Lets Talk Axis and Allies Pacific: 1940

@all-encompassing-goose

Hi, these rules are cool. I did not base my rules off of this. This was developed independently.

A different take on “free for all”. Being able to make alliances though means it should be called “shifting alliances” rather than “free for all”.

@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

I have been considering this question privately for some time too.  My own particular anoyance is that islands are completely surrounded by a single sea zone.  I think many islands should have more than one sea zone touching them.  For examnple, I think the Phillipine Islands should at least have an Asian side and a Pacific Ocean side.  I think Japan should have one sea zone with Korea, one to the south and another to the north and east.  While we are on the subject, I also do not understand why the sea zones have to end coincident with several (most) adjacent land borders.  This forces many strategic manuvers and I would appreciate some more tactical flexibility.  However, I see that the game is very delicately balanced (at least until someone finds a real deal breaker) so such tactical choices may make the game difficult to balance.

I would be interested in a more accurate Pacific map, including the expansion of the Pacific Ocean to its true size.  The biggest problem I see is that it may become unplayable for the Japanese.  Two factors that made it tenable for them was the hidden movement (for of war) of sea forces in general, and the benefit they received from their attack on Pearl Harbour.

:-P dude, i did it twice  :-P

Actually, Upside-down_Turtle comes from my early Star Craft days.  Basically, in a 3v2 game, I’d be the odd man out as Terran and essentially be a non factor.  I’d maybe get off an expand or two, but eventually “turtle up” and suck all my minerals dry.  Then I basically pray my buddies won the huge battle I had no part in.  Otherwise, I was easy pickings.

Best run I had was as the zerg.  Captured, like, ten minneral fields in the middle of the map.  Problem was, no one could attack anyone else unless they went through me.  It was like a giant Hydralisk meat grinder.    :-P They kicked me out eventually, but it was a good run.  8-)

Oh yeah, and I almost killed someone with a Zelot rush  :-D

That settles it, I’m Googling Star Craft II videos…

All I know is that I’m heading over to Larry Harris forum to get my $.02 in.

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.

Looking it over it does seem that your game is impressive.  I’ve always tried to keep up with Imp on what was going on because I really liked their East & West game, but it looks like I might have to give up on the Great War.

And that’s simply http://axisandallies.TK

Thanks for referring to my site!

thrasher,