BTW,

I’d like to see a few more VCs.

Germany should have one in Warsaw and Kiev. (That would be E. Europe and Ukraine, I believe.)
England should have one in Cairo (That would be Egypt, I believe) and Toronto (E. Canada)
Japan should probably have one in the E. Indies; it was a MAJOR target in their campaign after all.

That should even out the VCs so that each side would need 12. (instead of 11/10.)

I’d even suggest moving the American VC from Hawaii to Midway.  For some ungodly reason, no one ever makes Midway important, and yet, it was THE turning point in the real war!  At least with a VC there, it may be contested for once.

As for Hawaii, I just don’t see the strategic importance in history of making it a VC.  Even the Japanese never bothered invading it.  They landed in Attu Island and attacked Midway. (BTW, Attu for those who do not know, are the Alutian Islands which are part of Alaska.)

Be intestesting to allow a limited land bridge between North America and Russia along those islands too.  If you own Buryatia, SFE and Alaska you may move 2 infantry or 1 armor from/to Alaska to SFE without needing a transport to do it.  Might entice America to focus more on Japan and keep Russia from just abandoning the worthless states in the east for the lucrative states in the west as well. (Besides, it’s not easy to keep all three of those states!)

Thats right. To me, the multiple collect income causes inflation.
Yes collecting income before combat does stop this.

Regarding the essay on a pad that can be reduced. For example in AARHE the Axis/Allies sequence makes. Its not 4 turns between Russia 1 and Russia 2. So you don’t have to hire an accountant to keep track of things even if we collect income before combat.

I like the original idea.  However, I’d also raise the price of the Industrial Complex to 18 IPC. Maybe even as much as 20 IPC.  You’ll recoup that over the next few rounds from increased income from the territory, and you are, in effect, increasing the power of that Industrial Complex by a factorial.  Instead of 2 tanks, you can put out 3 tanks.  Instead of 3 infantry, you can put out 3 infantry and a fighter.  Etc.

And yes, this will most likely help Japan way more then any other nation.  Though, the S. African IC will be a lot more powerful now, if you go that route. mwuhahahaha

@tekkyy:

Yeah radar is so powerful.
Besides end game move, when would you ever bring air units to a radar territory?

When I want too.  AA Guns don’t scare me.

And if they did, just get Jets and become almost immune. (Not immune to radar, but it negates it bringing it back to normal.)

Yea, I got an idea…not sure if it’ll work.  But it’s an idea.

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D

thanks

Sounds cool. When you did the combat move you would move into an area and then roll for combat or was like you moved all your units then the other person could reinforce an area before combat. Have you played AAG? Combat system is awesome and of course the inspiration for my rules.

AARHE didn’t have fuel. AARHE 1939 map had though.

To save you the trouble here’s that list.

Balkans, Caucasus, Kazakh, Saudi Arabia, Persia, East Indies, Borneo, Venezuela, Eastern United States, Central United States.

@Cmdr:

I guess a simple solution would be limit ships to one sea zone movement, instead of two.

But would that not ruin the game in the Pacific to some degree…?

Shipping of this era was not so slow. They could get accross the Atlantic pretty quick.

Besides, as abstract as Axis and Allies is, it is more realistic to have IPC loss rather than entire armoured corps sunk during transit.

yea but Soviets only really buy men anyway just to survive, except for the first turn and/or second.

for the Soviets you can be more historical…

a soviet tank drops to infantry
Soviet Artillery is gone

This is representative of the ‘fodder’ concept of Soviet troops, they fold quite easily when punched, but they have alot of them.

German stuff is built for quality so it lasts with more levels of step loses by comparison.

I like the BOTB syle mech infantry with the truck peice. A Truck unit can be bought for 4IPC. It than can carry 2inf or 1inf and 1Art or just 1Art Like a “land” transport. It has know attack or defense value itself. We already have them for U.S. and Germany if you have BOTB. That only leaves USSR and U.K. and Japan. Just paint the U.S. truck U.K. and Russia colors because the U.S. provided many trucks to those countries anyway. Japan never really had much mech inf anyway but you could paint the German one Jap Orange or Jap Red whatever you prefer.

@Sergente_nella_neve:

Oh, i’m sorry, excuse me!

In effect i forgot to specify that this rule doesn’t have effect for territories that already have an IC on it.

And you’re right, Germany can mobilize new units faster, but USSR too…

But Russia is already building in the Caucasus (in Revised) anyway, if the front is in Ukraine, then this really doesn’t help the Russians nearly as much as the Germans.

I agree, defender should be able to retreat, but in this way the retreat option, instead of be a desperate decision to save the army, becomes an opportunity for the defender that can attract the attacker in a trap. This could be a good tactic, in North Africa Rommel was a master of this, but A&A is more strategic than tactic. So, i think, this opportunity could be “limited”.

My idea for this is: defender can declare retreat after at least one cycle of combat. If defender declare retreat, attacker only roll for another cycle of combat and the defender remove all casualties immediately and then the combat is over, defender can’t roll for her/his units (they’re retreting). The attacker wins the combat and the defender have to move all her/his units in the SAME space. No units rest “behind”. This rule also can be applied to naval combats, because ships usually make smoke clouds to hide their retreat.

Defending submarines have still the advantage of fire back and submerge. If an enemy destroyer is there, sub’s can now retreat instead of submerging.

I like this rule!!! ;)

EDIT: i forgot… AntiAircraft and (of course) Industrial Complexes CAN’T retreat.

@Mr:

If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so.  As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!

Making Rocky Road out of vanilla ice cream means you have to buy chocolate ice cream and marshmellows too, when you could just buy a brand of Rocky Road ice cream.

That assumes someone around you is selling Rocky Road though.  (Besides, I like pee–-kans in my ice cream.)

Anyway, I’d love to see an option for defender retreat.  I’ll start a thread!

:lol: Those one, two attakes must have sucked for you!  :lol:

updated 11/10/07 check first page

Crazy Ivan:

Thats great either way. If you change your mind latter I offer an invitation for that too.

If your selling them they have online companies that print 52 deck of cards with any information you want. They are poker quality cards.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10338.30

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.