• Their is no such section. But if we had one thats where that rule would go… Its too small scale for a strategic level wargame. Something like commandos may be a better option and have the same idea


  • although I think even Commandos is below the level of abstraction

    certain section names end with “(optional)”

    like “National Units (optional)”


  • Its all under optional rules… even the new units… yes correct.

  • Moderator

    Want to print out cards? Specialty unit “attacks” could be unique, unlimited use abilities (limited to how many you can hold) that cost money to carry out… Don’t ask me how they work just an idea to throw out…

    GG


  • Ahh this was used in games like TSR Shirocco. I like that idea. You can have cards like:

    Heavy tanks add +2 for all tank attacks this turn

    elite infantry up to 6 infantry gains a +1 combat modifier in combat

    Rail gun– the German player has a special attack on any adjacent territory. its preemtive and hits on a 5+

    etc…

  • Moderator

    Ideas:

    You can only hold like 5 Cards, and that number can go up if you have more Technology… The cards are either 1 time use (no cost) or multiple use (cost per use)… Like your suggestions… I would imagine we have “abstract” (“skill”) abilities and “concrete” (unit)… In fact instead of having National Advantages you could have cards play those… Maybe draw 1 card a turn can be increased by tech? some ideas for Cards:

    Russia:
    Katyusha
    Fanaticism
    Siberian Forces
    Urban Defense

    Germany:
    Rail Guns
    Heavy Tanks
    Storm Troopers
    AA Artillery

    Britain:
    SAS
    Commandos
    Home Guard

    Japan:
    Kamikazi (so it won’t cost so much)

    I have run out of ideas so someone else please pick up the ball! :-D

    GG


  • Soviet Union:
    Katyusha rocket launchers
    Commisars
    Elite snipers
    Armed workers/Urban defense however you wanna call it

    Germany:
    Seige guns (I like this name better than rail guns)
    Heavy tanks
    Stormtroopers
    FlaK
    Scharfschutze (sniper)

    Great Britain:
    SAS
    Commandos
    Territorial Army
    Chindits
    Battlecruisers

    Japan:
    Kamikaze
    Shinyo suicide boats
    Suicide frogmen
    Bushido
    Battlecarriers

    USA:
    Airborne gliders and paratroopers
    Airships
    Black Devils
    Rangers
    Marrauders

  • 2007 AAR League

    That is kind of moving away from the traditional A&A feel, IMO. It’s more the beginning of a new boardgame (which we should consider after this project  :wink:) than a revision of the current game.


  • What is a Battlecarrier? you neam BBAV? The Hyuaga and Ise? those hybrid battleship carriers?

  • Moderator

    @Adonai:

    That is kind of moving away from the traditional A&A feel, IMO. It’s more the beginning of a new boardgame (which we should consider after this project  :wink:) than a revision of the current game.

    No instead it could simplify the game by removing the “Tech Charts” extra player aids, etc. and allow the extra units that would have to be represented…

    GG

  • 2007 AAR League

    But it still is a new system. Every change I’ve read so far builds off of A&A Revised. This seems to be a new entity.


  • @Imperious:

    What is a Battlecarrier? you neam BBAV? The Hyuaga and Ise? those hybrid battleship carriers?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecarrier

    Ise, Hyuga, and even Iowa can be considered a battlecarrier


  • This is what i thought

    “Battleship Ise and Hyuga were converted to Battlecarrier in 1943. They both could carry 22 dive-bombers.”

    Iowa was not such a ship. Thats in the game only. Those conversions were made on older Jap BB due to the 4 carriers lost at Midway.


  • Okay thanks for that info. Anyway let’s get back on track. First off–what’s our current list of new units? And who’s currently working on this. As you know I’m a pro-New Units guy and I’d like to share my ideas. But first I wanna see the current list of units


  • This is the starting point:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6378.0

    some of this will be covered under the NA’s or this proposed card system from GG.


  • At the moment no change to land units in place yet. We do have ideas of heavy tanks and mech infantry.
    Note DD and BB has been made cheaper.

    IPC Combat Dogfighting
    FTR 10 3/4 2/3
    FTR(Jet) 10 4/5 4/4
    BMR 15 4/1 0/1
    BMR(Jet) 15 3/3 0/2
    NAV 8 3/2 2/2
    DIV 8 3/2 1/2
    Antiair
    SS 8 2/2 0/0
    DD 10 2/2 2/2
    CA 15 3/3 3/3
    BB 20 4/4 2/2
    CV 16 1/1-3 1/1
    AP 8 0/1 0/0

    FTR Fighter
    BMR Bomber
    NAV Naval Fighter
    DIV Dive Bomber
    DD Destroyer
    CA Cruiser
    BB Battleship
    CV Aircraft Carrier
    SS Submarine
    AP Transport


  • Are we going ahead with the 3 sea movement?

    Destroyers and Crusiers move at 3. Everything else move at 2.

    SS   2
    DD   3
    CA   3
    BB   2
    CV   2
    AP   2

    Although I am worry whether it’ll destroy the map.


  • No only carriers and cruisers move 3… rest move 3


  • at a glance

    DD 36 knots
    CA 32 knots
    BB 20 knots
    CV 30 knots

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_destroyers
    http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_fleet.htm
    http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN26-BritishShipsCruisers.htm

    so I what thinking more like

    DD, CA        3
    the rest        2

    of course we have to thinking about what the game pieces represent…
    and supply ships? refuel depots?


  • so I what thinking more like

    DD, CA         3
    the rest        2

    I thought cruisers were fast that’s why they’re called “cruisers.” So they should have a movement of 3

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser

    *Wait no, CA stands for cruiser… I thought it was “carrier.” My bad

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 32
  • 5
  • 39
  • 17
  • 12
  • 10
  • 25
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

48

Online

17.6k

Users

40.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts