People are always looking to bring a new level of realism to A&A and though I think that’s fine and fun you are just better off playing another WW2 game the covers the amount of detail you are looking for.
Having said that, If you include supply for A&A, I would suggest reducing the attack and defence of the units that are cut off by one. Or in the case of attacking infantry, 2inf equal 1 attack dice.
@Mr:
People are always looking to bring a new level of realism to A&A and though I think that’s fine and fun you are just better off playing another WW2 game the covers the amount of detail you are looking for.
Excellent point. Sometimes you just can’t turn checkers into chess, not mater how hard you pretend or manipulate the rules.
so instead of mangling Checkers … just play Chess!
You realize this is in the HOUSE RULES section right? The section dedicated completely to mangling and distorting the rules in an effort to liven up or improve the game?
If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so. :P As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!
@Cmdr:
You realize this is in the HOUSE RULES section right? The section dedicated completely to mangling and distorting the rules in an effort to liven up or improve the game?
If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so. :P As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!
touché !
Anyway, I capitulate that maps with more territories work better for this, but I think Revised might just be broken down enough that this could work. It’s incredibly hard to lock a unit away from his or her supplies, mind you. Thus, this would be akin to the American Victory Conditions of Victory Cities (hard to do, but if America can manage to get the last VC needed just before the end of his or her turn, they win, no matter what the board looks like.)
So, this would be REALLY hard to do, but it COULD win the game for you.
Territories are too large to play isolation rules from classic wargames… however, the idea of placement on non-contiguously connected territory’s should impose some penalty for costs. If a player builds a factory in a conquered territory i suspect the costs indirectly go up to place these units including the newly built factory, but this would also be added with rules allowing for placement of infantry in any territory with some restrictions. AS far as any ‘concept of supply’ perhaps you could impose a -1 combat modifier for surrounded units in small islands or those ‘city’ territories on the AAE/ AAP map.
This would certainly not turn the game into Chess from Checkers.
But then again many more pertinent ideas from AAR should be fixed including the broken concept of defender retreats which don’t even exist making for crazy strategies from the realistic standpoint. At least Checkers admits its abstracted. AAR is a simulation after all and it DOES tend to simulate how WW2 was fought.
AAE and mabye AAP could work for this idea though.
If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so. As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!
Making Rocky Road out of vanilla ice cream means you have to buy chocolate ice cream and marshmellows too, when you could just buy a brand of Rocky Road ice cream.
The rocky road version of Axis and Allies does not yet exist. It may be around in a primitive form ( i have spent at least 8 years trying various systems to enrich it) but perfection has not yet arrived. Right now only vanilla is offered and its boring for the most part.
@Mr:
If you want to play “vanilla” then by all means do so. As for me, I like a little Rocky Road sometimes!
Making Rocky Road out of vanilla ice cream means you have to buy chocolate ice cream and marshmellows too, when you could just buy a brand of Rocky Road ice cream.
That assumes someone around you is selling Rocky Road though. (Besides, I like pee–-kans in my ice cream.)
Anyway, I’d love to see an option for defender retreat. I’ll start a thread!
