Global 1940 Combat Engineer Unit

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I now think a similar idea could apply to Finland.

Its 4 infantry can only move in the following territories:

Finland
Vyborg
Karelia
Norway
Sweden (not if the Axis are at war with the strict neutrals)

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.

@argothair

An interesting idea, to be sure! But where will we get the new units? Thank you!

@Young:

@Baron:

@Young:

Cruisers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Aircraft Carriers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Battleships
receive 2@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Do you realize that these warships are made better at destroying directly planes than planes themselves?

Sorry… I don’t understand your question.

According to usual casualty order, when planes will roll a hit in naval combat, the owner usually choose a Submarine or a Destroyer before 10 IPCs Fighters.
With your suggested rule, CA, CV and BB will take down aircrafts with more regularity than planes’ hit rolled.  To me it seem paradoxical.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

You could use the same general rules for AA50, but you would have to pick one of the AA 50 setups (1941 or 1942) then add up the total cost of starting units to get the starting cash for each country. For one thing, I think there are less starting pieces for all the nations because AA 50 has a smaller map than the 1940 games so there are less pieces. Another thing is I think the prices are a little different in AA50 than in the 1940 games, plus you won’t have Tac Bombers or Mechanized Infantry as those units didn’t come out until the 1940 games.
Also, I’m not sure how you would handle China, since in AA50 they don’t actually get IPCs but rather 1 infantry for every 2 Chinese territories still under Chinese control at the beginning of their turn.
Other than a few small changes though, I think you could still adapt this idea to AA50.