Lets Talk Dive Bombers

@Yavid:

As for me, I don’t mind having 2 colors for the “major powers,” 1 for standard troops and 1 for elites.

When everything is finished I’m going to have 2 color schemes(Europe/Pacific) for “standard” troops of all countries(except China) plus another scheme for certain areas on the map. This doesn’t include the Special Forces units.

For example, the U.K. would have units in a “European” scheme, a “Far East” scheme(shown above), a “Desert” scheme, and specific schemes for their “Airborne” and “Special Forces” units.

America, Germany, France & Italy would also have “Desert” schemes.
Russia, Germany, & China would have “Winter” schemes.
Special Forces units galore.
Etc., Etc., Etc.

Those really are amazing. � Whose your painter again?

“Allworkandnoclay” is my painter and I’m very happy with his work. I love his idea of painting the national ensigns of each country on their Infantry bases. I come up with what I want and pay for them and he paints them. As long as his eyes don’t go blind,…or I go bankrupt from paying for them, we’ll eventually get ALL of the units done. We still have a ways to go as all of the HBG and FMG units haven’t been produced yet.

“Tall Paul”

All I know is that I’m heading over to Larry Harris forum to get my $.02 in.

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Rocket Tech now has two levels: V1 and V2.  Rolling Rockets gets you V1s.  A second roll on rockets get you V2s.

V1 costs 1 IPC, has a range of two, and does damage = 1d6 halved.  Radar makes a country immune to V1s.
*If you think this makes Radar too powerful, AA roles 1 die against each V1.  A role of 1 fails to shoot it down
**If you think the above rule allows too many V1s to hit, use a d10 or d12 for more realistic statistics.

V2 costs 2 IPCs, has a range of 3, and does damage = 1d6.  Theses rockets are unstoppable.  May carry an Atomic Bomb.
*If you think that is too powerful, make a V3 level for nukes.

these are good rules, i think AA guns and and fighters should be able to intercept them like regular aircraft though. i was able to shoot down a V1 buzz bomb in a WW2 flight simulator game.

I think the V2 rule are good to, although i dont think they were as effective a stratigic attacks as a whole bomber group. Maybe half their damage and keep them costing 1.

I like the idea of V3 and maybe even V4 rockets that can launch nukes even long distance

We have introduced Oil rule la couple of years ago.
In our 1939 game rules, Axis players doesn’t have oil so they have to fight to get some because they’re going to face a penalty after the 7th round.

If you conquer a neutral oil territory you receive form the bank, twice of the value of the territory.
Ex: Saudi Arabia = 2 IPC so you’ll receive 4 IPC.
When you invade an ennemy oil territory, the player must give you twice of the value of the territory. Ex: Egypt = 2 so UK player must pay 4 IPC.

enough space, but not enough money from WOTC to develop both.

@Bardoly:

0   Defense - This unit can stop tanks from blitzing the same as an aa gun can.

thats kind of a crazy rule, i dont c the point in it or the historical backing.

Otherwise my main concern is that i dont think these rules add a lot of stratagy except making three of each players land armies super strong.

Why cant you have naval or air commanders?