RE: IL, since they are firing at 2 out of 6, they should cost double what an AA gun costs since AA guns fire at 1 out of 6 and cost 6 ipcs, therefore blockhouses should cost 12. I also think that when they are captured they should be destroyed, unlike AA guns that are still useful against the enemy, blockhouses will be pointed the wrong way and are immobile concrete structures after they are set in place. (how silly it would be if Germany capture the maginot line and then moves it to Normandy, or the Allies capture Normandy and move it with their front all the way into germany…)
I think 12 is an acceptable number for blockhouses, though if comparing the price and function to AA guns then 10 might be better, as Veqryn said, they can’t be turned around and used by a capturing army, hence slightly less use than an AA gun equalling slightly lower price.
If Germany would recapture the French coast they would have to restock the bunkers with arms again as well as repair the blockhouses I think the destruction of blockhouse when captured would be believable enough as well.
@Imperious:
I could suggest one thing however, the blockhouse only works against infantry at 2 and all other landing units at 1?
Soft targets are so much more easy to wipe out with the various defenses symbolized by this unit.
that’s certainly workable as well. Would definitely entice people to bring along some armor when landing.
Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)
when did these games get money? I know in my old age that memory fades, but I thought they had printed on the paper, worth like 1 million man hours of production. That being said, it should definitely be changed to collecting for everyone at the end or beginning of the round, being realistically the same thing. Then you take something in mind of being able to hold it to get any added production income.
Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts
I’m with Verqryn on this, ducks in a barrel
No use of captured factories
I’d be with this except for that Germany often used captured factories to keep building weapons in Eastern Europe…though much of that became Axis-aligned countries, which muddies the waters like Neutrals will become, so I’m interested to see how the Minor/Major aspect comes into play with it… at least a big step forward
Unlimited rail movement in non-combat
then we need a way to specifically target rail lines for destruction… otherwise Japan will use it right up the Soviets keister all too well
Capitals treated as any other territory
the big thing is not losing your production capability due to the loss of one’s capital. You should keep the IPCs, be able to build a new IC at another owned territory or build at another one you already have and fight on despite the loss of the capital. Use capitals as victory cities sure, but they generally rob focus of VCs as you take out the enemy’s ability to produce and then mop up the VCs.
Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact
if you have this, you have to have the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and none of us want that now do we?
On the blockhouse issue I think that you should have to select which border they are defending and once placed are immovable, and yes a coastline is just another border.
Yes right. Blockhouse is now a 12 IPC unit firing at 2 or less in opening combat phase at all land units.
If used in normal combat your defending land units are all +1 in combat.
Takes one hit and cant be captured.
@Brain:
On the blockhouse issue I think that you should have to select which border they are defending and once placed are immovable, and yes a coastline is just another border.
thats a really good idea, i agree
Well if everyone agrees with that, then we have one more issue; Does a blockhouse have to be built in a territory containint an industrial complex? I say no since it is basically just concrete and is built at its permanent location.
no blockhouses would be built where ever they are desired to be. Would be a unit that does not enter the game at an IC, since they have no move points.
picking a border in a territory would make them the equivalent of IL’s forts, yes-no? that would be a fine thing in my view. The cost will keep them from being at every territory.
Picking a direction (coastline) is a good thing for Axis, like in Japan with one SZ, bad for Uk with multiple SZs.
Well this idea would certainly require some play-testing.
@Captain:
LH 9/5/09
No to Railroad (as much as I love the idea).
There will be TECH system but only in the Global game. . Probably no paratroopers. There will not be blockhouses.
I don’t see blockhouses as a potential TECH.France will be split into 3 territories. Indeed you cannot attack the same territory from the Med and the Atlantic. There is a central territory called France (it contains Paris). It has an IC. It does not touch coast. Coastal territories of the country (France) are worth far less than central France. No buffer between Paris territory and German border. France has two major ICs (This might change to one major and one minor). France will have a major or minor IC on the Atlantic coast. French fleet will have its own turn sequence… It will be controlled probably by the British player, however. Like any power, if the capital falls it cannot produce new units until it is liberated. France will fall! How many axis units it takes with it is what is in question. France can be liberated… In which case it will receive and activate its own economy. It will also receive a certain amount of infantry units (free) that are immediately placed in the game. Viva le France! England will be two territories…
-was going to ask how rail might work in places like NAmerica and Europe where all the territories had rail systems already. Redeployment or unlimited rail may need to be limited to units that weren’t involved in combat. Alas, rail seems to be on the sidelines for these games.
-No blockhouses, not even as tech. Well, hello house rules. seemed like that one was gonna go through too with Larry.
-France in 3 territories, with Paris touching Germany and 2 sea zones each touching Atlantic and Pacific respectively. French IC on the Atlantic coast, hmmm… should be interesting.
No blockhouses, no rail movement……
How about a future expansion for the game. Call it Advanced Axis and Allies Europe and Pacific with new rules and new pieces. I’ll bet that would sell as good as the original offer.
So France will have 2 ICs, one of which being a major IC in Paris that touches Germany. Once the Allies liberate Paris that should be a real fun thing for Germany to have touching it’s border… yipes!
@Imperious:
Yes right. Blockhouse is now a 12 IPC unit firing at 2 or less in opening combat phase at all land units.
If used in normal combat your defending land units are all +1 in combat.
Takes one hit and cant be captured.
Not sure I understand your middle sentence, about “if used in normal combat, your defending land units are all +1 in combat”. What on earth do you mean? you mean I can choose to either give all my units +1 or I can choose to take a shot 2 out of 6 at each unit before combat?
You should stick to the shooting before combat idea… this new extra ability seems totally different and OP
2 different types of combat the blockhouse defense works:
vs invasions with 2 or less against each landing unit first round
if you buy them for interior defense ( no coastline) they give all land units +1 in all combat rounds.
Blockhouse is an extensive fortification of fortress unit it can be the Maginot line or the forts at Singapore.
Yes I like this idea, they only add on defense right?
yea.
They cant be captured and take one hit, though i am toying with 2 hits using the logic that its double a AA gun, hitting at 2 but also costing double….so perhaps it should take double hits?
The two hitpoints sounds like a great idea. Now if you could only talk Larry into it. If not maybe FMG could make some blockhouse pieces.
so my infantry and artillery defend at 3, and my tanks defend at 4? I really think this is an absolutely horrible idea and I am very glad larry harris did not implement it. sorry i’m coming out so strongly against it, but more unit for the sake of more units does not add to gameplay value, and a unit such as this would shut down entire fronts and turn the game into a defensive standoff, massing infantry stacks, etc.
ok then pick one:
all defending units fire first in combat ( loses removed then attackers fire)
or
apply the same rule as invasions all units attacking get a 2 or less first round
5 rules:
12 ipcs
1 hitpoint and can not be captured (just dies if the controller loses that territory) [could also do zero hitpoints, just like AA gun, and still would not die unless territory is lost]
fires a 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)
once in place, it is pointing at a certain territory border and only defends against attacks coming from that border (the border can be land or sea, and therefore does not matter if it is amphibious or regular assault)
is built in place, but can only be built in territories that contain an IC or are adjacent to a territory that contains an IC. Only one blockhouse per border.
this i think would be balanced
game should start with only 1 of these units, to represent the maginot line.
the fact that it is built in place, and can be built in a territory that does not have a factory (but must be touching a territory with a factory you control) is a big plus for it, IMO
so my infantry and artillery defend at 3, and my tanks defend at 4? I really think this is an absolutely horrible idea and I am very glad larry harris did not implement it. sorry i’m coming out so strongly against it, but more unit for the sake of more units does not add to gameplay value, and a unit such as this would shut down entire fronts and turn the game into a defensive standoff, massing infantry stacks, etc.
I see your point and I like your ideas.
Remember all ideas require some play-testing.
