Posts made by murraymoto

Chungking VC worth 10points sounds like a plan.

yikes 10 infantry per turn with normal rules.

  I’m not familiar with the AAP rules too much, aren’t there specific Chinese Air Force (flying tigers) that come with the game?  would they factor in too?  I was thinking they would get 1 inf per 2 ipcs.  But maybe ipc values are factored into the Chinese territories, you might want to use traditional rules for them, if they could build like 3-4 inf per turn or art on their own (if each territory had at least a 1 ipc value, they’d get at least 15

Why not just make Chungking a VC that does not count for the allies?   Saipon could work, like Mocoom mentioned, or maybe Naha, which is listed on the map already to give the axis 1 more to balance and make Chunking count for the Allies.

If Chunking is not going to be an US VC, then definitely put Panama City in for the replacement.  It was a big target, considered by both sides.

The Burma Road ipc train that IL mentions adds a nice twist.

The AAP rules for China would be a great way to handle China.

@mateooo:

how do you counter it?

@cystic:

by killing russia?

niiicce….

Random thoughts:
If you are going back to June '41, East Poland, BeloRussia and West Ukraine should go back to Russia

I like the Atlantic Islands, for realism.  I do see them as better in early stages for US to move to Europe, and for Germany after wiping Russia out

I think it was mentioned way back now about spliting the solomon islands into a couple sections and at the time I thought no, but after more thought and looking more and more at New Guinea, I think the Solomons could be split.  Historically at least the US and Jap were both on opposite sides of some of the islands there for months fighting.  I think it could work.

The Chunking VC is probably better than Panama City, I know that historically there were German plans to attack the canal there but there was German plans for just about everything (death rays, better mouse traps, etc) and that is a huge amount of China to cross for not a whole lot (though ipcs haven’t been ironed out yet)

Naha is listed in Okinawa and looks like a VC but I don’t see it on the list?

Vichy:
I’m on board with the neutral/pro-axis Vichy.  If i’m reading the posts right, neutral territories, but money to Germany.  Germany can invade them to move through them.  I think that that light grey or blue-grey color could accomplish this as well as the 1939 scenario mentioned.

Road/Rails
If the plan is for road/rails, then I like IL’s list.  For Europe, pretty much all the countries had a compatible rail system and I would be in favor of instead of putting multiple rails, putting in a standard europe rail plan, where you could move from one territory in europe an average number of territories away.  Average would come from what the other rails are like.  Spain had a different system and Russia was very primitive rail system in comparison.  http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

Turn Order:
I like Micoom’s best
1. Germany/ Italy
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom/ United States

but from deepblue’s list I would vote for A: Axis Aggressors, but I really do think Italy should go before UK.
1. Germany
  2. Russia
  3. Japan
  4. United Kingdom
  5. Italy
  6. USA

I would vote for the ancients that hung around…  A big spider scary yes, a giant tiki head that glows when it transmits communications, Awesome!

I like IL’s turn order too.

Deathhead’s idea about US only getting half it’s production on the 1st turn unless attacked I like too.

The restricted Russia idea is good, but if it’s '42 then Barbarossa had begun the previous year.

Regarding the railroad/convoy roads:   could you make them usable only by the power that controls them at the start?  ie-Siberian railway only for Russia, and if Japan takes those territories you would consider that the railway has been destroyed on the Russian pullout.  That could be a simple way to handle them, if they were included.
   Regarding rebuilding of them then would have to either not occur at all or occur once all the territories involved were captured for a complete turn.  This could be all the territories that are involved, similar to the naval port rules in AAP.

Regarding pushing total timeline back I don’t think it would be a horrible idea to take the US out of play for the first turn.  If layout would seem to bring about a potential Pearl Harbor too early. 
I thought that the Restricted Russia rule from classic accomplished the goal of Germany breaking the non-aggression treaty in a similar way. 
The more i think about it and look at the map, I am in favor of pushing Germany back towards the Fatherland to start.

IL,
  I forgot to mention too that the alternate rules that you posted in other threads with the weather factors and Siberian army are a nice variation.  Thanks!

if anyone else is interested:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7067.0

pushing back the starting date and the German advance could give Germany more options rather than just the eastern front, but what if they choose not to go there, then the Soviet Union has all this extra income with which to invade Germany and now Germany has lost the complete tactical surprise that they historically had.  Here the SU knows that they are going to fight, but historically they didn’t listen to warnings of the coming attack.  I have questions that pushing Germany back here and allowing Germany to engage elsewhere would only lead to the same German/SU battle, only in Poland rather than Stalingrad/Moscow with the advantage to SU.  No matter where Germany starts they could attack elsewhere, say decide to invade UK.  With the Eastern Front pushed so far into SU, they have additional time to prepare Sea Lion while slowing the SU advance.

Perhaps there should be something put in similar to the Russia/Japan non-aggression treaty where if the Soviets attack Germany, there is an immediate addtion of troops to that front.

On the other hand, if Germany is going first, I could see Russia still holding at least Western Russia so at least they don’t attack Moscow on turn 1

I guess I think there should be a close look at what this setup would entail to gameplay/history.  It’s a big change this far into the discussion.  Perhaps it could be a second map itself.

This question came from when we’ve played AAE, which hasn’t been much I’ll admit, the german’s fate is sealed about 4 rounds in.  Maybe they haven’t been aggressive enough, I don’t know.

I guess if AAE had come out post AAR, then tanks may well have been 3/3, as would transports capacities been upgraded like Saburo mentioned, and the layout of units to begin would have been altered to compensate.

And that’s the beauty of playing house rules.

thanks for the input…

deepblue,

any chance you could post the latest draft, the last one I’ve seen is before the sahara and azores, (like back on page 9 of this thread)
Thanks!

I agree that the Azores could be bit more to the center of the sea zone, I don’t think a slight nod away from reality of location is a big deal, much of the map is not quite to scale anyhow.

As for the colors, I think they should work fine.

So I’m looking at the rules for AAE, and wondering about the attack/defend values for armor.  I believe that the game (AAE-1999) in my rule book) came out before AAR (2004), and so it seems that perhaps that is why the classic rules for armor are used.  If AAE was released post-AAR, it seem possible (no guarantee) that it would have incorporated the armor values from AAR rather than Classic?  Do you think that values for revised att-3/def-3 should be used instead of att-3/def-2 that the rules have?

Do you think that this would skew the balance of the game (assuming you see it as a balanced game to begin) or would it potentially bring balance or at least help to balance?

Seems to me that the fighter would stay in the seazone until all of the Japanese combat moves are over (as would any potential Japanese aircraft).  After all combat moves are complete, noncombat moves would cover the return trips of all aircraft.  Aircraft return trips apparently occur at the very end of NC moves, according to the error correction page at wizards/avalon hill:

A fighter leaves an aircraft carrier and attacks a transport in an adjacent sea zone. After the battle, the fighter returns to the aircraft carrier. Can the aircraft carrier then move its two spaces with the fighter?
No. Fighters land at the very end of non-combat movement. To land on the carrier, the fighter must fly to the sea zone where the carrier will be at the end of non-combat movement.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

–on the triplea game I believe aircraft movement works like this too, even if you retreat, the aircraft stay in the zone until noncombat for attacker and defender.  That game is not exactly an authority I know, but a correlation no less.

On the other hand, the rule book does say in the combat move phase section that in general units can only take part in combat once a turn, and gives the example of multiple AA guns enroute to strategic bombings, but does not say if that is the only time that could happen.

the US is sorta limited on it’s first turn for actually attacks.  Retaliating to Pearl if it was attacked and landing in Algeria are about the only thing they can do attack-wise on US1.  They are just gearing up for the war and have to get all that production moving and setup for attacks in the next few rounds. 
  You may not want to try and win the game in round 1, historically the real war went on for 4+ years from the start of the game, so what’s important is winning it.  If it takes a few rounds, don’t sweat it.

Hey guys,

been checking in on this variant off and on, great to see it being worked on again.  About the new map, I may have missed the post in recent days, but is the thought to still put the Saharan desert in as impassible again?

For Detroit, I think it would have to be at least 2 spaces worth of sea zones to get shipping to/from Detroit to the Atlantic and it appears that it is the same amount of land territories to move them overland and then onto ships.  I don’t think it would be worth the change.

Just regarding the Madagascar thing, in my opinion, if it fell in november then it should go to England, though I do like the thought of it as a axis base with a couple subs off the coast at the start.  I know that much was said about moving the date back a couple months but much of the world was drastically different then too.  Still, even if no income came historically from Madagascar that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t potential for it.  But it just seems best to make it English.  (on a nit-picky note, and I’m not trying to argue this, just pointing it out, the wikipedia entry for the Madagascar battle does actually link to the same page that Imp. leader referenced and the entry seems to match pretty well to it, of course he may have been the one that added the link.)
  what about bumping up romania by 1 or areas there to make up for the Madagascar revenue?  I thought that there was massive oil reserves there at that time held by germany.  If that is true, and the european front is not my area of expertise or anything, but 1-3 could be be valuable.

Regarding the pacific front, much of the push that corresponded to pearl harbor was to indonesia areas and the resourses there… places like java, borneo, celebes, sumatra, brunei could all go up a bit too as far as value…  if that helps with balance.

just thoughts, if they help great, if not no worries…

There was a different doc for the pilot movie, then franklin came, and I think you are right, he was around the rest of the time.  Maybe he took off in the 5th season, i forget…

I wonder how much different the series would have been if Ivanova had stayed till the end…

I think that i would have to vote for Zathras, not to be confused with Zath’ras or Z’athras…

“Zathras have very sad life.  Probably have very sad death.  At least there is symmetry.”

Garibaldi was about as close to being the core of the show though as you can get, having been the only human there for the whole run.