Any critiquing of these would be nice. I know some of these are old tricks, but at least discuss some points about the new ones.
Version 1.1 should be posted up here - it’s mostly rewording and some slight rules changes. Italy needs to be totally reworked.
I would prefer to keep it closed, but if you are going to make a rule for opening it, I would say that it shouldn’t involve buying a die to roll for a chance to open it. If you have 3 of those territories that border it, you’re probably not going to need it to move into Caucasus with some force. Or, alternatively, the forces used to surround Turkey would have been better used as a direct strike to Caucasus.
I’d say once you have 3 territories surrounding Turkey - and as long as you have 3 territories surrounding Turkey - the strait is opened.
@Imperious:
In the game the AA gun IS not ‘planes’
Thats like the old often defeated argument that “transports are also warships and not just transports”
or “Battleships are also cruisers”
Each piece is what it is and not a hybrid of different types of units.
Only the artillery could also include tanks in terms of self propelled artillery.
How is that often defeated? I have actually never heard anybody argue against that and make sense.
With land units I think it makes more sense that there is a slight mix of unit types in each piece. With naval units, however, a battleship simply represents battleships and carriers are carriers and so on, but each unit would probably also include a very small amount of support ships.
In a game that isn’t very detailed, like in Axis and Allies, its foolish to have very specific rules applying to one-off moments in history or to minutiae like this rule involving AA guns. It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.
SBR doesn’t represent one bombing run, it represents a month long campaign and its effects. A bomber piece is assumed to have escorts fighters with it already - without them the bombing runs would be far less effective.
Likewise, If a piece is destroyed, it doesn’t necessarily represent EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THAT DIVISION dying, it represents a significant enough number of them being taken as casualties, making the unit is ineffective in combat.
Sorry to go on this rant in this thread, but back on topic.
All above said: AA guns are not planes. That simply doesn’t work out right.
I don’t really like this rule, at least not for AA 50 or revised, but maybe for a game that has a lot of focus to detail. I feel like Germany and possibly UK would be the only powers to throw money at it, and even then, nothing more than two levels.
Jennifer’s second rule is the best. I always see people either using the first, or a combination of the two (having to pay at a port) but I always thought that nobody would be willing to move a battleship out of their naval campaign to repair and would rather just use it until it dies before building another (if necessary).
I do, however, think that you should be allowed to choose not to pay and allow the battleship to sink.
I devised my own rule for air superiority that was the exact same thing as rule 2, so I chose that.
It doesn’t make things any more difficult for the allies there. It just becomes a balanced trade off. If the allies decide to put resources into it, there is a payoff. If the axis decides to challenge it, the allies end up with an expensive meat grinder that may happen anyway.
Exactly.
I like it.
Mechanized infantry should not be its own unit. As said, each piece represents a varied mix of units. Once a unit becomes mechanized enough to be considered ‘mechanized infantry,’ it has moved into the realm of being covered by a tank.
On the other hand, ‘mechanized’ does not necessarily mean ‘armored.’ If there were a breakthrough for mechanized infantry, it would represent a country developing a cost efficient truck design that would allow all infantry to move 2.
I basically did this move (inf/art, 1 turn tank/inf, 1 turn all tanks) in my last game as Germany and I only failed to take Moscow because I got diced HARD. Having infantry (turn 2 buy) and aircraft available on turn 6 after the Moscow attack provides a solid counterattack if Russia retakes or if the first fails.
I’m 19 and I probably started playing about 4 years ago.
Well he’s saying that that same old game has the potential to be avoided because the US should focus a bit on the Pacific. In revised, splitting your forces was almost always bad for the allies, but in this game splitting your forces is necessary to avoid an all too powerful Japan.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1563
Bought it just before leaving for school, so I haven’t been able to play a game. My friends and I barely learned the rules, but made it through two or three turns in the 1939 scenario.
Any comments?
I’m feeling a shift in my opinions about subs. Maybe they will be useful - for the loss i defense, the fact that they can’t be hit by planes without a destroyer is actually pretty big.
I have my gripes with the new subs as well. Even though they only cost 6 IPCs, for 2 IPCs more you can get the superior destroyer.
While the sub changes make their role a little more specific and realistic, I can’t help but think that they’re terrible now.
Even the argument of “it’s only 6 IPCs!” doesn’t work since Destroyers are only 8.
I think I like all of these changes though, aside from possible balance issues, this is the game of Axis and Allies that I’ve wanted to play.
This is a good show, I haven’t seen it on in a long time and I don’t get the History Channel up here at school.
If I find the time (from what I hear I’ll need almost three hours of it), I will definitely check this out. I’m a fan of Spike Lee, and I wonder how he would do a war movie.
Almost every review I’ve read thus far has said that this movie wasn’t good, or that the movie was good but needed to be an hour shorter.
@LT04:
I guess you would just take German spaces and call them Italian leave the IC’s and the IPC values the same.
Would you leave the unit placment the same just “change uniforms” so to speak?
LT
It can’t be that simple. Taking away those units and IPCs from Germany in a game that is already a losing battle for the axis just spells constant defeat. You have to beef up Germany (make a few territories worth more, give them some more units) and make North Italy worth more and give Sicily an IPC to make Italy somewhat competent.
Yeah, I’ve played a few times in the last week and Germany has dominated.
Artillery is a very useful unit. They are great for a defensive Russia; after building enough stacks of infantry and some artillery, you can wait for German to reach the front before collapsing on them. With Germany I alternate builds between inf/art and inf/arm. Every 2 rounds I have a pretty powerful attack force against Russia. UK and US I really only build artillery if I don’t have a dollar to spare to buy a tank.
Me and my friends try to balance it out (we think Germany needs a lot of help) by making German Subs cost 6 and having German tanks at 3/3. We also are going to make new lend/lease rules so there’s none of this ‘10 russian fighters’ business too early.