New Transport Defense

This is what we do in game. Each neutral has a territory value and some kind of army and a few ships. You can attack them if you want. But u need to capture each neutral territory to get icp income.
If you lose battle then just that lone neutral joins other side.
But we also have a cost to try and influence a strict neutral to your side and you receive the territory value towards income and what is there for the ground troops and a possible ship. Nothing stronger than a Destroyer.
Not all countries can influence the same neutrals. We roll a d20 and a 4 or less u get neutral.
This is just an idea u may look at.
Spain and Turkey have the biggest Amy but cost more for those 2 to try and get.

@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

Hello everyone. I’ve been viewing this forum for years now and have finally registered. I first started playing Axis and Allies Classic in 1994 and have followed the game through its many incarnations. I haven’t had a chance to read a lot of recent posts but I’ll try to catch up. Right now trying to navigate your board on my phone as I’m, eh, between laptops. I’ve always had a habit of mixing game pieces and making up new rules. I guess when you grow up in the seventies that’s an occupational hazard–lots of board games and not too many computer ones? I have a project I’d like to introduce to get some feedback on–hopefully it’s not too much like “The Cones of Dunshire,” (Parks and Recreation–forget the season) but the nice accountants liked that one. Anyway nice to finally be here.

No problem, perhaps the thread was moved, because it was viewed more than a 100 times but not answered yet by anyone.

It was a little bit strange to me when I had a look at the original forum this morning. At first sight I thought, the thread was deleted - with no comment. Well, weird, but finally I found the post here. Thank you for your answer!

France paratrooper can also simulate commandos  along european shore.

Also, you can identify special infantry or Marines with a Control Marker below the sculp.
That way, you can increase their cost without having to buy 1914 or 1941 to get different Infantry sculpt.
I still wonder if a 3 IPCs unit can be a balanced cost for a weaker Marines unit able to move with Cruiser and BB.
As written elsewhere:

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

About Infantry moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship, it cannot simulate the initiative and offensive role being taken by Marines such as Guadalcanal.
As far as I understand, Marines were first almost everywhere in PTO while regular army troopers were mopping behind Marines and garrisoning conquered islands. Maybe the exception is Peleliu in Palau islands.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. Lots of great ideas. I am implementing the idea of having to take off from AB but do not like the idea of having to land back at one (too restictive). A lot of the ideas discussed IMO are to restrictive. Here’s what my group will use moving forward.
Heavy transport $10, move 6 no attack or defend value (last unit removed - NEW) (must take off from AB-NEW) (limit 3 per major power) (can transport 3 Inf or 3 Special forces)
Special forces (paratroops) $5 Att3 Def1 (limit 5 per major power but can be replaced when destroyed).

for AA50 i have developed this. My feeling is the map has alot more territories, and it would take longer to play because of this. To facilitate a quicker result this was playtested and works.

Strategic Movement:

Each player’s capital territory has a value equal to half its IPC value, which can facilitate additional movement of a players land forces. Every time the Home territory is bombed by SBR the total movement of Strategic Movement is reduced one point for every 2 points of damage to the home factory.
    For example: Germany has 5 SR points because it has a 10 IPC home territory. If it was bombed for 5 points of factory damage, you could now only move 2 land units by strategic redeployment.

Procedure: after placement move one land unit a total of 2 additional spaces for each SR point. Units moved can be newly created units or units involved in combat or any unit whether it moved already or attacked. Units can even move across one sea zone to another controlled territory as long as you control the sea zone with one warship.

Repair of damaged factory also changes this value depending on current damage or investment for repair.

I like the original idea.  However, I’d also raise the price of the Industrial Complex to 18 IPC. Maybe even as much as 20 IPC.  You’ll recoup that over the next few rounds from increased income from the territory, and you are, in effect, increasing the power of that Industrial Complex by a factorial.  Instead of 2 tanks, you can put out 3 tanks.  Instead of 3 infantry, you can put out 3 infantry and a fighter.  Etc.

And yes, this will most likely help Japan way more then any other nation.  Though, the S. African IC will be a lot more powerful now, if you go that route. mwuhahahaha