Let's talk airfields

@phd_angel This is not the expansion set for Global War, but a stand alone game. You get the rules and setup charts when you purchase the map.

Now have 2 sets of rules with optional rules.

Standard rules use a more Axis & Allies turn based system.

In standard rules, all Axis move first simultaneously, followed by Allies.  That would encompass 1 entire season (4 seasons to a year).

Defender withdrawing still allowed, but can no longer move units into space the attacker is attacking (except for air units).

No more initiative in standard rules.

PM me to get an updated copy of the rules.

Cheers

The Mustang all the way, this fighter is so overdue for A&A its sick.

I’ve only seen these in WWI A&A variants.  How would they work?  Is it a viable unit in A&A, or just a waist of plastic?

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

And another question if they were in a formerly Neutral territory would they be “bipartisans”?

@Imperious:

Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?

1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.

I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice.  So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several.  But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations,  (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports?  Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units?  This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.

enough space, but not enough money from WOTC to develop both.