s comments on this version of Mech Inf,  :-D please fix the hole in my tech breakthru charts by suggesting the one breakthru to take the place of Mech Inf.  :-D

[gnasape]

Welcome!

Check out the Other Axis & Allies Variants forum, that’s where they discuss new units & new ideas.

I think there is a discussion about trucks, mech inf, etc already in the forum and new FMG sculpts and dice!!!

You should check it out.

[jemo81]

@allboxcars:

OK I’m sorry but if my lab guys come to me and say:
:oops: “Yeah that radar thing and jet engines aren’t working yet but come on out to the parking lot and see what we figured you can do with a bunch of trucks….”
:-o
sorry but these “geniuses” are exchanging their sliderules for rifles and heading for the front faster than I can hand in 3 IPCs!

IMHO It’s a tactical doctrine breakthru but not a tech breakthru.
So I’d be thinking Mech Inf should be a standard unit: $4 A2 D2 and yes, Move 2 when combined 1:1 with Armour.

And while I welcome people’s comments on this version of Mech Inf,  :-D please fix the hole in my tech breakthru charts by suggesting the one breakthru to take the place of Mech Inf.  :-D

let me just say that if this unit was in the game I would definetly use a major share om my ipcs on some of them. especially with japan and germany

[allboxcars]

@Fighter:

let me just say that if this unit was in the game I would definetly use a major share om my ipcs on some of them. especially with japan and germany

Which I think isn’t a bad thing. Historically once the automobile appeared on the scene armies have worked hard to reduce the number of infantry walking into battle.

Mind you I was considering keeping the A at 1 (with no arty pairing) so in essence you’re just getting a mobility enhancement and any extra offensive power is insufficient to merit the 17-33% increase.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

I replace my mech inf tech with

Improved Tank Design

+1 to tank defense

[allboxcars]

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I replace my mech inf tech with

Improved Tank Design

+1 to tank defense

Hmmm so you’re aiming to capture sloped armour? Or the SOP of welding spare track on the glacis?

[oztea]

An “Armor” unit represents an armoured company or regement, with a large supply of tanks, and a compliement of infantry, likely in trucks or halftracks.

An “Infantry” unit represents an infantry company or regement, mostly made up of men on foot, with a few heavy guns and tanks sprinkled in.

A mechinzed infantry game unit is ahistorical. There were not vast legions of mobile infantry. The ones that had trucks or halftracks, were attached to armoured companies, and the ones that hoofed it, well….they hoofed it.

The breakthrough either represents the revalation to allow vast ammounts of men to ride into battle on the tanks, or to provide excess transport capacity to the armored regiments so that infantry regements could quickly attach to them.

[allboxcars]

@oztea:

An “Armor” unit represents an armoured company or regement, with a large supply of tanks, and a compliement of infantry, likely in trucks or halftracks.

An “Infantry” unit represents an infantry company or regement, mostly made up of men on foot, with a few heavy guns and tanks sprinkled in.

A mechinzed infantry game unit is ahistorical. There were not vast legions of mobile infantry. The ones that had trucks or halftracks, were attached to armoured companies, and the ones that hoofed it, well….they hoofed it.

The breakthrough either represents the revalation to allow vast ammounts of men to ride into battle on the tanks, or to provide excess transport capacity to the armored regiments so that infantry regements could quickly attach to them.

Actually I believe that each game piece represents a much larger combined arms formation than the sub-units you seem to have in mind, and the designation of armoured, infantry and mechanized infantry is just reflective of how the mix favours the different arms… which of course changes from nation to nation.

As for historicity of motorized or mechanized infantry, again I believe that you’re mistaken and the game piece would reflect not the adoption of Cold War APCs but WW2 usage of deuce and a halfs & half-tracks to the point that in A&As charming vagueness elevates their mobility to something on par with the game’s representation of how mobile an armoured brigade plays for example… like Panzer Grenadiers who enjoyed a significantly increased amount of vehicles in their TOET.

[oztea]

the problem is, these mechinized infantry units were as effective as armour regements, what they did with rifles and grenades mirrored what tanks did with treads and shells.

these mechinzied regements were as mobile as tank regements, as you pointed out.

and equiping them was as roughly costly as equiping an armoured regement.

If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and (pardon my adlibing) costs as much as a duck….then its probably a duck.

So some tank units represent the 43rd Panzer Corps, and a tank unit in an adgancent territory represents the 144th Motorized SS Battalion.

The 2/2 niche has been filled by the artilery, which corrected a critical game flaw from the original game, the problem of inept stacks of infantry. A mechinized unit would just be fodder for tank units, negating their drawback of needing infantry to soak up wounds

[Imperious Leader]

The unit scale for land pieces is corps and army depending on the situation

Mechanized corps did exist and shock armies also existed which also represent more mobile formations which may also be better equipped.

a fighter could be 1,000- 1,500 front line planes

Mech infantry is not a technology. In WW1 some formations were mechanized with truck transport. Nothing is technological in terms of trucks and upgraded equipment and armored cars. The whole idea of these units were to be included in AA50 as a new piece, but were not because of the cost. The result was they were ‘introduced’ as technology so Larry Harris can gauge how these would go over in future games.

[oztea]

alot of things on that chart are not “technology” per say.
the breakthrough of designing an inexpesive truck frame for your nation and manufacturing enough to make a differance is a breakthrough in my opinion.

Im fearful of a new unit….there are already enough unit types to represent the diversity of the WWII era, while still maintaining enough differences between units various pros and cons. Making the purchase unit phase involve some tough decision making.

Germany would buy so many Mechanized Infantry units it would be stupifying. 30 IPCS for lets say, 2 tanks and 5 Mech infantry. Resulting in a one trick pony charge at russia. once it fails,if it does, germany is left with very few traditonal infantry units inbetween moscow and berlin.

That tanks cant cover themselves in cheap fodder that moves two is the weakness of the unit. My most important point is that Mech infantry units (which of course i know existed during the war) can simply be represented as a tank on the game board.

[allboxcars]

@oztea:

Germany would buy so many Mechanized Infantry units it would be stupifying. 30 IPCS for lets say, 2 tanks and 5 Mech infantry. Resulting in a one trick pony charge at russia. once it fails,if it does, germany is left with very few traditonal infantry units inbetween moscow and berlin.

Which is why I’d advocate sticking with the 1:1 requirement for mech inf to blitz… after all you don’t just have a bunch of shot up trucks racing straight into battle, Garands firing over the tailgate.

So then you’d have 3 tanks and 3 mech inf with some IPCs left over.

[Imperious Leader]

30 IPCS for lets say, 2 tanks and 5 Mech infantry. Resulting in a one trick pony charge at russia.

I have playtested this for like 5 years at least. 2-2-2 @5 does not kill Russia. Play it out in any version

[oztea]

2-2-2 at 5 IPCs?
Why….in the name of all that is holy, would you not just buy a tank?

No kidding it wont kill russia, the 3-3-2 tanks have a ard enough time as it is
(I was placing the price for mech at 4IPC, the 30 was just a total)

[Imperious Leader]

It has its uses. Play it out in your next game. You will see that in some situations these are good as alternative fodder when operating with tank groups and infantry is too slow.

actually i made a typo: the cost is 4 not 5. sorry!

[Jennifer]

Okay, I never imagined this was a scientist saying “Hey, we just figured out that if you pack a company of men into a cattle car, you can move them across the country faster.”

There’s a few things this could represent:

1. Half-tracks
2. Deuce and a Half’s (2.5 ton trucks.)
3. A brigade commander writing to Washington and saying “Yo, you knuckleheads, if you gave me those trucks you use for moving around your frakkin Chocolate Cakes, I could be in Berlin by now!”
4. A redesigned tank that has a flatter back end so more men can ride on the tank. (Probably the most accurate version.)

etc.

Remember, the tank was just invented in WWI.  Planes, tanks, jeeps, trucks, artillery, etc all went through massive changes and upgrades throughout the war.  Here is just a case where science upgraded vehicles to transport more men.

That said, i’d like to see the rule be:

infantry may move 2 during NON-COMBAT MOVE only.  If you have Mechanized Infantry, then they may move 2 period.

[allboxcars]

@Cmdr:

Here is just a case where science upgraded vehicles to transport more men.

Still…. I’m thinking it shouldn’t even be in the same league as the guys coming up with rockets, radar and jet engines?

Seems its a question of production & doctrine far more than R&D and if I’m romping around accumulating IPCs shouldn’t I just be able to buy them without the research dice rolls to invent them?

Anyway, even if you’re for keeping it as a breakthru, the other half of my original post still stands: do you have one breakthru you’d like to see added to the charts?

[jemo81]

as possible in revised I would like for the german subs to cost the allies 1 ipc pr sub pr round as a tech, as this could potentially give the germans some more motivation to build navy. The BUT is then that it should be made axis only. In order to compensate for this i guess an allied only would have to be added too i guess

[oztea]

my gaming group and I have concluded that a 2-1/2-2 4IPC unit is pretty much the last combonation of numbers that can be fairly combined for a unit.

Im on the side of 2-1-2 Mech infantry, decent attackers, but suffer in defense.
Purely for game balance, to make them much less desirable. And to not clog the 2-2 spot that already has artillery.

And Jennifer, infantry non combat moving at two at all times is a bit of a big deal. It would almost cut the eastern front in half. Moving two is a big deal for guys on foot. Marching from eastern US to Western Us? Trans Jordan to India? France to poland. Canada to Mexico. In the modern world, that doesnt seem difficult for a 4-6 month time peroid. But the infantry unit is supposed to represnt an infantry unit, it would be a pretty harsh march to get from transjordan to india in 4-6 months on foot. There just wornt enough trucks for everyone.

Gameplay wise, if you take moscow with a desparation tank charge and air support. In noncombat you can move infantry from Karellia, baltic states, east poland, and Ukrane into russia, effectively putting so many infatry in there that no one will ever take it back. (asuming you bought any infantry)

New tech….i feel its fair to stick with armor.
“Heavy Armor - Tanks defend on a 4”
This might be completely unfair though…puts them on the level of a fighter, but at half the move and half the cost.

[oztea]

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.