In my opinion we shouldn’t rely on history to elaborate a rule for limiting infantry builds.

After all, i’ve never seen an A&A game go exactly like history… (Anyway, not when I play with Germany  :-D)

This game is an alteration of history. Imagine if Germany really conquered egypt on R1… How many people would have decided to join the axis instead of the allies, imagine the ressources involved. More oil, more money, more manpower. This has to be taken into account.

This is why the rule for limiting infantry builds should be related to the number of territories (IPC’s) you own at the beginning of your turn. (Example 50%: of IPC’s allowed for INF builds)

So, If Germany has 40 IPC’s at the beginning of their turn, they can allocate 20 IPC for INF builds (6 INF) which is reasonnable in my opinion.

Same rule applies for all countries.

This will limit the stacks of white and red chips on our capitals…

I would see the russian player roll for a severe winter on R2. And on 1-3 severe winter strikes, on a roll of 4-6 hothing happens.

So Infantry kills infantry, until there is no more ennemy infantry. Tanks kill tanks, air units kill air units first and then pound ground units without possibility of being fired at. If there are no defending fighters, tanks and planes attack at 4 on a one to one basis.

About Scorched earth: I don’t think you should loose All the IPC’s from the territory. One IPC per territory would be enough for me. Sure, they did burn a few barns and destroy a bridge now and then but they didn’t just wipe cities off the map, right?

idea: after the german player has commited his attacks… the Soviet player declares a “Soviet Winter” all russians defend at +1 all Germans attack at -1 ( infantry do nothing)

I don’t see how Stalin would be able to declare a severe winter. Let’s make it random, shall we? When the german player has completed his combat movement sequence, and before conduct combat, the russian player may roll a die for severe winter. IE: on a roll of 1-3 a severe winter strikes and ennemy units attack and defend at -1. On a roll of 4-6 nothing happens…

Ok, it is true that if we look at it in a very global way, maybe a few planes are gonna be shot down but it’s not representative out of 1000 planes.

in this sytem planes fight at different modified aerial combat values… attacking planes are at 1-2  defending at 1-3… bombers on either side at 1.

I don’t understant the 1-2 or 1-3. Isn’t it 2 or less and 3 or less?

And for the tanks battles, Thats a great idea too. It’s more strategic like that.

The main problem I see with the rules is their complexity! Keep it simple if you want people to play them.

I find the idea of airplanes engaging airplanes wonderful. Very good idea. But a plane attacking another plane should have the edge. You think you can defend on a 4 with a Me-109 on your tail?? I think the one on your tail attacks on a 4 and you defend on a 3…

Now for ground units being unable to hit airplanes? What is that? Even in Battlefield 1942 you can attack a fighter with a jeep-mounted .50!!! Defending ground units should be given a chance to defend themselves against attacking A/U on a roll of 1. I mean ONE DIE for the whole bunch per cycle of combat. Even if you have 5 INF and 5 tanks, the whole bunch gets to roll 1 D6 per attacking ennemy A/U per cyle of combat. That would represent the small arms fire you encounter when strafing and the small caliber AA guns escorting ground units.

Infantry should be able to destroy tanks in defense…don’t you think?

I tought maybe we could just roll a Die to determine severe winter cause i think this is historically representative. The germans were indeed not prepared to face russian winter.

But scorched earth is a good one too, the problem is that I dont see why the territory would regain it’s value one recaptured by tthe russians…

Hi guys,

Long time no see….

IMO the least realistic of the revised national advantages is Russian Winter. Why? Because we declare it. Why? Because you can not declare a winter. You can declare a defense line. You can declare a shipbuilding program. You can declare a Kamikaze attack, and so on, but it is mother nature that declares a severe winter…not Stalin!!!

Yes, in december of 1941 a severe winter stalled the german divisions at the gates of Moscow. Yes, Jukov chose this moment to launch a massive counterattack with fresh siberian divisions. That, my friends, is history. It is also luck, or karma or destiny, call it what you want. A dice roll is what it takes to implement this national advantage.

Had the winter been more gentle, who knows what would have happened? Hum?

Have a nice day!

Yeah, but I really don’t think there sould be more than one round of interception since fuel and time is limited.

On the other hand, I totally agree on your reduced attack and defence values of aerial combat.

It’ll be confusing to put that in practice though…But more satisfying than just watch ennemy bombers fly over your fighters, wave at them and then do the strategic bombing…

Ok, so you think this is too disadvantageous for the attacker. How about this one:

I admit that just cancelling escorts with interceptors without any actual combat doesn’t make any sense. But if we include combat, it’ll be much more bloody for each side. But hey, it’s war insn’t it?

Let’s say the Flak fires exclusively at bombers once interception is over, I think this sounds more realistic.

Now, for the interception itself, I think the interceptors should become the attacker, and the Raiders become the defenders, for ONE CYCLE OF COMBAT ONLY.

In this single pass (that takes place well before the bombers reach their target) interceptors fire at their normal 3, defending bombers fire at 1 and escorting fighters fire at 4.

I think this is more appropriate but how deadly…Who will ever do a SBR again? unless…