If you could choose any TWO new unit sculpts, what would they be?

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

Addressing the issue of unit size, individual pieces in Axis & Allies typically depict the Corps or Army level, as I understand it. However, there are a few deviations to depict smaller, independent commands, such as the two British infantry in Hong Kong and the French and British infantry scattered in West Africa south of the Sahara.

I understand the desire to be able to build every type of unit, but I think that scarcity places correct emphasis on those troops’ elite status. The mobilization rule would be a quirk: the Legion has periodically fought on the mainland (as during WWI, for example). Its frequent foreign deployments are rather a reflection of the fact that the Legion’s peculiar non-national composition gives French politicians greater latitude to pursue foreign policy that has some blood cost.

I think that Frogmen should get to roll a d6 against every capital ship, hitting on a 2 or less. They should have no independent combat value because they operated as small units, not at the division level.

When it comes to Marine infantry, the question is whether you view naval units of any type as indicative of fleets (e.g., a Destroyer could stand in for a single capital ship), or whether you want them to represent actual unit types, in which case I don’t think a Cruiser or Battleship should be allowed to carry Marines. Historically speaking, Cruiser divisions sometimes fielded Marine and naval landing parties, but these comprised perhaps slightly over 100 men when multiple ships combined their detachments.

Think about whether you want to confer advantage to certain units only for certain rounds of combat. The difficulty of remembering when and how to roll for them can be partially mitigated by player aids.

One additional unit type for which HBG makes a piece is the Armored Car. This is especially good if you want to game out the inter-war period. I have developed rules allowing attackers to re-roll a die when an Armored Car is present in the attacking force. This is a play on their role as reconnaissance elements. Think about Cavalry, also. Perhaps Cavalry strike harder versus infantry when they outnumber defenders.

I’ve used cards to trigger the appearance of special units denoted by markers. They can also be used to grant nation-specific bonuses for a single round of play, etc. This works better on much larger maps with a game that is expected to go on a while, especially because the cards can be used as interrupts, which prevents players getting bored between turns.

GenHandGrenade, I applaud you for working on implementing a new unit. But of course not everyone is readily going to accept your HR idea.

I agree with Narvik in sentiment. I would play a HR described by him. Also, I think there should be no restrictions on the amount of units for purchase. No single unit should be so powerful that you have to put a restriction on the amount.

I think your HR over represents this type of unit and made it too powerful in retrospect to the representation of the size of the units in this strategic level board game.

I think the “SFU” should be: C5 / A1 /  D2 / M2 + Airborne attack movement up to 3 spaces from an air base (like the Airborne tech from OOB). Artillery pair up the SFU to +1 for attacks (not the other way around of SFU pairing up other units). 4 spaces is too far in this game I think and changes the game dynamics too much I think.

Combined Arms Explanation: Modern US Army Airborne Rangers call in artillery (or an A-10 Thunderbolt II) for support. So in the game, a “SFU” should be paired up by artillery, not it pairing up other units.

US Army Special Forces (SF as Soldiers say or “Green Berets” to the general public), Navy Seals, and Delta Force (off shoot of SF), usually don’t operate above a platoon sized element. Only Army Rangers operate up to a battalion level. Essentially, Rangers are just infantry, (bad ass elite infantry, but infantry nonetheless). Ranger units and Airborne Divisions were sized large enough in WW2 to “barely” be represented in this game as a single unit on the board.

Cost Explanation for 5 IPCs: 4 IPCs account for the 2 space movement ability like mech +1 more IPC to account for the cost of the airborne “transport” option from an air base. This way mech remain the main mobile infantry and tanks still roll overall better while being the justified higher 6 IPC cost.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

How about… everyone gets ALL tech all the time?

OR, everyoen gets a random tech at game start?

Perhaps, to make trucks a bit more vulnerable, is make trucks susceptible to raids from enemy fighters and tac bombers. That way, there would be a way to counter the use of trucks, and force players to use them more sparingly. This would make sure that tanks are still being purchased. It might even be enough to eliminate mechanized all together as well.

Sounds pretty cool but very complicated. Implamenting something like this opens up a whole can of worms becouse if you have these, what about PT boats? They were fast attack boats armed with torpedeos and depth charges. if you want these type of units you have to move the game into a 12 die system. 6 die cannot support anymore units that are currently in the game.

Thanks for the clarification C_F. It will definitely even the game out or even favors the Axis. Africa is much more attractive since the value essentially doubles for the Axis. The Axis can exploit the many odd IPCs territories. The Axis will catch up to the Allies economically in no time while having a superior number of units.