Proposed unit values for FMG and COI using D6 or national D12 values

The Leader is the only “new” unit, and it is several ways to use it.

• In some games he is a “force multiplier”. He dont have any inherent combat value, but units in his space get a modifier, like infantry attacking together with a Leader now attack at 2 or less. Not hard to imagine how the final attack on Moscow will be unbalanced with a Leader. We dont like this idea.

• In other games he got his own combat value, and act as an Elite unit composed by inf, art and tanks, leaded by a skilled General. He would be the Queen in Chess, like the inf is the pawn, the tank is the tower, fighter is bishop etc. We dont like this either.

• I think the best way is to let the Leader unit represent a HQ. It got no combat value inherent. It just command the troops in his own space, and possible the adjacent spaces too.

1. When defending with a General, the defenders should be able to retreat after any round of combat.

2. Defending Generals should also be able to scramble fighters from adjacent territories that have Airbases.

3. In attack, motorized units should be able to move one more space after success in the first battle. Either let motorized units retreat to friendly space or let them continue combat move to next hostile territory. Blitzkrieg with breakthrough and exploitation did take a skilled General to command the troops, in comparison to Human Wave assaults wich anybody could command.

4. Maybe even Amphibious Assaults should need a General ? Without a skilled General you cant invade from the sea, co-ordinate the shore bombardment from Battleships, the ground support from the figthers and Tac’s, paratroopers and the logistics and supply. After all, Amphibious Assaults is a joint attack with naval, air and land units. A complex operation like this should need a Commander.

5. Maybe “Combined Arms” between different branches too should need a General ? Tac’s attacking together with Tanks only get a boost if a General is present. A joint attack with air units and land units need a Leader. Inf and art is different because they are both land units.

6. And what about Joint Operations ? US and UK units may attack together if commanded by an Allied General. Even Italian and German units may attack together if commanded by an Axis General. Lets say a General may create a Task Force with all units present in his space, both naval, air and land units, and other allied units. An Allied General in seazone 65 may command ships from US, UK and ANZAC, and let them combat move together. An Axis General in Romania may command German, Italian, Hungarian, Rumenian and other Axis minors and let them combat move together.

More on the Leader piece.

I think the General could act as a Liason Officer in Joint Operations and Combined Arms Operations.

As always I love your ideas, man, but we keep bickering about important issues.

I dont like that a Leader can be taken off the board in one phase and placed anywhere on the board in next phase, because that is a new “Special Rule” that add more complexity, and we dont need that.
Leader cost 20 IPC, move 6 spaces, 0 att/0 def. New Leaders must be placed at an IC just like the other units.

It takes time to develope skilled leaders and HQ’s that work. No neutral nation should start with a Leader, and you may only purchase one each turn. So how many should the nations start with ?

• Russia should start with none. Stalin had just purged the officer corps, and this was proved in the Winter War against Finland, the poor invasion of the Baltics and East Poland, and the “victory” at Khalkin Gol.

• USA should start with none. At peace and ignorant, the US HQ’s was not at a high enough level to justifie a Leader piece on the board.

• Italy start with none. They used royal princes, baron’s and counts as poor leaders.

• UK had some good Admirals, but not as many skilled HQ’s as Germany.

• Germany should start with a lot. The german Blitzkrieg; Infiltration- and Auftrags-taktik was based on skilled leaders, and Whermacht put great effort into develope good leaders. And German HQ’s got experience from 1936 in Spain, and 1939 in Poland, where they developed their skills. How many to start with is a good question, but they must start with more than the others.

• Japan had been in war with China from 1937 and had gained some experience, even if the Emperor and the Bushido cult did not give the local leaders too much freedom of decisions, like their fellow germans did enjoy. Also a lot of the early japanese victories could be blamed on poor allied leadership. The taking of Singapore, Hong Kong and Phillipineas was just plain luck with the dice, and the attack on Pearl Harbour was a failure since they did not destroy the carriers, the oil depot on Hawaii nor the port facilities.

• China, France and ANZAC are to small to get leaders . Maybe even let Italy join this club.

Set-up 1940
Germany 3 leaders
Japan 1
Italy 0

USA 0
Russia 0
UK 2
ANZAC 0
China 0

@Imperious:

General : with this unit on defense you can retreat. ON attack you can move any units one extra space as long as they end up with the general at the end of the move.

I think a Leader unit should be able to do this with both land, air and naval units. A Leader is the brain that see possibilities in combat situations. A Leader can be a General, an Admiral or an Air Marshall.

Defense :If land/air units with a leader in a territory is attacked, they may retreat after any round of combat. If naval/air units with a leader in a seazone is attacked, they may retreat after any round of battle.

Attack: If the attacking land/air units go with a leader, they may move one extra space if they conquer the contested territory. They may now non-combat move to a friendly territory or make a continious combat move to another enemy territory. The Leader must go together with them.

If attacking naval/air units go with a leader, they may move one extra space if they sink all the enemy ships in the contested seazone. They may non-combat move to a not-hostile seazone or make a continious combat move to another hostile seazone. The Leader must go together with them.

Amphibious Assaults need a Leader.

Drop fighters to 6 ipcs. Also, Will Tacs still increase fighter attack value +1?

APs should defend at 1. but why not at planes? seems the only defence that transports really had was small anti-aircraft guns against fighters and tacs. I would have it transports ONLY defend @1 against fighters and tacs

Definately like the idea tacs choose hit on roll of 1.

What cost would you make the trucks?

What I miss is a selfpropelled Artillery piece.

We got 2 kinds of infantry, 2 kinds of tanks, 2 kinds of fighters, but only one King of the Battlefield.

Selfpropelled artillery, cost 5 IPC, move 2, attack 2 and def 2 and boost one matching infantry.

The inf/art combo cost 7 IPC and move 1 space.
The Mech/Sp.Art combo cost 9 IPC and move 2 spaces.

Tank/Mech cost 10 IPC and attack with 4 pips.
Sp.Art/Mech cost 9 IPC and attack with 4 pips.

Nobody will buy tanks anymore ?
Unless the Blitz- rule says tanks, and tanks only, may move one additional space after combat in the first place. Then tanks could retreat and hide in a friendly terr (superior strafe attack unit) or blitz into next enemy terr.

Anyway, the Selfpropelleds sure look good:

@Imperious:

fighters at 6 is a bust. A flying tank that covers 2 more spaces and can more efficiently react to many combat situations is worth 4 IPC

I don’t believe in all these bonuses. Only tanks should effect any other land units with combined. Artillery boosting infantry is nonsense. No infantry got double strength on attack any more than any other units fighting together would.

not finished with fighter-bombers, they may get some “if they roll a one they choose hit type of thing”

This is where I propose the having two hits for heavy bombers idea: heavy bombers, who couldn’t target as accurately but could drop more bombs have 2 attacks at a 2 or 3 and tac bombers, who could do precision attacks, have one attack, but at a 4

@Imperious:

Bombers with two attacks like in The War Game?  Naw thats too radical and bombers would get priced too high for that advantage. If you lost the bomber you would never rebuild it.

That’s exactly what I’m thinking (and I freely admit that that’s where I got the idea; I’d been experimenting for years with d12-based systems before I got TWG but their multiple attacks idea was, I thought, genius.)  I don’t remember off-hand how much they cost in TWG, but I don’t remember them being exhorbitant.  I also like their idea of giving CA’s and BB’s an additional attack/defense for their secondary (at a 2, since BB/CA secondaries were similar and/or identical to DD-guns in their punching power) which makes the larger ships more worthwhile (as opposed to having massive fleets of only small ships: there’s a reason why they didn’t do that in the real world…)

I think the secondaries for BB/CAs should only be for AA fire.