Topics created by eddiem4145

No, unless the axis retake them first

No

@eddiem4145:

I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all

I believe it originates between the Classic Map and the Revised Map.  In the classics map, only Neutral Territories were represented, and due to the small number of territories and adjacencies, there were balance issues (I’ve seen arguments either way, but in general the smaller number of territories was a problem).  In the Revised map, with the addition of more territories, there was probably also a desire to represent more historically accurate unit movements (and reduce axis advantage in snagging parts of africa and vice versa later in the game).  The Himalayas isolated India from China, and the Sahara created a buffer between the axis mediterranean territories and british territories directly south.

In Classic, Germany had multiple routes to Africa (go south!). In Revised, there is only one (short of transports) - egypt.  The benefit to this was to force egypt to become a back and forth battle between britain and germany as they vie for a strategic advantage.

In order to create a simple rule that aligned with previous mechanics (impassible neutrals), I would imagine that they simply desired these territories to follow the same rules and not allow flyovers either.  After all, while it was possible to fly over the sahara and himalayas, it was very dangerous and hardly the preferred route.

As the game map has grown (classics - revised - AA50 - AA40), it has clearly remained a desire by the designer to maintain the strategic route through egypt.  And because at the outset of the game allowing flyovers would favor the Axis (far more planes available in close proximity), I would imagine it’s a balance issue as well (at least, early game).  Removing the restriction dilutes the value of Egypt.

Satisfied?

I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless  you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.

In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.

Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.

Rules for World War II The Struggle for Europe and Asia can be found here:

http://www.ww2wargame.com/forum/index.php?topic=105.0

email me