AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

@axis_roll:

We diminished the NO’s impact by making them only worth $4 each.

For the UK NO, our thought was Japan gets away with a 4 of 6 territories, why can’t the UK NO be like that as well:

“Gain 4 IPCs if Allied powers control at least four of the following territories: Eastern Canada, Western Canada, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia, and Union of South Africa.”

Ah yes, that is also a good idea. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll edit my original post :-)

Sorry for the late feedback. I was pretty occupied during the last weeks.  :-(

We did playtest the “Island Hoping” VO and in our opinion it worked very well. The Axis decided to do a G1 Barbarossa and a J1 Pearl Harbor. The idea was to force USA into a Pacific war and that way provide Germany the needed air to crush Russia. This idea worked and the US player did heavily invest in the Pacific to prevent Japan from getting the islands and later even more to get the islands himself. Because of this fact we would say that those new VOs are very good, because before there was not much to lose in the Pacific for the Americans, but a lot to win in Europe.

Resume, we will keep playing with the new VO in our next games and keep you informed!  :wink:

I’m also one who believes National Objectives are an enormous pain and time sink to manage and keep track of for what ultimately is simply extra IPCs. I would much rather they be represented by something like you have suggested, oil refineries. I wish this was an official variant. :)

that’s true didn’t think of that  :lol:

You could limit the bomber by saying that it must accompany ground units in ground combat and naval units in naval combat.

That might be too restrictive, but since it’s immune from defensive fire, at least it would require you to have other units that are not immune to use it.

@Cmdr:

@JimmyHat:

Another facet I really liked from A3 was Russia/USA DOW on Germany if London falls.

Agreed.

It will more than likely be included as a part of the “government in exile” UK political situation.

GAH!  I always forget the fine print about resorting to OOB/LHTR to clarify – thanks Tekkyy.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.