If you could choose any TWO new unit sculpts, what would they be?

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

As much as I enjoy playing pacific 40 on tripleA, I still prefer playing it on the board game.  I enjoy seeing huge navies clash in the pacific with lots of chips. :)

I’ve always thought about making essentially everything worth at least 1 IPC anyways, hoping that that if nothing else would get some fighting. Maybe you’re right and pushing a couple IPC’s for each might do the trick as well!

I’ll have to try it out and will let you know how it does. May try the prerequisites that were mentioned as well. Always wanted to do that with the Med as well (Allies must control Sicily before they can attack mainland Italy), so I may expand that and see if it brings some of those small territories into it. A Midway battle would be pretty sweet!  :-)

Thanks for the feedback.

Midnight Express,

Thanks for posting the stats. I have not play tested this idea as of yet. I got a new A&A player whom is mostly a “general gamer” I played spring '42 with him, and while he enjoyed the session winning as the Axis powers, I’m not sure he’s “all-in” as an A&A player or even (likes Risk!) a war-gamer.

I poised the question of whether or not he would purchase a game like A&A provided he would have ample opportunity to play it. His response, " This game would most likely sit on my shelf collecting dust." I was planning to offer him a copy of 1942SE un-opened FREE OF CHARGE as I have more than one, if he were inclined to make it a regular habit to play. Un-success…. no regular players.

If anyone decides to play this HR and post a report please do. I think this is a great idea with potential. I simply cannot get any form of regular group to dedicate any amount time beyond a very occasional game of A&A to participate.

Anyways thanks for the input folks.

Edit: I know several gamers that regularly play games of all stripes. The guy I mention in this post is a regular gamer with a large collection of games and a very nice person. However of the several gamers I know, every one of them enjoyed playing Axis & Allies but would not be interested in regular, scheduled gaming sessions of A&A.

Cavalry should attack on a 1, defend on a 1, and move at a 2. They could be combined with other units to up their abilities. For example, they could defend on a 2 if paired with infantry. THey could attack on a 2 if attacking with infantry. They should cost 3 IPCs.

The real role of cavalry should be to harass the enemy. If cavalry are in a battle, the other units cannot retreat nor engage another contested territory until the Cavalry are cleared out of that territory. In effect the unit is stuck there. This would simulate cavalry cutting supply lines and communications etc.

Also, cavalry could disrupt IPCs by entering into a vacant territory and in effect scorching the earth. The territory would lose 1 IPC for every Cavalry performing this task in that territory. A marker could be used to denote the territories new value. Cavalry themselves could not conquer a territory by themselves. They would need to be paired with an infantry.

On the map, all the territories on the Western front are occupied so this tactic would not really be used. However on the Eastern Front there are a couple of open territories mainly in Russia where it could be used.  Also, The middle east and Africa are more wide open. This rule conjures up images of Lawrence of Arabia!

@knp7765:

What game are you talking about? Is it A&A 1941?

If so, then you are right. There is a lot less IPC value yet the units cost the same with the exceptions of carriers and battleships. WOTC designed it this way to help make the game simpler and have a shorter playing time to hopefully get new people into playing Axis and Allies. Since everyone has less money to spend, the Purchase phase goes quicker. With less units on the board, it’s much easier to keep track of what and who’s units are where. Also, it makes the Combat phase go quicker because there are less units in each combat. So, to keep this game short and simple, the unit costs should be left as they are.
You should get this game. It really is fun and a nice change from the bigger, more complex games. Personally, I would get at least 2 copies: one for playing and the second for extra pieces. You only get 2 destroyers per nation and you usually need more, especially for UK battling those pesky German U-boats. Either that, or go to HBG and see if you can get whatever pieces you want individually.

Yeah I was referring to 41’ it got moved to House Rules.

Larry has already covered this in the new AAP’40. Read this article on the front page of A&A.org: http://www.axisandallies.org/node/403