AARHE: Phase 2: Units

@The-Captain

yes, I like the addition as well. I could see reasons both for using it and not. You can’t replace French troops and they do have the ability to reinforce a British newly conquered TTy.

Giving the Brits a couple extra dudes that could be used in LCV attacks along with the Ftr would be nice too. Especially as UK has a lot of mouths to feed IPC wise.
Ftr can also help against U-boats.

Anyway, it’ll be fun to try out. I like having the option. I will add for next triplea update, although it’s a pretty easy edit but we might as well make it as push button friendly as we can :)

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

@Larrie:

Wow, things can really get out of hand, can’t they? First of all, I stand corrected, but only to a point. What I mean by that is, Baron, you are correct, all planes would be defending, therefore they would be in the air to begin with. What I was still trying to address is the statement, Cannot carry plane when damaged. That is still incorrect. If say A British carrier has one British and one American fighter on it and is in the attacking force, and it is the British turn, then the American fighter of course would not participate in the attack. It would be relegated to sitting on deck, and if the carrier is subsequently damaged, the American fighter would still be on deck, not able to take off on the American turn. Again I am addressing Cannot carry plane, not anything else.

You were right about this statement, it was too absolute and didn’t accurately describe OOB rule.
That is why I answered by adding the point on friendly aircrafts trapped in a carrier.
But, if your carrier is damaged, it is not possible to trap your own aircrafts inside.
This last point wasn’t clear, especially when subs only are attacking @2 first strike carriers with no destroyer escorting. I returned to the rulebook to be sure about it.

@Baron:

@Larrie:

Baron, I have to disagree with you on the cannot carry plane when damaged statement. They cannot launch or receive planes after being damaged, but if for example a loaded carrier was surprise attacked by a sub and only damaged and not sunk, then I believe the plane(s) would be trapped on the carrier until such time as it was repaired or sunk.

Talking OOB rules, …

On offense, only friendly plane(s) carried on board is/are trapped if the carrier was damaged in combat.

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

@knp7765:

Hey Yavid,
You mentioned a mechanized AA gun but we currently don’t have a piece to represent them. When AMERIKA comes out we will. At least for Germany, Japan and US.

Sorry guys I had to do without a computer for a few weeks (long story).

But yeah I thought around the time the announcement for '42.2 was made and that AAA units were going to be a thing HBG would start putting AAA units in there sets. I had visions of Bofors and Quad .50 running through my head. Axis and Allies Minis has alot of good ideas on what units to make for a mobile AA gun. Half-tracks carrying Quad .50 Wirbelwind tanks stuff like that. But it looks like either it wasn’t thought of or discounted. So painting some Amerika pieces seems like what going to be what I’m doing.

I think the plane that is in the FMG set as the transport plane could double for a light/medium bomber.

Yeah, those other Soviet planes would be cool to get.  Unfortunately, FMG’s USSR set is a while away yet – USA is next up and Britain/ANZAC are after them.  I’m pretty sure HBG won’t come out with Russians until after we find out just what is going to be in the FMG USSR set.

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.

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?