Lets Talk Machine Guns

Germany and USSR may produce a self propelled gun.

Attack at 2 (But in the first round, on a 3 or less, ennemy tank cannot defend and remove from the gameboard). - Kinda sub first shot attack-
Defend at 2
move = 2
cost = 5

MY buddy and I tried out landmines  on Monday. We made them 5 IPC, covered one border, and basically acted the same way AA guns do, but for land unites. If territory was captured mines are destroyed.  Found out these make USSR a bit to powerful, however they did come in handy for Italy as well.

Here’s our WAW rules.

Mechanized infantry=

Move 2 (units can retreat after one round of combat).
att = 2
def= 2
Cost = 4

(Japan,france and China cannot produce mechanized infantry).

@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.

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

@Imperious:

slippery slope will follow that kind of rule. it should be one and if you do with 2-3 or even 4 it turns into WW3 ICBM game. Thats not really AA. It could be fun once, but a trick to be exploited. In all house rules you have to get away with the idea of allowing players to buy tons of items that can break a game. This would be the case with the old discussion on paratroopers and that “buck Rodgers exploit”.

I willl try to play a game soon with my a-bomb rules( which is really yours) , and tell you how it goes

let them land where-ever, but you could base their attack/move values on where they take off from.  if from a carrier, they act like a naval fighter, if from land, then a normal air force fighter….

@Imperious:

Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?

1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.

I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice.  So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several.  But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations,  (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports?  Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units?  This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.