Cold War: It's Finally Done

@jonahawesome said in Cold War / Using AA 1940 Global war board:

I’m setting it in the mid-1950s / Late
Experimenting with it and making I can get some ideas from y’all

@all-encompassing-goose

Let me try sending it again:

@all-encompassing-goose

Axis And Allies 1932 seems too unbalanced for me. This was before the Nazis rose to power, and if the game is set in 1938 or 1939, the Nazis will just be killed by the Western Allies-if a game needs to be balanced, the earliest date that can be done is the date that the 1940 game starts with, when the French Army, the biggest threat to Germany, is more or less destroyed. I guess an early 1940 game, after German troops redeployed from Poland, could work.

The political aspect of the war has always been interesting to me. Whilst players simply making deals can work, I feel like it can be better, but I don’t know how. Having shifting alliances, however it’s done, can be a lot of fun though, as it adds a lot of unpredictably to the game, and can make the situation like Diplomacy (which I never played, I’m just basing it off of what I read).

Late war research and development sounds like a good idea, especially as military technology would have advanced faster than real life, as all countries would be at war, trying to advance technology as fast as possible. Nuclear weapons seem interesting, as I explore in this topic:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37409/nuclear-bomb-addition-for-axis-and-allies-global-1940/4

Switching sides, especially if they already are at the start of the game and can continue to change, can make the war last a really long time, and can make it crazy and fun-I wonder how will victory conditions work though?

IPC’s are excellent, and the FMG chips have their star on them… so that’s kinda nifty as well.

I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless  you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.

In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.

Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.

Has anyone here bought this game and can reveal their impressions?

Okay i get ya now. ya I know this isn’t like A&A. Thats why I like it.

Why not add them as a possible penalty for occupying enemy colored territoy. Roll a D6 for each territory, if it’s 3 or less, they lose an ipc to sabotage, partisan activity, holding POW’s and the such.

is it an inlarged W@W board?