AARHE: Phase 2: Units

@The-Captain

Thank you for clarifying!

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.

nice piece…

@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.

WOW! that is very impressive. I will get to work on the background sheets. So just make at a patient pace and we will have the final product that will be even more impressive.

good job!

Yes private emails and a few PM’s its been going on for about 4 months. Its usually ok, but that last one was rather long. I answerd the first 5 questions and felt it would take me alot of time which i didnt have.

thanks again.

replace
“its income cannot be spent in other territories.
That income and only that income can be spent in its IC or VC during purchase units phase this turn.
That income is forfeited if not spent this turn.”

with
“The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
If the blockade territory’s income is not spent this turn it is forfeited.”

right.