Posts made by baron Münchhausen

I rethink all of it, so we have 2 ways to counteract a Marines Inf @2 paired with Art @3/ Arm @4: a) pillboxes and b) **reinforced defensive position:

@Baron:

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

A more simple way to deal with it, is to consider them as independant buying (for those extra-bucks “left over” after the main purchase):

For 1 IPC, you give to an Inf or Art +1 on def. Up to 3 units stationned in a given territory.

For 2 IPCs, you built a bunker that gives 1 extra hit to fend off an attack in a territory. Max 1 per territory.
If defenders survive but used the extra hit, it cost 1 IPC to repair the structure.

It can be SBR, but it is done differently: a single roll of 1-4 means it is destroyed, a roll of 5-6 it is undamaged.
If their is a AAA in the territory, it get 1 @1 shot on the bomber.

All these in a single territory will give: 3 units (Inf/Art) defending @3. And an extra spare hit. For the cost of 5 IPCs.

So a reinforced defensive position of 3 Inf and a bunker gives: 12+2= 14 IPCs/ 3@3 / takes 4 hits.
It’s seems superior to 2 Inf+ 2 Art= 14 IPCs  4@2 / 2 Inf+ 1 Arm= 14 IPCs/ 2@2  and 1@3 /takes 3 hits.

And reinforced defensive position of 3 Art and a bunker that gives: 15+2= 17 IPCs / 3@3 takes 4 hits,
seems slighlty inferior to 3 Inf and 2 Art: 9+8= 17 IPCs / 5@2 takes 5 hits.**

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

A more simple way to deal with it, is to consider them as independant buying (for those extra-bucks “left over” after the main purchase):

For 1 IPC, you give to an Inf or Art +1 on def. Up to 3 units stationned in a given territory.

For 2 IPCs, you built a bunker that gives 1 extra hit to fend off an attack in a territory. Max 1 per territory.
If defenders survive but used the extra hit, it cost 1 IPC to repair the structure.

It can be SBR, but it is done differently: a single roll of 1-4 means it is destroyed, a roll of 5-6 it is undamaged.
If their is a AAA in the territory, it get 1 @1 shot on the bomber.

All these in a single territory will give: 3 units (Inf/Art) defending @3. And an extra spare hit. For the cost of 5 IPCs.

So a reinforced defensive position of 3 Inf and a bunker gives: 12+2= 14 IPCs/ 3@3 / takes 4 hits.
It’s seems superior to 2 Inf+ 2 Art= 14 IPCs  4@2 / 2 Inf+ 1 Arm= 14 IPCs/ 2@2  and 1@3 /takes 3 hits.

And reinforced defensive position of 3 Art and a bunker that gives: 15+2= 17 IPCs / 3@3 takes 4 hits,
seems slighlty inferior to 3 Inf and 2 Art: 9+8= 17 IPCs / 5@2 takes 5 hits.

I like that because you are correct, in Real Live, AA was just high-velocity ammo pointed at the sky, point it at a tank life the Germans did, it became an effective anti-tank.

I like the idea of taking out tank and/or armor for the pre-combat AA roll.
I don’t know if it would be unbalanced but I think I will try this next game

Thank you

It is not a preemptive attack. It is a normal attack like Art and Inf, except if it rolls a hit, the attacker must destroy a tank and nothing else. If their is no more tank, then the AAA rolls for nothing.
That’s what I meant with:

AntiArmorArtillery that roll every round of battle @1 but destroy an Arm on a hit. And nothing else, neither Inf nor Art.

It might even be difficult to chose which piece the defender destroy: an Art@2 or an AArmorA@1? Will you take the chance on a next round to destroy a precious tank hide behind some attacking Inf units or go for the better odds to hit plain and simple? Part of the fun, I think.

@userx:

Hello Everyone

This is my first post and I’ve been lurking for a while.  Been a fan of A&A since childhood and my bro-in-law and I have recently started playing A&A Spring 1942 2 Edition.  Love the new map and new units (though we might build an anniversary edition for Italy and tech), however, we cannot seem to find benefit with the new AAA unit and both feel that it’s a waste of a piece.  After several games we decided to come up with our own rule for the piece and chose to make it a defensive artillery whereby pairing 1-to-1 with an infantry would raise the defence of the infantry to 3.  We only played one game with this rule but so far so go.  Japan build a few to help defend some islands, Germany built a couple for added defence of Western Europe, however, Russia was building 1 or 2 every turn along with infantry (they were losing).  Couple of questions:

Do others strongly feel that the AAA unit is a waste of plastic as is?
If so, have you come up with other ideas for the unit that have been play tested?

We would love to hear from others.

Thank you!

I would rather prefer to limit them to their role of AA gun but, specialy for Germany, it seems they used a lot their 88mm AAA as antitank gun (El Alamein battle, i.e.).
I suggest that the defender can choose either to use them as a usual AntiAircraftArt @1 or a
AntiArmorArtillery that roll every round of battle @1 but destroy an Arm on a hit, and nothing else (neither Inf nor Art).
Is it too unbalancing?

I try to make both units as equal opposite (measure and counter-measure) to promote a more interesting and define battle for 1942.1 and 1942.2.
Feel free to comment and evaluate the pros and cons of Marines (Elite units) vs Pillboxes (bunkers) for both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operation (ETO vs PTO).
Will it unbalance the game, and to what extent? and for whom?

I would suggest to read this thread, Re: Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes, here is one summary post:
@Baron:

Re: Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes

@Imperious:

This type of unit should be like a port.

Takes the same damage/rules as Port or Airbase.

Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage)

cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)

Only one per territory.

I would rather prefer to downsize the defensive value of pillboxes/bunker to separate them from Port or Airbase (inbuilt  AAA and 6 damage points).

Allows Inf and/or Art (but not Arm), and only 2 units to defend at 3.
Cost 4 and allows to soak 1 additionnal hit during combat _.
Must be built on a territory owned a the start of the power’s turn.
Only one per territory.
Can be SBR (4 damage points) and have no inbuilt AAA (so it’s a free ride unless their is already a AAA in the territory).
First damage point, no effect.
Second damage point, only 1 unit gets @3,
Third damage point, no unit gets bonus,
Fourth damage point and more, destroys the pillboxes/bunker and the “extra hit” protection.
Can be rebuilt on a 1 on 1 IPC basis.
If it is not damage but suffers an attack in which the bunker absorb one hit, it is “repaired” at the end of the attacking power turn (same as a battleship).

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

Is it a too powerful defense?_

I don’t like the idea of marines troopers with Att @3, instead:

@Baron:

How about an elite unit (marine, commando, SS, guard, etc.) the same ability for every country?

Elite unit: Att: 2 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost: 4, give +1 att. to one artillery or one tank, on the second round of an assault (amphibious or terrestrial). Think of it like the time to get used to the environnement and the geography of the terrain, or being able to reach and pass the shore to fight inland.

For example, if a marine unit paired with an artillery survived his first round of landing assault; on the second round, it attacks at 2, but artillery attacks at 3, instead of 2.
It is the same if it was teamed up with a tank. On first round, the tank attacks at 3, and on the second round it attacks at 4.
In summary, it works like artillery but gives better punch on costlier unit.

What do you think?

Should we raised the cost to 5? Because their will be no more inf (cost 3)+art (cost 4)?

It seems that I borrowed some of these ideas from Pjor in Two units threads:

Now to the point, new units and models.
First; Veteran infantry. A:2 D:2 M:1 cost: 5.
This unit is supposed to represent elite soldiers of each power. They are better trained, equipped and have a higher morale then the normal infantry. For example the SS Stormtroopers, British Commando or U.S Rangers. Special rules for the Veteran infantry is that if teamed up with a arty the attack value will rise to 3.

Sorry, I don’t like the idea of a marines infantry attacking at 3.

@Baron:

Re: Do you want US Marines ?

How about an elite unit (marine, commando, SS, guard, etc.) the same ability for every country?

Elite unit: Att: 2 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost: 4, give +1 att. to one artillery or one tank, on the second round of an assault (amphibious or terrestrial). Think of it like the time to get used to the environnement and the geography of the terrain, or being able to reach and pass the shore to fight inland.

For example, if a marine unit paired with an artillery survived his first round of landing assault; on the second round, it attacks at 2, but artillery attacks at 3, instead of 2.
It is the same if it was teamed up with a tank. On first round, the tank attacks at 3, and on the second round it attacks at 4.
In summary, it works like artillery but gives better punch on costlier unit.

What do you think?

Should we raised the cost to 5? Because their will be no more inf (cost 3)+art (cost 4)?

It seems that I borrowed some of these ideas from Pjor in Two units threads:

Now to the point, new units and models.
First; Veteran infantry. A:2 D:2 M:1 cost: 5.
This unit is supposed to represent elite soldiers of each power. They are better trained, equipped and have a higher morale then the normal infantry. For example the SS Stormtroopers, British Commando or U.S Rangers. Special rules for the Veteran infantry is that if teamed up with a arty the attack value will rise to 3.

P.S. Sorry for my approximate english (not my native tongue)…

@Imperious:

This type of unit should be like a port.

Takes the same damage/rules as Port or Airbase.

Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage)

cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)

Only one per territory.

I would rather prefer to downsize the defensive value of pillboxes/bunker to separate them from Port or Airbase (inbuilt  AAA and 6 damage points).

Allows Inf and/or Art (but not Arm), and only 2 units to defend at 3.
Cost 4 and allows to soak 1 additionnal hit during combat _.
Must be built on a territory owned a the start of the power’s turn.
Only one per territory.
Can be SBR (4 damage points) and have no inbuilt AAA (so it’s a free ride unless their is already a AAA in the territory).
First damage point, no effect.
Second damage point, only 1 unit gets @3,
Third damage point, no unit gets bonus,
Fourth damage point and more, destroys the pillboxes/bunker and the “extra hit” protection.
Can be rebuilt on a 1 on 1 IPC basis.
If it is not damage but suffers an attack in which the bunker absorb one hit, it is “repaired” at the end of the attacking power turn (same as a battleship).

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

Is it a too powerful defense?_

@Imperious:

I think it implies that every bomber get 2 hits per SBR. Does it required to roll 1 to 4 to hit?

Bombers roll one die for damage and the result is the damage placed under the pillbox. So if it rolls 5 only 1 unit gets to roll @4

So the 3 Inf of our examples can do nothing to stop this SBR…
Sooner or later (unless repaired by IPC) the bunker will be blasted.

@Imperious:

Its better not to have a restriction…any 3 ground units @4. The idea is mostly Infantry will be candidates because of cost.

Damage is maxed at 6, first three SBR hits make it unusable.

I think it implies that every bomber get 2 hits per SBR. Does it required to roll 1 to 4 to hit? :?

I suppose that pillboxes (acting like airbase) are under a SBR,
is the 3 Inf able to hit the bomber?
If the answer is No,
does it implies that their is a AAA included in the pillboxes package, so they can stop the bomber with preemptive @1 shot?
:?

You say:

"if the bunker gets a 4th hit

by SBR implied

, only 2 units fire at 4. If a 5th hit, only 1. 6th hit none.

"
How does SBR work in this case?

If a bomber rolls a “6”, is it a hit or a miss?
Does it require a 4 or less?
Or is it considered 6 hits, so no more bunker?
Or if 1 bomber gets one hit (dice roll 1 to 4), it means that we need 6 SBR to get ride of this bunker/pillboxes?

I input this example in a precedent post:

@Baron:

What happens in an amphibious assault on those two Inf?
It will take only 2 hits to get ride of them, isn’t it?
Even though they hit twice with their @4, 2 shots by the attackers in the first round (think of a coastal bombardment @4 with a lucky 1 Inf@1) and it is over for them.

Don’t you find this quite unreal to have a defensive item unable to protect 2 inf against 1?
I’m still thinking of long (hours) and numerous bombardment against japanese pillboxes unable to touch the defenders and taking the marines flatfooted when they arrived on the beach to fall on a heavy fire from the hidden japanese defenders.

@Imperious:

Well they just roll @4. If they are hit and no other units remain, the Bunker is wrecked ( max damage at 6). All the bunker does is boost up to three units @4 ( minus damage).

To be sure to fully understand you’re idea “minus damage”:
if the bunker receives 2 hits by SBR and 2 Inf are within, both are now defending at 3, isn’t?
And if there is a third Inf, it still defends @4?
And two more hits by SBR will give to those 3 Inf: Def 2/2/3?
And finally, a total of 6 hits by SBR, no more bunker: 3 Inf defending as usual, 2/2/2?

I suggested the cost of 2 to obtain a “free hit” that can not reduce the number of defending units to mimmick the presence of further units on a territory.
So a lesser number of soldiers can endure much more in a fortified position than on open ground, like the sand beach of an island.
Inf cost 3, so a “unit” unable to attack nor defend but still counting as one (like an AAA in 1942.2) must be less expensive.

I see,
but it seems from MHPV that the capacity to soak a hit is a better way to recreate the spirit of a month long assault on a fortified ground, like Iwo Jima.

What happens in an amphibious assault on those two Inf?
It will take only 2 hits to get ride of them, isn’t it?
Even though they hit twice with their @4, 2 shots by the attackers in the first round (think of a coastal bombardment @4 with a lucky 1 Inf@1) and it is over for them.

What you suggest seems too powerful in a 1942.2 scenario for example.
I’m thinking about 1 Japan Inf, in Iwo Jima for instance.
It’s not a naval base but the Inf is deeply underground.
How a pillboxes homerule can provide a feeling of this hard won battle?

I’m not used to the airbase rule (I think Iwo Jima was an airbase) but can they provide the capacity to soak 1 hit like BB?

Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage) cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)

Only one per territory.

If its limited to one per territory, it will only cost 3.
It boosts and protects only 1 INF or ART (not 3 units) and can be place anywhere either island or inland.
By

Makes any three units with it defend at 4

, do you imply any type such Inf Art and Arm, so its still only one unit that get boosted ?