They are making a new axis based computer game

@SS:

Ya I agree
Didn’t mean there was a cap neither just throwing up some numbers

So how much you need to repair before you can use it ? 4 - 6 ? Down to 3 ?

If increasing to 8 or 10, I rather keep 3 to make unoperational.
Thinking about the OOB rules, probably make it 3 and more to be unoperational was due to get Bases fix with only 4 IPCs or less, Minor IC cost 4 or less to be able to produce 1 unit at least.
Both have similar requirements.

I use WWII Russians and control markers for Bolsheviks. These are controlled by the CPs, but cannot attack outside original Russian areas. Some sort of Siberian railway track to represent the arrival of Allied (i.e. anti-Bolshevik) forces from the east.

Something else I’ve experimented with is the release of POWs; if the war with Russia ends, G & A get a number of infantry to represent the release of prisoners held in Russia. This can be extended to any power being knocked out of the war.

My main change is that collapse is based on national morale, based on casualties suffered & bombing raids on the capitals as well as losing battles and tt. Its fairly obvious that collapse based on income levels favours the CPs too much.

And just to follow up, there was some discussion of the Axis Minors block concept over here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35119.0

@Tall:

Tobleone77,

––I didn’t mean it to appear I was in anything other than AGREEMENT with you on the issues of Air Transports & Paratroopers. :-D
----I simply wanted to share what seem to me to be very logical and obvious points so that others might consider them.

––Axis & Allies is such a FANTASTIC game that I feel it’s very important that any alterations or ‘house rules’ that we make keep all of the main gameplay attributes included.
––IMHO changes just for the sake of change,…or changes that would drastically lower the cost of units for the sake of “more action” would radically imbalance the game and should be discouraged. However, I completely respect the right of any/all players to play the game as THEY like it. But their changes shouldn’t become the normally accepted ‘house rules’ for the majority of A&A players.

“Tall Paul”

No worries brother. I was using my smart phone when I tried to quote you… didn’t quite come out right. My para-token idea was just a springboard for those who don’t like the HBG pieces. I personally already have most of what I need to get all of my player countries stuff for paras and air transports. I’m hoping we’ll eventually get gliders from someone someday. Cheers!

It would only be Pro-Axis on German and Italian turns, to prevent the US from covering it with green army men.

I guess the rule would be reflecting that IF the European axis was gaining a lot of traction, Franco would be a little more accommodating to the Axis. But just because the Axis is doing well wouldn’t make Spain a target for the allies unless it was annexed.

I guess perhaps some other nations could become Pro-Allies under certain NO conditions for them……its just a little more difficult.

The big neutral players are Spain, Turkey, Sweden and Mongolia. The first three may have been convinced to join the axis. The last one was already a communist enclave.

After several more games, that have all ended with my winning, My friends and I have decided to add a number of objectives, and an alliance system to it, to give them game a bit more of a purpose. We have several New national objectives for each of the countries, and we have written up 24 global objectives for players to accomplish to win the game. The thought is to give each player 2 or 3 global objectives and this is what they have to do to win the game. We are going to be spending all friday night and saturday day play testing these out. God Help me!  :wink:

Well, I’m a porcelain throne field marshal.
I outrank everyone…
see Stratego rules if you have questions.