Perhaps this should be seperated into two topics - aircraft and land?
I’d like to see the creation of convoy units, which would subtract IPC’s from their controlling country if destroyed. What about partisans, such as the FFF?
I find it interesting that the map is being preserved (as much as possible) to retain A&A appeal, but the basic unit system is being changed quite radically.
That’s exactly what I was thinking of. Now, when Germany attacks the player will also be looking for concentrations of artillery. It adds an extra consideration to your moves. The points-per and actual criteria may need to be slightly tweaked, but I think it’s a much better system than having a single goal.
Perhaps reaching a certain number of points will grant you bonuses (your citizen’s rejoicing)? One such bonus could be an extra X IPC when you reach X points because your citizen’s are more motivated?
A&A Pacific and Europe managed to expand upon the standard A&A map without losing it’s audiance. Increasing activity and complexity at the fronts would, IMO add to the fun of the game. By modifying the map you could revitalise fronts that up to know have been disregarded in standard play. Adding new battlegrounds encourages the creation of new strategies, and the more paths there are the more strategies for each path there will be. For example; by adding Italy to the game as planned, you refocus the goals of both Germany and Italy. One change has created the availability of many new strategies - why not make more?
Russian - In the later days of the war it was somewhat of a race between the allies to see who would reach Germany first. Communist ideology was the opposite, and thus the enemy, of facism. Not only that, but Stalin was an enemy of the capitalists. He would naturally look for ‘victories’ over the americans. Perhaps something could be added where, along with taking Germany, the USSR must do it without taking as many casualties as US/UK?
German - Hitler also used the war to extend his holocaust. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate his goal of creating a master race? Is there a possibility of S.S. units that could be used to eliminate ‘inferior’ beings? I.E. an S.S. unit in a german territory, instead of taking part in a battle, can be used to deport ‘inferiors’. Every deportation gains Germany 1 IPC (working in labour camps) and a S.S. marker is placed in the territory. To acheive a National victory Germany must have placed X S.S. markers in X territories.
Britain - Churchill was likely the most anti-communist man in power at the time. An additional condition could be to prevent the USSR from reaching it’s national victory.
Italy - Wouldn’t the Balkans fall under Germany’s goal of Lebensraum ?
Japan - What about America? Japan’s goal, should Midway have suceeded, was the invasion of hawaii and later the American Homeland.
USA - America wanted the USSR to enter the Pacific War - it was one of their main objectives during the Yalta conference. I’d think that the USSR occupying Japanese territory would be in accordance with their goals, not against. America’s strategy of ‘containing’ the Soviet threat was formed, to my knowledge, in the early stages of the Cold War and not during WW2.
It seems silly to set a single goal for each nation. There were always multiple goals they were working towards. Instead of putting one goal, perhaps multiple goals should be created and NVP (National Victory Points) assigned to each? Players must then concentrate on both team victory and a number of smaller concerns.
Thanks. It looks awesome.
What does it take to be recognized as a ‘contributor’? Are you looking for ideas, drafts, editing…?
This looks like a great project, and I’d love to get involved. The only major obstacle is that there are soooo many pages. Is it neccessary to read everything found here, or is there an easier way to get caught up to speed?
Actual units would encourage a lot more naval action. Germany would have a reason to attempt a complete naval blockade of the U.K., and the United Kingdoms would have to actively produce a navy instead of stacking their capitol.
http://www.shipwreckregistry.com/index4.htm Looking at this list there were close to 200 convoy routes used during WW2, and the attack.defensive of these convoys was an important part of the war effort. I find it strange that such a large part of the war is only commented on in Germany’s NA - Submarine Interdiction.
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.
It seems there is a large amount of players for the other titles (Pacific, Europe, D-day). Why aren’t more of these games played?
