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

@ando101

I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.

But yes, that makes sense.

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

@SS:

Nice ideas for all suggestions posted but way to many things involved here for most people. It’s your game so no knock against it. You want to get away from KISS that’s fine too. I would not use somethings and make it all more simplified. Why not just try the reduced costs and a tech tree for starters?

I had a lot of ideas, and went to write them all down. These posts are the end product of all that. I have tried the combination of the reduced costs and the tech tree myself. But it was playing against myself, solo. So I don’t know how well it would work against a good face-to-face opponent. I liked them, but that’s not saying much.

I do group them into rules I always want to play, and rules I only sometimes want to play. I would list these as follows:

Always
Cruisers; Paratroopers & Cargo Planes; Armored Cav., Troopers, Heavy Art’y; New Unit Surcharge; Revised Strategic Bombing Raid rules; & Unit Price Reduction (I’ve tested the reduction in costs against myself but not the balance of a larger Axis setup). These rules, minus the Strat. Bomb rules, are the core of my original ideas. And these rules amount to 6 new units, a fee that almost never comes up, cheaper units (I have player’s aids with the correct pricing information so that comes easy), and remembering to add a 2 to every die thrown for a result in Strat. Bombing. I don’t think they’re all that much.

I then got some other ideas and wanted to see where they went. Thus, the sometimes or optional rules

Optional
New Research Rules; New Research Tech Tree; New National Advantages; and SF and all of their rules. These rules sound like something I’d really like to try out, but I’d need a good gaming group first. Chickens, eggs, and all that. These rules really re-write some rules for A&A - which can be a good thing if you’ve an established group that is looking to shake things up. I won’t say that tossing a new player into all of these rules would be a good idea. But as they’re options, and listed as such, your group can take what you like and leave the rest behind. As you do.

Once I’m happy with these rules, I would like to eventually write up versions for A&A 1942 and A&A 1940. But first, I want to get them in their best shape for this game before expanding the beachhead.

I hope that clears things up for you, SS.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

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.

@Fishmoto37:

@finnman:

What I ment was on the map you posted you had different colours of units. I was wondering they represented.

OK, I think I just woke up. You must have been referring to my photo of the ongoing A&AG1940 game when you mentioned colors. If so I think that I had some white AA guns that have not been painted yet, some ICs that I painted in Italian and Russian colors, some light blue infantry for true neutrals, some green infantry for allied friendly neutrals, some blue TBFs for the U.S. tac bombers and one unpainted metal sturmovic for the Soviet tac bomber. I placed the neutral infantry in the original game setup so that if they were attacked it would save time placing units later. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ah it’s ok I’m looking forward too the Mediterranean game.

We have a new Tech  for AA 1942  The USAF has a new MOAB  ( mother of all bombs  )  It is a 21,000 pound MOAB  whish is replacing the 15,000 pound ( Daisy cutter ) which was used in Iraq and afghanistan.  I feel sorry for any that gets hit by this.  But remember  WAR IS UGLY

This can be a great asset to any world power that gets its hands on this baby.  this is truely a game ender

I have included a pic of the MOAB

Good luck all
MOAB.jpg

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink: