IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files

@Axisarmpit said in [Global 1940] HELP PLEASE Axis and Allies Global Impasse:

Im not blitzing through a territory with infrastructure, but I am entering a territory with infrastructure as part of my non contact move. Lots of gamers agree variations on their understanding of particular rules?

Right. I understood you were not blitzing. I was using that as an example of logic. Please let me explain.

In your explanation of your House Rule you said “…a non combat movement can take the form of an advance into empty enemy territory…”. Your question then is a territory containing infrastructure empty or not? Therefore:

An armor unit may blitz through empty enemy territories An armor unit may not blitz through a territory containing infrastructure Thus a territory containing infrastructure is not empty

Of course it is your House Rule so you can do anything you want but if you want to follow the logic of the game I would say you cannot advance into an enemy territory containing infrastructure during the Non-combat Phase.

Hey Young Grasshopper,

Can you say a few words about why you’re writing these house rules, who they’re for, or what you hope to accomplish with them? Hard to offer comments in a vacuum.

Because there are no neutral victory cities in Anniversary, I’m not sure your VP system changes anything beyond just counting up each victory city as one point. Any time I take a city, that means you lost a city, and vice versa. Normally, when I take a city, I gain +1 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 2 points. Under your system, when I take a city, I gain +2 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 3 points.

That’s it – you’re changing the swing from 2 points to 3 points, but it’s not like you can conquer half a victory city, so it really doesn’t matter if the swing per victory city is 2 points or 3 points or 50 points. I’m pretty sure it all works out the same in the end. No? I imagine you’re trying to reward players for being aggressive/proactive, but I don’t think your rule actually accomplishes that.

Also, to echo Baron Munchhausen’s concern, I don’t like the idea of allowing intercepts against bombers that only deal 1d6 damage, because then it virtually never makes sense to launch a bombing raid. It really doesn’t pay to launch more than 2 bombers against the same factory (you wind up wasting some of their power because the damage gets maxed out, but you still risk losing them to flak). So if I can defend my home factory with 2 or more fighters (really not that hard) then there is no point in bombing anything – between the 2 pips on the fighter and the 1 pip on the AAA gun, you have almost a 50% chance of losing your bomber on each run. 50% chance of dealing 3.5 damage vs. 50% chance of losing a 12 IPC bomber is a terrible trade-off. Sure, you could escort your bomber with fighters – but nobody in Anniversary has that kind of air power to spare. If you can spare 4 planes for a mediocre bombing raid, you should be using them to take territories. Just my two cents. If you’re going to import the interceptor rules, I’d like to see some kind of buff to the bombers.

It is more realistic to move warships from one SZ to another.
But, would you retreat more than 1 TT to repair your Tank?
(Land movement are much slower and falling back damaged Tanks while staying in position with Art and Inf make such delay an issue. You also have to compare between planes for the cost. Aircraft mobility and versatility is way more interesting than 2 hits units which have to return to IC for repair.)

IMO, it is easier to consider that such unit are repaired right on place with spare parts.

A different procedure I suggested a while ago is that you can only repair one and have to pick a damaged Tank as casualty before allocating a hit to damage another Tank.

So, instead of 10 Tanks staying on battle until the 11th hits.
A second hits eliminates a first Tank.
This becomes far less effective, but it is easier to follow a single damaged Tank per stack.

However, I did not search on how to calculate such way of allocating damage.

About Pacific islands NO.
Why not require 3 amongst 4 or 4 amongst 5 Island TTs?
That way this can be an incentive to fight for one more to get some buffer TT before loosing the NO.

I was actually thinking about this at work tonight. It could be a really cool concept.

Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.

Well allow some choices 2 subs in either: france, Norway, N Italy, or Germany

@Zax said in Axis & Allies Diplomacy Variant:

Also, I may not be online for the upcoming few days, so please be patient if you ask me something and you dont get a response within a day or two.

Well he DID say he may not be on for a few days…