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

Anyone playing anniversary with modern rules and/or units from 1942.2 or G40??
Any tips for balancing the game and/or changing the initial setup??

I’m excited to see the game being re-released but I like the modern rules for AA guns and tanks too much to go back I think, and I’m sure adding the units from G40 would be cool too.

Here is 12 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

So, we have a big pile of new units and new rules, how shall we set up the board? I propose the following new setup for A&A Classic.

List of abbreviations:
ACav - Armored Cavalry
AirT - Air Transport
AKA - (sea) Transport
BB - Battleship
Bmbr - Bomber
CA - Cruiser
CV - Aircraft Carrier
Ftr - Fighter
HArt - Heavy Artillery
Para - Paratrooper
SS - Submarine
Trpr - Trooper

This setup assumes that you are playing with the Cruisers from Post 1 (links to relevant posts added below), the Paratroopers and Air Transports from Post 2, the Armored Cavalry and Troopers from Post 3, and the Heavy Artillery from Post 4. The setup for Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery is ‘inspired’ by Ralph Boerke’s original setup for his Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery. This setup will place 1 Paratrooper and 1 Air Transport in the capital territories all nations, Germany will receive 1 additional Paratrooper and Air Transport in Rome (Southern Europe). This setup also assumes use of the “Boats Valve Fix” (BVF) proposed by D. A. Harrell from the mists of A&A history (I read about it from the re-post on Thrasher’s A&A page, which should give some history for those who remember Thrasher…). Also, this setup assumes the use of the variable British Sub setup. Furthermore, all CVs will receive a full complement of aircraft (2 Fighters) at setup; all sea zones with Transports or CVs will receive 1 Cruiser at setup, and all sea zones with Battleships will receive 1 (additional) Transport at setup.

@Boat:

In short, the Boat Valve Fix changes three things about Classic A&A - 1) optional “No Attack by Russia” made mandatory, 2) increase the number of German Subs in the Atlantic (off Western Europe) from 1 to 4, 3) increase the number of Japanese Transports in the Philippines Sea Zone from 1 to 4.

First, setup the game as normal. Nothing will be removed from the original setup. Then, add the noted pieces to the following territories as listed below:

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics
Russia (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, and 1 AirT
Karelia - 1 CA with SS and AKA already there
Sov. F. East - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics

Germany
Germany (territory of) - 2 Trpr, 2 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 SS with SS and AKA already in the Baltic
Eastern Europe - 1 HArt
Ukraine - 1 ACav and 1 HArt
Southern Europe - 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Western Europe - 1 ACav, 1 HArt, and 3 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea
Libya - 1 ACav

Germany

United Kingdom
United Kingdom (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Eastern Canada - 1 CA with AKA already there
India - 1 Trpr and 1 CA with AKA already there
Gibraltar - 1 AKA added to the BB already at sea
Egypt - 1 ACav, also - (The UK player has the option to move the 1 UK SS already off the coast of Egypt from the Med to the Red Sea (aka, the other side of the Suez Canal) at setup. Once USSR starts taking its turn, choice is set for that game.)

United Kingdom

Empire of Japan
Japan (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Manchuria - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav
Fr. In. Burma - 1 ACav
Phil. I’s - 1 CA and 3 AKA added to the AKA already at sea
Kwangtung - 1 ACav
Caro. I’s - 1 CA, 1 Ftr, and 1 AKA with BB, CV, and Ftr already at sea
Solo. I’s - 1 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea

Empire of Japan

United States of America
Eastern US - 2 Trpr, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA with AKA already at sea
Western US - 2 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Hawaii - 1 CA, and 1 Ftr with SS, CV, and Ftr already at sea

United States of America

Posts
Post 1 - Cruisers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
Post 2 - Paratroopers and Air Transports - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
Post 3 - Armored Cavalry and Troopers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
Post 4 - Heavy Artillery - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0

One more post (Neutral Countries and what to be done with them), and I think I’ll have posted about all of my personal rule collection for Classic. Looking forward to wrapping all of this up and putting together a comprehensive rule book of changes.

-Midnight_Reaper

As you can see CWO, Japan is more or less stationed in Saigon and the Philippines protecting there money islands they have control of after 4 turns.
Also they seem to be buying a few more bombers due to there range from airbases in Saigon and the Philippines.

This setup does change the game for Japan and the allies. Right now it is making UK spend more money in the Pacific as far as more ships.
It also has made the US buy more in Europe due to UK has no control in Africa and not spending any money in Europe side. The US right now is doing Operation Torch for support in Africa but may shift to London with troops. With the UK Pacific ship buy support, its seems to give US a little more room to focus some troops else where.

UK is not split up as for as the money goes. They start with 75 icps and can buy anywhere. If this was a split economy ( UK, Canada,  FEC, and Anzac ) it would probably make the US buy all in the Pacific because UK Pacific side would be in a world of hurt with Japan focusing everything down by thee islands.

Just thought you like to see how it was going with the territory value changes and moves.

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

I’m not impress.
I have done my own convoy rules with real cargo.
Much significant for Allies build if you lost too much cargo.

@Warplayer12:

i was reading the newspaper, en then i get an idea: a continental war. Every continent (Europe, Asia,Africa etc.) gets their own army and fight each other

You could get the Attack and Attack Expansion game from Eagle Games and use that for your map and forces.  You have infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, battleships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines.  The combat system works considerably differently from A&A, and depending on whether you use the basic games rules or the Deluxe Expansion rules, production points work differently too, along with tech development.  I prefer the original Attack Expansion, and I am running a game using a mixture of the basic game, original Expansion, and the Deluxe expansion.  Works pretty well.

And Australia in not one territory but 5.

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.

I doubt the US would buy the truck if all it did was transport units.  The US is constantly doing amphibious assaults from Africa to Italy, then into Europe, and all over in the pacific.  It has no need for a land transport.  Italy and Anzac would have no need for it either.  It’s only use would be on the eastern front and in getting Indians or South Africans to Egypt.  Also, it is unrealistic to use trucks in Asia due to the terrain. Jungles slow things down, and the logistic nightmares they create are one of the reasons Japan’s ground war eventually stalled and floundered in South East Asia.  Better to make it motorized infantry.  Maybe a 1/2/2 unit costing 4 IPC that can pair with artillery or tank for +1 attack?  Mech infantry would then change to the values DannyBoy2016 suggested.