I like where you’re going with this!
GREAT ideas IL. I have a couple of questions to clear things up:
1 – Axis Minor The Volkstrum Infantry. By German VCs, I assume you mean Berlin and Warsaw only, or does this also include Paris or any other VC captured by Germany?
2 – Axis Minor Interceptor Fighter. I am unclear on the unit value: 3-4-2-4 Is the “2” it’s interceptor defense capability? Also, what do these fighters cost?
3 – USA Early War Battleships.So these will NEVER be purchased, it’s just what USA starts with, correct?
4 – USA Early War Tanks. For the Axis Minors, these tanks are purchased during the first 2 rounds. Suppose Japan goes crazy and attacks everyone on J1, bringing USA into the war on Round 1. Would the USA be restricted to buying the light tanks for the first 2 rounds as well, and able to buy Shermans from Round 3 on?
Thanks.
1 – Axis Minor The Volkstrum Infantry. By German VCs, I assume you mean Berlin and Warsaw only, or does this also include Paris or any other VC captured by Germany?
It should be Berlin or Warsaw, i will edit.
2 – Axis Minor Interceptor Fighter. I am unclear on the unit value: 3-4-2-4 Is the “2” it’s interceptor defense capability? Also, what do these fighters cost?
It has the same cost values as normal fighters, you just need to buy them. Only difference is 2 Interceptor defense capability
3 – USA Early War Battleships.So these will NEVER be purchased, it’s just what USA starts with, correct?
Yes correct, you cant buy them, US just starts with these.
4 – USA Early War Tanks. For the Axis Minors, these tanks are purchased during the first 2 rounds. Suppose Japan goes crazy and attacks everyone on J1, bringing USA into the war on Round
Yes correct. Good point
1. Would the USA be restricted to buying the light tanks for the first 2 rounds as well, and able to buy Shermans from Round 3 on?
Yes correct.
Thanks for the answers IL. It looks like you may still be editing them so I’m going to give another few days before jotting them down for my new rules book.
I do have one concern with the Escort Carrier. Do you really think it should carry 2 planes? I’ve always thought they should just carry 1. You’ve got them priced good, quite a bit cheaper than the fleet carriers and I also see that you reduced them to 1 hit and they only defend at 1. However, even with those limitations, I think allowing them 2 planes will make them overpowered. It seems to me that people will take the loss in defense and hit strength just to buy more Escort Carriers and get more planes out there. They wouldn’t buy fleet carriers anymore.
IL,
As always you’re thought process is working out many usefull things for this game and we all thank you.
I commend your efforts, and have a few “suggestions” for your consideration.
Bombers dropping Paratroopers
Since we’re talking about the NEW HBG units that are available, I can’t understand why you consider the posibility of dropping “Airborne Infantry”(Paratroopers) with Bombers. HBG released the C-46 Commando Air Transport in the same U.S. Supplement Set that the Paratroopers were in. IMHO Bombers, such as a B-17, should NEVER have the capability of dropping Paratroopers. This is the reason the Air Transports exist. Also,FMG plans to release their C-47 Skytrain Air Transport soon(?).
Early War Light Bomber
I am extremely in favor of a new category of “Light Bomber”(or “Attack”) units such as an the American A-20. Maybe one day soon we can also get these units produced. but until they are I was wondering what you were considering using as a “Light Bomber”? The B-25 Mitchell was a Medium Bomber and should have medium power but have a shorter range than a Heavy Bomber such as a B-17.
Escort Carrier
IMHO, Escort Carriers should NOT have the same capacity of aircraft as a full-sized Fleet Carrier. They should: cost less, have less defense, and less aircraft aboard(1).
Fighter-Bomber
IMHO we should establish a new category of Fighter-Bomber for the F-4U Corsair and other simular units that will hopefully be produced. A/D/C/M factors should reflect the Corsairs’ actual capabilities, thus giving the players the choice of new type of unit.
Flamethrower Infantry and/or Tanks
I really liked the idea that “Tigerman77” had for using these units. Basically these “Flamethrower” units cancelled out the defensive effects of any fortifications(pillboxes) while the rest of the attacking force battled the other units in that land zone normally. Simple yet effective.
“Tall Paul”
What do YA’LL think?
Bombers dropping Paratroopers
Since we’re talking about the NEW HBG units that are available, I can’t understand why you consider the posibility of dropping “Airborne Infantry”(Paratroopers) with Bombers. HBG released the C-46 Commando Air Transport in the same U.S. Supplement Set that the Paratroopers were in. IMHO Bombers, such as a B-17, should NEVER have the capability of dropping Paratroopers. This is the reason the Air Transports exist. Also,FMG plans to release their C-46 Skytrain Air Transport soon(?).
Yea that is the intention, but i am just dealing with what is out currently. Of course a FMG list will be made.
Early War Light Bomber
I am extremely in favor of a new category of “Light Bomber”(or “Attack”) units such as an the American A-20. Maybe one day soon we can also get these units produced. but until they are I was wondering what you were considering using as a “Light Bomber”? The B-25 Mitchell was a Medium Bomber and should have medium power but have a shorter range than a Heavy Bomber such as a B-17.
The HBG Light bomber is already produced, looking at range issues, but right now im just dealing with the payload issues and lower attack rating. I guess the range could be looked at, but i don’t want to make a useless unit
Escort Carrier
IMHO, Escort Carriers should NOT have the same capacity of aircraft as a full-sized Fleet Carrier. They should: cost less, have less defense, and less aircraft aboard(1).
Looking at this , but 1 fighter would mean a huge reduction in capability and buying 2 Jeep carriers might be a better deal than one carrier. Rules not settled on this.
Fighter-Bomber
IMHO we should establish a new category of Fighter-Bomber for the F-4U Corsair and other simular units that will hopefully be produced. A/D/C/M factors should reflect the Corsairs’ actual capabilities, thus giving the players the choice of new type of unit.
Flamethrower Infantry and/or Tanks
I really liked the idea that “Tigerman77” had for using these units. Basically these “Flamethrower” units cancelled out the defensive effects of any fortifications(pillboxes) while the rest of the attacking force battled the other units in that land zone normally. Simple yet effective.
Yes but nobody produced any “fortifications” Instead without making people ‘create’ new units, i just made the defender suffer with -1 at 1:1 basis.
IL,
Air Transport
The HBG C-46 Commando Air Transport IS CURRENTLY OUT. I’ve had my C-46s for several months now. They are part of the U.S. Supplement set.
Early War Light Bomber
What unit are you considering as an Early War Light Bomber?
Respectfully,
“Tall Paul”
Changes being made…
Thanks IL! :-D
Hey IL,
Did you remove the specifications for the B-25 bomber? I could have sworn I saw it up there earlier and thought you had a good idea with that one.
Attack = 3, Defense = 1, Move = 6. I don’t remember the cost, but probably should be 10 or 11? Would a medium bomber like the B-25 cost as much as a fighter or a tactical bomber?
I think lowering the attack value is good enough, don’t need to lower the range as well. Like you said, that might make it a useless unit. If it costs 10, hits at 3 but can only move 4, then why not get a fighter, right? Leave the range, lower the payload and price from regular bombers and I think you’ve got a good piece there.
Did you remove the specifications for the B-25 bomber? I could have sworn I saw it up there earlier and thought you had a good idea with that one.
Attack = 3, Defense = 1, Move = 6. I don’t remember the cost, but probably should be 10 or 11? Would a medium bomber like the B-25 cost as much as a fighter or a tactical bomber?I think lowering the attack value is good enough, don’t need to lower the range as well. Like you said, that might make it a useless unit. If it costs 10, hits at 3 but can only move 4, then why not get a fighter, right? Leave the range, lower the payload and price from regular bombers and I think you’ve got a good piece there.
Who has already made this piece? I miss-labeled the skytrain as a light bomber.
IL,
HBG made the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber available in their U.S. Supplement Set at the same time as the Paratroopers and C-46s.
“Tall Paul”
Show me the link on his site. I only see two American based products that are out: Marines and the American set. Marines got just fighters, other got one bomber type of plane.
@Imperious:
Show me the link on his site. I only see two American based products that are out: Marines and the American set. Marines got just fighters, other got one bomber type of plane.
Dark Green:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces–United-States-Supplement-set-Dark-Green_p_626.html
Olive Drab:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces--United-States-Supplement-set-Olive-Drab_p_663.html
ok got it. I didn’t notice two bomber types since i sent them back to get OOB colors.
I will adjust the unit profiles shortly.
What are your thoughts on the early war fighter for the US. The P40 fighter, I guess one will go to China at start up as the Flying Tigers.
Well the issue is most players are not getting any early war fighters. Id just assume the P-40 was a total OOB replacement and the p-38 could be something else.
The info. for the B-25 and any thoughts about German set #2, The Early War Russian Set, or French Set that we have a list knowing what they are going to be. And what are you’re thoughts about the Table Tactics accessories stuff?
I don’t deal with table tactics. The Quality is too marginal. The ships are terrible and they don’t belong on the game table.
I have bought alot of that product but no longer use them since HBG and FMG
IL,
I too have some Table Tactics pieces. And I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions on their detail quality, or lack thereof.
“Tall Paul”
