Stats for New Units from Historical Boardgaming?

Hello, I have been scrolling threw the HBG website and have found many interesting custom units with either no rules, or a rules pdf that is no longer available. I had a few ideas, and I would love feedback/more ideas.

Mercenary’s - 1IPC/turn/infantry, max 3. This could be cool feature if you need temporary forces in a certain area you could hire mercenarys for 2-3 turns, but if you just left them there it would cost you way more money then they are worth.

Assassins - Infantry that cost 5 IPC, get a target select on 1 on a D12 against a commander (Commanders expansion set)

Military Police - I was thinking they could increase rail transport, and decrease partisan activity. or they could allow transit on damaged rail.

I would love feedback, and more ideas.

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

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.

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

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.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

in WWII there where competitive advantages that the powers had:

France - ? (running away)

it was too easy, but still made me laugh… :roll:

once you got the rules worked out, it will fly really fast. you still have lots of questions so well address them here and get you going. Tekkyy will make clarifications when issues warrant them.

still a small AC Bomber could take out BB