Matrix Games Forums

The impact of anti-aircraft/anti-tank techs should be given more weight over mobility tech upgrades for infantry/tanks as they were in WW2. I have chosen to mod infantry/tank upgrades with anti-tank/anti-air and give .5 in attack/defense values. Removed mobility and replaced it with anti-tank. Anti-air have been put into good roles as anti-tank, anti-infantry roles & anti-tank techs have also been put into multiple roles.

I like this modification as it is historically accurate. The way I see it you should build your unit with the integrated mobility from the start if you wish, no need for the upgrade.

USA units would probably be the beneficiary of mobility in all purchases, make it inherent in the original cost.

Attaching an HQ to the unit would signify the use of the HQ's motor pool and immediately provide that unit with additional mobility for another variation.

This could all be country specific in the build Q, perhaps also dependent on the amount of oil MPPs a country possesses, making those resources additionally important.

Yes mobility increase should be due to hq attachment.

ORIGINAL: aesopo

Yes mobility increase should be due to hq attachment.

HQ's already do this in most cases. Attacking units in enemy territory require a HQ to get to supply level 6 or higher, otherwise mobility is reduced.

Where in Rule book does it say must be in supply of 6 or higher or there is a mobility penalty
Thanks,

I never read the rule book but it seems to be the rule of thumb in my experience

Interestingly, an accurate observation by crispy.

ORIGINAL: nnason

Where in Rule book does it say must be in supply of 6 or higher or there is a mobility penalty
Thanks,

Hi Noah

If you refer to 7.27. SUPPLY AND ACTION POINTS TABLE in the Manual, it shows the effect of differing supply levels on your units' Action Points.

Essentially, keep them at 6 or more and they will have full movement, leaving aside factors like weather, terrain, and enemy units.

Bill

Darn Manual. To much information and care put into it.

Thanks Bill for taking the time to reply.