Posts made by Ruanek

The whole point of Axis and Allies is that it’s about the war between the Axis and the Allies (WWII).

I’d love some terrain feature (probably not excluding units, because that would be game-changing, but it could make some units weaker/stronger in certain terrain), some form of Vichy/Free France (with it partially dictated by German choice, so it isn’t just a recreation of history), some reason for there to actually be a Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact (possibly more Soviet Far East territories, some being worth 0, and terrain to make tanks unable to blitz (it’s cold!)), increased movement within certain controlled territories (railroads, etc. - that could help with the previous thing, because Russia could ship troops east if needed, and would help reflect Germany having to shift troops around), and a different technology system that would reflect nations needing to invest in certain technology (e.g. British radar, German rockets) (it would take multiple turns, still luck based, but things that would indicate a need for it would make it more likely (e.g. bombing making radar easier)).

Having VCs be separate territories could be cool, as could a larger map, but those things wouldn’t be as game-changing.

I don’t like split income in general but if it’s kept split US income would be good.  I’d prefer, though, something like having regional centers for each power that have separate IPCs (DC/Los Angeles, London/Cairo/Calcutta/Ottowa/Cape Town (and possibly putting ANZAC back in the UK with Sydney - I don’t like mini-nations), etc.) - basically territories contribute IPCs to a certain territory, maybe it would be determined by factories so players could choose a bit, and there would be ways to ship IPCs around but then convoy raiding would come in.  Maybe there would have to be a slight loss of IPCs if shipping them elsewhere, to make it more economical for the US to have to build on both sides than to just ship IPCs across the country without risk of them being raided.  To knp7765: yeah, the US currently basically needs to focus income on one theater.  However, this is a wishlist, and hopefully there can one day be a version that is balanced for the US to split its income.

(This was inspired by Boyardee’s post.)  Having more diversification between land units could be nice, particularly with light and heavy tanks.  Having a way to upgrade infantry to become mechanized would be nice, as well.

Adding oil as a resource could be interesting, but I prefer having the single IPC resource and having oil represented by territory value.

Finally - each neutral country should have conditions to be met to allow it to lean towards each side (e.g. Finland wants  Germany to attack Russia, Spain wants the Axis to be dominating, etc.).  Maybe some would just require a one-time IPC gift.  It would be something that could make each neutral nation more unique and it adds historical accuracy.

Well, each of those territories is only getting one transport, so Japan could easily lose some of that (assuming there’s defense in places, e.g. Phillipines, Malaya, Hong Kong, etc.).  It could certainly happen, but it definitely won’t happen every time you try it.

@Cmdr:

I took Sydney with Italy once.  Won that with 6 Victory Cities in the Pacific.

That must have been a monstrous (or displaced) Italy.

I think there’s already something like this.  (It might be called double blind or something?  I’m not sure.)  In any case, though, it’s certainly a cool way to play.

If Germany and the USSR are not at war with each other, their ships ignore  each other for naval movement (meaning they can move through and/or end their move in sea zones with the other nation’s ships).

As you said, the only restrictions are on the USA and passage through straits.

@Alsch91:

Well not quite.

In low luck, you would roll for 1 sub, and it would hit on a 1 or 2, like normal.
It’s only once you had 3 subs would there be no rolling.

Well,I guess there are several variations.  That version makes sense, though.

@Kobu:

@Ruanek:

Well, people no longer need to attack with an overwhelming force to know that they’ll win a key battle.  And they’ll know that a long shot to sacrifice a few units to damage something isn’t worth it.  It removes the risks.

It does stop those occasional situations where the dice really go against someone, though.

Edit: It also makes single units a lot less strategic.  Like, if you have one infantry or a sub or whatever in a territory, you know you have a 1 in 3 shot of doing damage.  But with low luck it becomes 0 chance.

That’s diceless, not low luck.

Well, maybe there are multiple meanings for the same term, because what I described is low luck.  It is also diceless, though.

If you know something else, please feel free to add it.

@captainhook:

well  i just focused on japan for the firt 3-4 turns. so I really don’t see how I could have done less than that…. we are just starting turn 4 now. The German are not even within the borders of the USSR yet.

But they do indeed look like that they are going to tear the communists forces to bits…

Well, the Germans can only advance one territory per turn if the Russians put at least one infantry in each territory.  Even if the Italians help to speed things up that can still buy some time for the US to land in Europe (Normandy/Gibraltar, probably).

Well, people no longer need to attack with an overwhelming force to know that they’ll win a key battle.  And they’ll know that a long shot to sacrifice a few units to damage something isn’t worth it.  It removes the risks.

It does stop those occasional situations where the dice really go against someone, though.

Edit: It also makes single units a lot less strategic.  Like, if you have one infantry or a sub or whatever in a territory, you know you have a 1 in 3 shot of doing damage.  But with low luck it becomes 0 chance.

@Commando:

#1). Are people using the A&A Global 1940 map for A&A Europe 1940 games?

#2). What setup are folks using for A&A Europe 1940 games? Is is the OOB setup or are people using the A&A Global 1940, Alpha +2 setup?

I’ve played A&A Global 1940 & A&A Pacific 1940 many times but looking to play just A&A Europe 1940 now.

Thanks in advance!

The Global map is the Europe and Pacific maps together.  So you’re using part of Global, I guess.  You can try to use the Europe side of the Global Alpha + .2 setup.

Yes, but they don’t receive income from national objectives.  Also, their movement is restricted.

The East/West split for the UK is for the economies only.  It doesn’t affect the units - they operate together.

@Alsch91:

Because China is different.  And is an exception.
There’s no need for an arbitrary limit on China.

Oh, ok.  I guess it makes sense that since China has a unique political/industrial situation it has a better ability to produce infantry than even well-established, industrialized nations.

@JimmyHat:

Well thats too few.  It would be even easier for Japan to roll China.  I think 10 is better because they won’t usually be able to produce 10 units anyways, only when they save and have 60ipcs could they do that.

Then what’s the point of the limit at all?  And why should Russia have to buy an IC to build 3 or 10 infantry a turn to defend when China can do it without an IC?

I also won a game as the Allies operating under the mistaken impression that China could only place 1 unit per territory.  China still did pretty well.

@JimmyHat:

@Ruanek:

China shouldn’t be able to build more units in a territory than nations with actual industrial complexes can.

This is an even better rule, much easier to handle.  Chinese spaces can produce no more than 10 units.  10 is the max per square.

I was thinking no more than 3, because of minor ICs.

China shouldn’t be able to build more units in a territory than nations with actual industrial complexes can.

@JimmyHat:

There is also no limit to the number of units you can place, so if China regains its footing its best to save money for a rainy day fund.

Isn’t there a 1 per territory limit?

There aren’t any restrictions on naval movement when not at war (except for the USA, and through straits).

You can never go through a pro neutral except in anon-combat move, and then you have to end the move there.  (Aircraft can’t land there, though.)  You can’t blitz through an enemy neutral because as soon as you enter it you attack it (since you can’t enter it in a noncombat move) and that activates its defensive infantry. I guess theoretically if you attacked it and failed to take it but killed all the infantry you could then blitz through it on a following turn, but that’s about it.