Infantry differencials

@general-spengler Very interesting. I think having conscripts cost only $1 and be totally unable to attack is both a little sleepy and tends to give too much of an advantage to the defenders.

What about conscripts that cost $2, move 1, defend at 1 each, and attack at 1 as a stack? In other words, no matter how many conscripts you have in an attack, they all collectively only roll one die per round of battle, which only hits if the die is a 1.

This should naturally discourage players from building too many conscripts, since a stack of 5 conscripts is less cost-efficient than a single conscript.

You could also limit production of conscripts to 1 per factory and/or recruiting center per round. So if you have both a factory and a recruiting center in the same territory, you could buy up to 2 conscripts there per turn. If you have only a factory or only a recruitment center, then you could only buy 1 conscript per turn in that territory.

Well, it could add some interesting flavor to the endgame, but if you’re down to two territories, then you’re not purchasing much of anything anyway, so there won’t be much tactical difference.

One of the strongest two-territory combinations is Moscow + Caucasus, which are often worth about 12 IPCs. So, instead of 4 regular infantry, you buy 6 citizen-soldiers…but they’ll defend roughly as well. 6 hit points and 6 defensive pips vs. 4 hit points and 8 defensive pips? It’s kind of a wash.

Even if you get the design of the citizen-soldier unit right, having the rule kick in when you’re down to only a couple of territories doesn’t quite satisfy the itch I’ve got, which is to punish countries that repeatedly over-produce infantry. The idea is that if you pour out the blood of your armies like water, well, then, eventually you run out of blood! But with the two-territory rule, you could build nothing but tanks and fighters the whole game, symbolizing your anxious concern to avoid risking any more lives than you absolutely have to – and then still wind up “running out” of infantry in the endgame when your enemies push you back to your capital.

There’s nothing wrong with designing custom units, and in fact I think your citizen-soldier unit is quite well-balanced, but I don’t think the “manpower tracking” problem can be solved with any kind or kinds of custom units. It’s just not that sort of problem.

France paratrooper can also simulate commandos  along european shore.

Also, you can identify special infantry or Marines with a Control Marker below the sculp.
That way, you can increase their cost without having to buy 1914 or 1941 to get different Infantry sculpt.
I still wonder if a 3 IPCs unit can be a balanced cost for a weaker Marines unit able to move with Cruiser and BB.
As written elsewhere:

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

About Infantry moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship, it cannot simulate the initiative and offensive role being taken by Marines such as Guadalcanal.
As far as I understand, Marines were first almost everywhere in PTO while regular army troopers were mopping behind Marines and garrisoning conquered islands. Maybe the exception is Peleliu in Palau islands.

Nice idea,

but this “elite” or “veteran” Status should not be limited to infantry since all other branches of your forces gain experience too.

And there remains one tiny practical problem: how to tell veterans from raw recruits on the game board? (If you dont want to paint your miniatures or place a huge amount of markers on the board.)

Greetings,
Lars

The authoritative message :), curiously…

So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?

Didn’t think of this happening. :| I guess you’d just have to have at least 1 defending unit fighting at any one time, regardless of the amount of paras.

Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.

I admit that realism is compromised here, but if elite infantry are allowed to fill all these roles, it will mean less unit types and therefore less compexity. Believe me when I say I’m still all for historical accuracy and realism, this is just my take on things.

Yeees, Razor like. Butt iff WOTC did business that way, the stock holders will be poor. With lack of Tacs and Mechs we all need to purchase two copies each, and this will make mr. Leeds a very happy man.

remember the 4X rule in these places and also the variations on costs for infantry depending on VC.

1.  Is there a limit as to the number of infantry that can be built at VCs?

yes of course, the 4x rule…

2.  If China is incapable of replacing American aircraft or building armor, why are they given a factory in the game?  In reality, China had only the capability to build infantry - which was poorly trained and equipt.  The presence of a factory in the game allows for China to build any type of unit.

4x rule allows them to only build artillery or infantry ( or mech)

As infantry are built at victory cities, I propose removing the factory from China.

but what about artillery? China had artillery and they are but an army of misfits w/o them