AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)

National Units:

Russia= Once per turn Russia may purchase 2 armor units and place them in Moscow for a total of 8 IPCs.

Germany= For every IC where no surface naval units are built in a given turn, 1 sub may be built there for 6 IPCs.
(From Wikipedia: Having no hope of defeating the vastly superior Royal Navy decisively in a surface battle, the German High Command immediately stopped all construction on capital surface ships save the nearly completed Bismarck class battleships and two cruisers and switched the resources to submarines, which could be built more quickly. Though it took most of 1940 to expand the production facilities and get the mass production started, more than a thousand submarines were built by the end of the war.)

UK= All fighters purchased and placed in London cost 8 IPCs. All UK fighters get +1 defense in London.

Japan= Once per turn Japan may purchase 3 infantry units and place them in Tokyo for a total of 7 IPCs. For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
(This is to represent all of the following: Japanese Warrior Code, Banzai attacks (ironically used on defense), dug-in defenders and Japanese jungle warfare.)

US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
(Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

This is pretty balanced…
Russian, UK, US advantages worth about 1.5+2.5+1.5 (per turn, respectively) = 5.5
German and Japanese advantages worth about 3+2.5 = 5.5

+++++++this is more like it! add this to the draft.

Lynxes:

thanks for posting that. You got some good ideas. I like the nation specific units BTW and i think something along the lines of what you have can be looked at in phase two.

@theduke:

in Moscow…in London…in Tokyo

Nice. I like restricting National Units to locations when appropriate for even more realism.

But only Japan has infantry power now? I thought we wanted Russia and Germany to have it.

@theduke:

For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.

Wait are we mixing up between National Unit and National Advantage?
Are we still doing the Banzai attack?
I actually like the +1 attack but no retreat. I think no retreat is important to model the spirit!
I even think give them have +1 defense too.
Again for modelling the situation I think Japan can’t use it unless they are outnumbered.

US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
(Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

I know they are fast. But I am not sure they are “faster” at 33 knots.
Strangely, googling “fast carriers” I actually saw reference to Japanese.

“For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.”

+++ i think on this Japan should instead get :    once per turn the Japanese player can elect a banzai attack and commit his infantry to attack with a +1 combat modifier, but must continue attacking untill he is destroyed or the attack suceeds. Secondly his infantry defending in his own territories on any islands (including Japan) gets a +1 defense modifier on the first round of combat.

So Banzai for both attack and defense it is  :-D

Still seeing what you have to say about Essex and fast  :-P

I think the Point is that their were more US Escort Carriers out there and used with incredible effectiveness in both theatres…

I agree with this however this idea is very entrenched in players minds as the “japanese style attack”  Perhaps instead of infantry we could go back to special Japanese fighters with a modifier +1 on attack and cheaper to allow the initial Japanese advantage of the “lance” torpedo which the US had no equilevant too.

so:
Japanese fighters cost 6 IP and get a +1 attack on naval ships in the opening combat round

OK now back to some other ideas:

German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.

UK home defense: British fighters defending in home territories get a +1 defense modifier

Soviet Shock armies: Soviet armor units in the opening round of combat get premtive attack in the first round of combat

Japanese:  allready covered

USA: “blood and guts”  all armored units ( and mech infantry) can attack one territory and if they take it can continue onto a second attack in an adjacent enemy controlled territory .

Or you can install some US marines type of deal…

@Guerrilla:

I think the Point is that their were more US Escort Carriers out there and used with incredible effectiveness in both theatres…

Cool. So we can go without the move of 3 then.  :lol:

@Imperious:

German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.

Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.

Good to see national unit and national attack are represented clearly again.

I guess he is saying the German tactic also meant better fighting or less prepared defense by enemy.

But we don’t let bombers attack again do we?

so what are you saying?

bombers attack again like fighters like tanks in OOB’s panzerbltiz?

I meant the bomber piece on the game board

I see now, only dive bombers take part in blitzkrieg

German Blitzkreig: these units get a +1 combat modifier against enemy ground units in every round where no enemy fighters are present. They also give one armor unit a +1 attack with each paired unit at a 1/1 basis.

Yep you’ve had displayed this rule before, good to have to eliminate enemy fighers first.

OK ill explain how it could work… under the land combat system… air fights air and land fights land… once one side has “cleared the sky” after any combat round… they ( lets use the germans in our example) get this advantage as a matter of course due to the revolutionary concept of Blitzkreig. Specialized planes (dive bombers… skuka) worked well with advancing armor columns and took out the enemy armor and other strong points to allow the classic breakthru. This was clearly a german concept for war with the mind set of quick victories and a method of getting them. Armor gets a +1 because the divebombers are destroying and assisting the armor to accomplish this task. The benifit has to be rewarded with this bonus… so the germans will commit their armor ( a risk that they acknowledge fully)… i dont want to reward germany to use infantry… we allready have this with artillery giving the bonus to infantry, now planes give the bonus to armor… does this make any sense?

Duke writes:

“Well, I guess it’s clear, but not realistic. What does blitzkreig have to do with attack modifier? The OOB blitz rules were more realisitc in that if you atack for 1 round only, then you can attack again with armor. I think if we just include fighters to that also, we’d have a simple, realistic advantage.”

IN OOB your armor does not attack and attack again…But i do favor something like this in my games ( which have many more territories) in our project something like a “Breakthrough and exploitation” phase would not work because their are too few territories IMO.

Trust Imperious Leader to come up with solutions.
He has many games behind him.

Its probably true that our territories are too big for that.

There is a level of abstaction with respect to time and place that are key ingredients when assigning rules that may interfere with the established “unit” of scale. So some rules may be more complex or less abstracted but as long as they conform to the time and scale of the game they can be made to work.