Lets Talk Flack Towers

@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.

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

And another question if they were in a formerly Neutral territory would they be “bipartisans”?

I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.

Have all powers include sz in their NO’s like w/Italy in AA50. Separate sz from the NO’s and create new NO’s for the sea. That way you would have land NO’s & sea NO’s.
**NO’s have been introduced into the game, and would keep things sorta simple. I’m not sure I like that though because it would be an all or nothing deal. Have certain sz worth 1 ipc or so (as Bardoly said) and basically let each power fight over them. Sorry still not to crazy about Germany being in what would be considered a UK zone and getting paid for it. Assign sz to each power and if those zones are in enemy hands it cost you $ or damage markers at your capitol.(could be determined by dice but might cost to much with SBR & rockets) this makes sense because loss of ships would cost $. Assign 3-4 sz to each power as describe by myself and others. If you keep these zones clear of enemy war ships you collect a bonus per sz (1 ipc each) or have the chance of a larger bonus if all sz’s assigned to you are clear. You could in rare cases assign the same sz to 2 powers to add some spark (for Bardoly). In this case it is assumed each power gets more income but by not keeping your convoy zones clear you lose it, results from the ships being sunk.
**As I was typing this out I noticed it might be cool to combine #4 & #5. Say on Germany’s turn it takes control of 2 sz’s assigned to the UK. Uk places 2 damage markers on its capitol. On Uk’s turn it clears those zones so now it gets a bonus to help pay for damage. On second thought I think that would defeat the whole purpose, but in AA their is a counter balance for most things lol.

Yeah.  They can be captured as well.  Maybe each fort can modify defense of inf based on the level.

Level 1 boosts i inf defense

Level 2 two inf, and so on.

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.

my problem with German or Russian shock troops as infantry is that those units had alot of tanks, so why not just represent them with tanks.

For special  infantry they should be able to fall into one of the four catagories i already listed.

@Variable:

I’ll go ahead and add my version of the Paratrooper Rule:

Cost 4, Att 1, Def 1. Delivery method: Your choice, whatever you like best. LH rule is good (bomber drops one into first hostile zone), or many of the others here are great as well.

Here’s the kicker: Special ability- Match either 1-1 or 1-2 (haven’t play tested enough yet to decide) with DEFENDER’S UNITS, reducing the defender unit by 1 Def.

Example: 1 tank and 1 paratrooper attack 1 infantry and 1 tank. Attackers = 1@3 (tank) and 1@1 (para). Defenders = 1@2 (inf) and 1@2 (tank) instead of 1@3 (tank). If you decide to match 1-2, then defender would be 1@1 (inf) and 1@2 (tank)

Thoughts?

After going back over this a few times, I’ve decided on 1-2 matching. First, the delivery method is a bit complex and expensive. 2, with bases having their own air defense now there is more tactical AA fire on the board. 3, at a 1/1/1/4 unit, they need 2 “points” more to be worth it. So match 'em 1-2 if you use my rules.