AARHE: Phase 2: Units

All fair points. I look forward to your upcoming house rule releases!

I’m testing my own advanced 42 game. Test results so far here in my thread.
I got to half a turn oob game and said nope. Not playing this that way.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/38017/global-1942-with-general-6-stars-advanced-game/29

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

Can anyone think of a balanced way to make Canada its own power without connecting it with Anzac?

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

Lets suppose that units generated by the mobilization of minor ally nations can visually be distinguished rather than simply merge into the armies of the controlling power.

This might just mean, for example, a yellow stripe on a French infantry to mark it as Belgian. With all the new pieces available if you contact WOTC this becomes practical.

What differences might these units have?

+1 in combat when defending their homeland; -1 elsewhere, or if their homeland is under enemy occupation?

e.g. - If Poland is under German occupation, will Polish units in the Russian army be less effective fighting for Russia, unless it means fighting over Poland itself?

option to place a new unit in the respective homeland each turn (with a sensible total limit - probably the original starting number; i.e. you can never have more than 3 & 1 Belgian inf and art).

One might extend the principle to colonies, e.g. marking some UK units as Canadian, South African, Indian, Anzac etc.

Would separate Bavarian units be representative of German political divisions?

Polish corps in the Russian army?

Austria-Hungary might have a real problem…

Thanks.  Will try next game!

How about these varient pieces such as,

Blockhouses (I use the mall units from Tri-opoly)
Improves infantry defense to 3 on a matching 1/1 basis. Must have at least 1 infantry in territory to construct. Units hit by a blockhouse during an amphibious assault cannot counter-attack on the first round.
During an offshore bombardment from a battleship, hits are assigned to blockhouses first.
Finland/Norway, Germany, and Western Europe each start with one.
Atk: 0
Def: 3
Move: 0
Cost: 5

Half Tracks (includes armored cars)
Can blitz as a tank.
Considered a tank when transporting.
Carries 1 infantry OR 1 artillery, 2 spaces.
Starting placement: On every territory that contains 1 infantry and 1 tank.
Atk: 2
Def: 2
Move: 2
Cost: 5

LHP / LHA / LHD
Carries 1 fighter and 2 infantry units, no artillery or tanks (If you use chopper units they carry that instead of fighters)
Atk: 1
Def: 3
Move: 2
Cost: 16 (same as carrier)