@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
Axis #1: The Allies have left their SZ91 fleet exposed if the Neutrals are attacked by Italy, specifically Spain, and that allows the Germans to annihilate a large Allied fleet on the cheap.
This is the circumstance I had experienced in one of my games (sort of/kind of) that I mentioned, where the Axis are basically attacking Spain as part of a broader strategy to disrupt the shuck-shuck into SZ91.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
. I’ll also mention though that when I say the UK is “cash-strapped”, I don’t mean because they spent a lot of money on industrial complexes but because having so many complexes incentivizes you to use them to the max
This makes me think of a game I had recently, where the UK got bombed a lot, early on.
Honestly, I just spent a few rounds building up navy in Canada (2 subs and 1 destroyer at a time, after a carrier buy on the 1st round) while keeping my South Africa factory humming along as usual. I often don’t end up building much in the UK until the US has a presence in the war, or at least until the Germans swing all their air power over to the USSR.
Is the Taranto raid still “in fashion” or has the conventional wisdom changed on that? I honestly find it’s better as the UK to conserve your planes and ships in the early game, and then just overwhelm the Italians through weight of numbers.
Edit: (to add)
As the UK, I find that keeping 3 transport loads full around the home island is about the most you can expect to do. Later in the game, you could maybe bump that up to 4, but with your factory output only being 10 (unlike the US having 20) you’re probably not going to put out more than 8 land units, anyway. I tend to like having “space” in my budget for a bomber, here and there – so 6-8 infantry suits me just fine.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
if America is focusing more on delivering troops to Europe directly via transports (rather than your strategy of moving through North Africa to the Eastern Front), artillery could still be valuable to provide more cost-effective firepower, since Western Europe is so dense that 2-space-movers aren’t very useful.
My general ethos as the US is to dump everything in Morocco; after that, any tanks drive towards the middle east, while any infantry then hop onto a 2nd set of transports, either landing in Greece or further up the Atlantic coast. I’m using carrier aircraft for the bulk of my offense as the US, rather than tanks (in fact I recently did a test of just spamming out carriers and fighters with no destroyers.)
The sweet spot for the “floating bridge” seems to be 4 transport loads, and I skew more towards 8 inf for that; due to using more transports to ship infantry farther, my deviations from 8 inf tend to be 2 arm+6 inf or 4 arm+4 inf, rather than mixing in odd numbers – but it really comes down to what else I’m buying, as I tend to “spend it all” most of the time.
I’ve had a couple games recently where the Axis declared war on the neutrals. Where this really causes problems for the US is that it extends the reach of Axis aircraft in France, to be able to hit the SZ west of Gibraltar; otherwise, you can usually get away with leaving transports there undefended. That being said, I’m generally of the opinion that any SZs where you’re keeping transports need at least 2 destroyers, 1 carrier, and 2 fighters.
As I’ve mentioned, I’ve recently experimented with using battleships or carriers in place of destroyers. I’d say both have their merits, although once you make landfall and have someplace to park your planes, you don’t really need more than 2ish carriers per SZ that you’re defending. It seems like you can essentially do something where you churn out fighters and leapfrog them towards the front line.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
(though not the UK-if you’re doing “Middle Earth”, where you dump a bunch of minor industrial complexes in the Middle East and Egypt and mass produce ground units and march them up to the Soviet Union, they’ll be cash-strapped enough to need artillery, and the Middle East to the Eastern Front isn’t terribly far)
I should mention here that as a general observation, I don’t build a ton of infrastructure. I’ve used the “Middle Earth” tactic of putting a factory in Persia, and it’s… fine? But as you point out, the investment cost is pretty high. What I generally do is either rotate 2 transports between South Africa and Egypt, or 3 transports in rotation to supply Eastern Persia en route to Novosibirsk. I also tend to produce a tank (in addition to whatever I’m shipping) in South Africa and drive that northward, on basically any turn that I’m not putting down a transport there.
I’ve mostly always shipped 2 infantry using this route, although I’ve recently experimented with 1 inf + 1 arm – cost doesn’t seem to be an issue, when you’re not buying multiple factories. But I still think I prefer using 2 inf.
I think a factory in Greece is handy once you get there, and it can work for either the US or the UK. A harbor in Persia works if you’re pot-committed to that tactic, but I find using the 3rd transport instead (in addition to being cheaper) gives you that flexibility to pivot towards the Med.
Other than that, I find a harbor in Norway is useful if you’re wanting to pressure Western Germany and Denmark, or resupply the USSR via the northern route (although I find this to be pretty slow-going, unless/until you slap down a factory in Finland – which gets into the issue of the USSR wanting to have those territories more than letting the other Allies take them…)
A harbor in Greece is handy because it covers multiple sea zones:
one set of transports in SZ92 swaps places with another set, either in SZ97 or SZ99, paired with additional sets of transports ferrying between the US east coast and SZ91
So in 3 turns, you can get from the US to Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, or Syria. IMO it really comes down to whether you want the US and UK to focus on this route, or on the Atlantic, or to split their focuses.
Early on, I attempted the more traditional/“Classic” tactic, of having the US march their guys up to Canada, and then ship to SZ109 to land in the UK; this might be useful to defend against a Sea Lion threat, but it takes just as long as going to Morocco/Gibraltar first, with the latter having the added benefit of putting units actually into front line action, instead of… being in Canada. This is why I’m of the opinion that the harbor in Gibraltar is possibly the only worthwhile bombing target (other than factories) although I’m also starting to come around on bombing coastal airfields, in particular Southern Italy.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
Your view of mechanized infantry is mostly correct. I do think Germany isn’t as hard-pressed as you think and can afford them (and they’re an absolute must if you’re preparing a giant assault on Moscow on a specific turn).
I don’t have a lot of Axis games under my belt, but Germany feels really cash-poor, all the time. Like, maybe it’s a case of me needing to figure out how to attack every territory on my borders on the first turn to get my income up…? I find myself putting out roughly 13 units a turn (off the top of my head) and it feels like nowhere near enough to take a meaningful shot at Moscow before turn 7 or 8 – never mind having anything in reserve to fend off landings in/around France. (And I’m not even talking expensive units, just a mix of inf and mechs.) Because realistically, the USSR should be able to still crank out something like 9 inf per round, even into the first round where they’re at war – and possibly longer. That’s a pretty steep hill for Germany to climb, particularly since they’re getting comparatively no help from N.O.'s compared to the USSR, once the war kicks off.
The strain seems to be that you have to pressure the north, just to not lose Finland and Norway… But realistically, the German N.O.'s seem to be pushing you towards Volgograd/Caucasus and the middle east. I’m not sure if most allied players wait for Archangel to fall before they start sending supplies to the USSR, but I think this is actually designed/intended to dissuade the Germans from taking the northern route. Maybe it’s the case that you just have to bomb Novgorod into submission, rather than trying to attack it directly?
It does seem to me like Germany could afford to pull back even as far as leaving Poland empty, as long as they’re still sending waves through Slovakia-Hungary into Eastern Poland. If most of your production is being placed into Germany every turn, it basically makes Poland a deadzone for the USSR to even attempt taking. Again, it would depend on coming up with an answer for how to defend Norway and Finland, while maintaining a steady drive towards the southern front.
@FranceNeedsMorePower
I mean, I’m no expert in that regard. My whole ethos is “a penny saved is a penny earned.”
My general experience of playing as the western Allies in these types of games is actually about projecting a large enough force that your enemy won’t attack you; if preserving French units helps with that, then all the better.
The whole thing with the western Allies is that they need to ramp up and leverage their economies, but it’s not simply enough to out-spend your opponent; you have to actually be able to out-unit them, too.
AFAICT this sort of thinking lines up with one of the more well-considered strategy breakdowns for Global40, which I was pointed towards by more than one person:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1397227
credit to @AndrewAAGamer for this^^^
@The-Janus said in France's role in Global 1940 SE:
I recently ran a game in TripleA where I played as the western Allies (as I often do) and was gifted a particularly strong start w/r/t my French units. So I wanted to share that game here:
best France start ever - US18.tsvg
I started another game (more of a gimmick run – battleships instead of destroyers, for the US) and somehow Germany failed to take France or Normandy-Bordeaux on G1…?
G1 fail - F22.tsvg
Turned out to be a weird game all around, because the USSR seemed to be in a fairly dominant position (obviously) yet somehow the Germans still made it into the middle east via the Caucasus. I was a lot more aggressive with my UK Mediterranean fleet than I normally am, so that cost me a few units I normally never lose; I think that slowed me down somewhat, but ultimately the Italians probably got the worst of it.
I ended up feeding France some territory towards the end, but with that in mind, I think this game is a pretty good demonstration of how I tend to protect and shepherd my French units – in case anyone wanted some pointers, for reference.
Getting back to the main topic of the thread, I’ve played a couple of games recently (in TripleA) and I’d say my opinion of the unit types has solidified even more.
For context, I want to lay out the general tactics I tend to use, as the western Allies:
That all being said, here are my opinions on the various unit types:
Artillery: I don’t see a ton of use for this unit. I think the issue lies in the split between countries that are land powers vs. sea powers. If you’re the USSR, artillery are an attractive option because you have a low income, you need some offense, but also you just need as many pieces as possible. If you’re the US or UK, tanks do all of the above, but also are more useful to put on a transport, and move better once they’re on land – and you have the budget for it, too. Hypothetically, if you were to remove artillery from the game, and increase the USSR’s income to compensate (i.e. encourage them to buy more tanks) I think they’d just opt for bigger hordes of infantry. Limitations on the amount of units that factories can produce might play into it a bit, but otherwise IPM logic would win out, I assume.
Mech. Inf.: Germany feels like they’re in the ‘mushy middle’ of needing fast-movers (for the southern front, in particular) but not really having the economy to go all-tank in that regard (the way I typically would, w/r/t fast-movers for the US or UK). OTOH, Germany has the problem of also being a land power that needs as many units on the board as possible. I get the sense that a well-executed Italian strategy will give Germany a bit more time/space to breathe, so that’s something I’ll have to get some more experience with. I think with my strategies involving resupplying the USSR via South Africa, I could probably pivot to 1 inf+1 mech instead of 2 inf…? But on the whole, I don’t really see a use case for this unit, beyond Germany and possibly the USSR (or Italy, using some leap-frog maneuvering to do can-openers.) Generally I feel like Italy is a country that needs to focus on infantry and aircraft, more than anything else.
Tanks: My overall impression is that an artillery is “a tank without the mobility” and a mech. inf. is “a tank without the offense” – if you can afford tanks, they’re always the better option than either of those other units. This is why (as I’ve said in discussion elsewhere) I’d prefer to see the artillery and mech. inf. units/roles merged into one; some countries need the offense, some need the movement, and those that can’t afford tanks need a cheaper option for whichever niche they’re looking to fill. In short, I don’t think there’s enough design space for the 4 types of land units.
Aircraft: I’ve toyed with mixing tac. bombers into my carrier fleets; they’re nice to have, but I don’t think they’re an overall necessary addition to the game. I’ve generally reverted to purely fighters as my carrier aircraft. I think bombers are really strong, particularly for the allies in softening up Germany; the +2 bombing damage as well as the US/UK ability to just stockpile planes over time is really deadly. I almost feel like the US economic boost via National Objectives needs to taper off after a few rounds. I think the bombing mechanic overall is a little undercooked; the harbor in Gibraltar is probably the only thing worth bombing, other than factories. This fuels part of the weakness of tac. bombers, at least in the European theatre; I could see this tactic being potentially stronger in the Pacific.
Cruisers: They are obsolete. A fighter is basically always a better purchase, both for naval defense and shore “bombardment.” Destroyers are weaker defensively, but not relative to the cost, and they’re better for ASW as well as just general cannon fodder. For the same cost, I’d argue a bomber is way better, offensively. I’d even argue a battleship might be a better purchase, if you can use it to soak hits while also managing to keep it repaired.
I’ve said it earlier in the thread, but I think to make cruisers viable, you’d need to rebalance them through reducing the cost significantly and/or making shore bombardment be insta-kill. I honestly think there isn’t enough “design space” in the game for two classes of middleweight surface ships. Maybe if they were merged into a single unit, but interacted with other ships differently; for example, maybe pairing them with a battleship would upgrade their shore bombardment to a 4, while pairing them with a carrier would provide the ASW mechanics of a destroyer, or pairing them with a sub would grant them sneak attack.
Submarines/Destroyers: I’d be interested to see if there are any viable Axis strategies around leaning heavily into submarines… For the allies, while I think the slight cost saving/attack boost of a few subs over a few destroyers can help with wiping out the Italians, overall the destroyers are going to have more staying power, since they’re better for the main purpose of defending transports from enemy planes. Once you’ve got command of the seas, you’ll find yourself wishing that you had some ships that could bombard, and not just all destroyers – since they’re just defensive and not pro-active, at that point. (Now I’m finding myself wondering if there might be a case for Battleships over destroyers, as the US – particularly in a strategy involving additional harbors being built by the Allies. I might try and test this out, in the future.) You of course need transports, but overall I don’t think your naval purchases need to consist of anything other than destroyers, carriers, and fighters.
Other general musings:
The convoy zone to the east of Italy is such a huge detriment. I really like the idea of a constant Italian shuck-shuck into Syria, but once the Allied navy is in the Mediterranean, the Italians are basically forced to turtle up their ships to protect their coastline. In general, I find the convoy zones to be very arbitrary and “gamey” – Like, there aren’t any convoy zones adjacent to West Germany, or Berlin? Or the English Channel? Seriously?
I wonder if there’s any value to investing in a Baltic fleet, as Germany. Thus far, I’ve tended to send infantry towards Novgorod and mech. inf. towards Rostov, as the Germans; would speeding up the northern route with transports add any lethality to their strategy?
It seems like the Italians need to go into the middle east to get any meaningful sort of economy going (i.e. via National Objectives); the catch-22 is that it’d be expensive to get the necessary navy built up, to support that. Is it something they have to gamble on early, and hope they can parlay that into successes elsewhere later on? Are they better off just stalling the allies, while focusing on supporting Germany on land vs. the USSR? Do they have the economy to really make any difference, with that strategy?
Is it worth it for the Axis to declare war on the neutrals? I feel like taking out Turkey is too big of a hill to climb, but does that route make it easier to attack the USSR, or the middle east? Would it be viable to park the Italian fleet in the Black Sea and cause havoc that way? I see the Ai do it a lot, but is it worth it for the US to gobble up South America in this situation? Is opening up Spain just too much of a weakness for the Axis to even consider it?
Places like Saudi Arabia, Spain, and French West Africa all seem like interesting spots to put harbors. In practical terms though, the existing infrastructure tends to make those options fairly moot, and I rarely see the Axis take sub-Saharan Africa. It’s actually a shorter route on land from West Africa to get to the middle east and USSR, than by going through North Africa – but the lack of a harbor effectively makes this shipping lane twice the distance from the US, compared to just landing in Morocco.
I recently ran a game in TripleA where I played as the western Allies (as I often do) and was gifted a particularly strong start w/r/t my French units. So I wanted to share that game here:
best France start ever - US18.tsvg
As the file name implies, the game ended with the USSR taking Berlin in round 18; towards the end I was sort of deliberately trying to feed France additional territories (with mixed degrees of success.)
I also was trying to funnel the lone surviving Italian infantry in east Africa into taking French Equatorial Africa, but he never did go for it ;)
@Stucifer said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
I used the “save game at this point (beta)” feature to save the game at the start of round 3 and will play out round 3 and post it.
I tried to open one of the saves you posted, but it gave me an error, saying that it was made in a newer version of TripleA… but when I followed the link to download the new version, I’m pretty sure it led me to the same version I already have.
TripleA in a nutshell, am I right? 🙃
@Stucifer said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
Round 2 - moved 7 units into Holland belgium to retake it from 1 artillery. Should have been 1 inf, 1 artillery, if you want more % use a mech that can move fast afterwards.
[…]
The 3 infantry in W Germany should have moved to Germany. on NCM. Shouldn’t have built in France, it’s another turn away from the front.
What you’re saying all makes sense in the context of the pieces actually in play; I guess I would say that I did these sorts of moves under the assumption that I would have to leave more units in these areas for defense, if I was playing against a tougher opponent/I’m also working from the assumption that Ai Italy won’t have my back at all, and therefore I basically always need to be producing a few units in France, so that I can react to landings in the area.
Part of the reasoning is that in previous games, I’ve had West Germany’s industry get bombed into smithereens for the entire game, and I never felt like I should bother spending the money to repair it; I just assumed from that experience that I’d need to be building in France and “convoying” defensive units out to West Germany for the entire game.
…
I agree that I definitely didn’t need to build all artillery on rd2, but I had already decided to “commit to the bit” for the sake of seeing the experiment through. I stuck with it until the US entered the war, because by then it was already obvious that I needed to switch it up.
P.S. I think with a map looking like this, the allies should just go in on the neutrals; UK is well-positioned to take out Turkey (if they wanted) and then continue on through the Balkans, and the Americans (as always) can easily stomp down Spain. Even the remaining USSR forces are insulating Sweden from being used by the Germans.
@Stucifer said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
@The-Janus I actually meant the territory labeled France, so Normandy and Southern France both go to Italy. Plus Yugo & Greece. Bulgaria goes to Germany for the extra infantry to use in Russia.
Here’s my latest attempt: 2025-2-11-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition – Germany all artillery.tsvg
The gimmick this time is basically that I went all artillery with Germany for 3 turns, then split inf and mech the rest of the way; on rd8 Germany took Moscow, but US took Rome.
My rationale for this is kinda wild/stupid, but basically I wanted to test whether artillery had any real value; they move like infantry, cost the same as mechs, but attack better than either, and buff both. It seemed to work out OK…?
Getting the bombers to the front line ASAP so that they could be bombing Moscow seemed to help out a lot.
Germany I feel just generally needs a lot of land units in order to cover the ground they’re taking and absorb losses; artillery seems suitable for this, with the added perk of a little bit of extra offense. But once your front-line moves far enough, their speed becomes a real weakness, and you need those “fast-movers” (generally mechs, just due to budget restraints.)
I could probably continue with this game, by sweeping down into the middle east, but man… it always seems like around the time I’m in position to take Moscow, the allies just show up all over western Europe. I’m not sure how I could get Germany to finish the job any sooner than I have been (round 8, in this case.)
@Stucifer said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
I am somewhat partial to another strategy which is to give everything that is not France to Italy and have them focus on garrisoning the wall.
Is this saying to give Germany all of France and let Italy take everything in the Balkans?
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
About the game attached:
I think you did a really great opener and your moves into the Soviet Union were probably what I would’ve done as well. Breaking out from Eastern Poland is what Cow’s G1 opener implies.
Anyhow, the AI basically handed you the game when they attacked the strict neutral.
I’m kind of stumped as to how badly the battles in France went. That genuinely seems to have taken way too long to mop up, and slowed everything else down.
My sense from the community was that France on the continent (and not just their capitol) could/should be mopped up on G1, every game, and if it takes longer than the first round, the Axis are basically cooked – but then in playing the German setup myself, I’m genuinely curious how anyone manages to put in enough force to accomplish that.
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league?
It’s kinda been theorized that USSR might want to attack China, in certain situations.
If China isn’t defending North Korea, or worse, if they’re actively letting NATO move units through their territory, the USSR might be better off attacking.
The other thing is that the complication table is weighted more toward China’s outrage than the other 2 majors, so if the USSR has the ability to send nukes, it’s also generally assumed that they will, whereas the US is less likely to use them; in a long enough game, that will swing China towards favoring NATO, so the USSR might pre-empt that at some point.
The other option is as a game-ender, towards obtaining an economic victory. In fact, such a thing is probably pretty impossible without invading most of the neutrals on the Eurasian continent.
P.S. I still think modeling neutral contributions as N.O.'s is an option to keep in mind
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
The problem with E&W rules for neutrals is that they are just passive sources of income, that can also be attacked. That is not very interesting.
I think you’d just be swapping one problem for another, because making them function in more “interesting” ways would throw the game balance completely out the window. Also, the USSR can attack any neutrals at any time, but NATO can only attack major neutrals, and only if they are providing their full income to the USSR. So generally speaking there isn’t a military solution to the passive income provided by major neutrals.
Without getting long-winded about it, China basically serves as a buffer for the USSR, keeping the US and UK to the perimeter; if the Americans could just land anywhere along the Pacific coast of Asia, that’s a whole different ball-game – and not in a way that’s good for the USSR.
The other function of major neutrals is to prevent the game from being bogged down with roughly double the number of minor neutrals on the map. Having them function as a bloc and then tying them into things like nuclear complications, controlling the Suez Canal, and North Korea rules are what make the system really shine. This also circles back to the rule allowing the USSR to attack neutrals; there’s more of a downside if attacking Iraq means that Syria, Jordan, et al. also turn against you. If you get rid of the Arab League as a major neutral, I imagine the USSR would start gobbling up the middle east piecemeal in probably every game. (And I have to imagine the major neutral mechanic is an outgrowth of the original designers having tested these kinds of strategies, and found them to break the game.)
If you wanna rebalance the game around an “active China” paradigm, be my guest – but depending on things like turn order, they either get dogpiled, or they win the entire continent pretty early on. These are the types of bog-standard house rules that people immediately tried once they got their hands on the game 25 odd years ago, and couldn’t get to work. I remember those discussions, trust me.
E&W is much more about ‘politics’ mechanics than any other A&A game, full stop, and basically the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you swap out one mechanic for something you think is more interesting, that doesn’t immediately mean it’ll be better or that the game will even still function properly from a balance perspective. Trying to reinvent the China rules is probably the biggest hornet’s nest you could kick, and it’s not much less perilous to mess around with how the Arab League works, either.
Honestly, if you feel the need to strip things down, but maintain the flavour of it, I can definitely give you some suggestions in that regard – I’ve written an E&W scenario for Risk. But I’d lean more towards major neutrals not having any mechanics for getting active, than to add mechanics making that easier to do.
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Looking at the East & West rules, it seems unlikely that you could ever bring a major neutral over. You only have a 1/6 chance to move it one step and your opponent can deploy spies to counter you.
Have you considered the knock-on effects of changing those mechanics?
Would you want China and OAS to become active powers?
Or would they just swing all their income, units, and territories to USSR/USA in one dice roll?
Genuinely curious as to what you’re thinking this implementation would look like.
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
you either get them or you don’t
You’re going to have to unpack what you mean by that.
If China is allowed to effectively be a 16 IPC swing on a random die roll, I’m calling bullshit.
When you “get” a major neutral, would you get all of their units/territories? Or if they can still be influenced back to the other side, are you basically suggesting we compress the 9-point influence scale down to just 3 (positive, neutral, negative)?
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
There is World at War mod for TripleA, but the map does not resemble East & West.
(Credit to @thrasher1 from his old Axis & Allies page: https://web.archive.org/web/20011122195430/http://www.wargamer.com:80/axisandallies/ce/xeno/waw/scenarios/waw_scenario_warsaw_page1.html )
I know you specified the version that’s in TripleA, but just for comparison (and since I don’t believe I’ve mentioned it in this thread before) here’s a mock-up of the W@W map, modified to include things like north/south Korea, as well as Yugoslavia/Greece:
…and here’s my edit of it in MSpaint, for a mock-up of E&W:
(For those who’ve been following the thread a while, I also brought up this exact example, outlining the similarities in our “podcast” episode, with @The_Good_Captain : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4KrQ1V9IcI )
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Submarine Technology
- Snorkels (subs immune to air attacks)
- Nuclear Power (subs move 3)
- Cruise Missile (subs bombard at 2)
- Receive 1 free submarine
- Receive 2 free submarines
- Receive 3 free submarines
It’d be interesting if you could also code in Nuclear Subs being able to go under the ice cap? Maybe there’s a way to model it as a strait/canal, to make that work.
The problem that immediately jumps off the page to me, is that you couldn’t throw the two types of A-bombs into a tech pool, and have it work out with just random rolling; I assume that might tie into this comment?
I would implement nuclear weapons using the rules from the “The Grand War”.
I’m not familiar with how that game does it. I also would have to assume that the nuclear complication table is off the… well, table.
Spies would be implemented as a technology list. The diplomacy would have all 3 major neutrals and the 14 minor neutrals. If you receive that “tech”, you gain control of the neutral (as long as it still is neutral).
From my experience with Europe 1940, I think you would have to treat each major neutral similarly to how the “true neutrals” are modeled, in that game i.e. declaring war on one declares war on all. Activating the neutral units properly RAW is going to be the real problem, I’d imagine – just based on how in A&A games everything is dependent on moving units into those territories, whereas in E&W it’s not. The other thing you could maybe do is represent the income provided by the major neutrals as “National Objectives” that you achieve through spying… assuming there’d be a way to code those two systems to interact together.
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
My plan is to starting by implemented East & West rules on an existing map and then using the East & West map, thereby creating two mods. I see people have tried the Classic, Revised and Global maps. I was thinking of the Anniversary map or the Big World map from TripleA.
As was mentioned here and there a few times, it appears to me that the map most closely resembles Xeno Games’ World at War (particularly the delineation of sea zones); if a map and/or module exists somewhere for that game, that would probably be the best place to start. Otherwise, of the A&A maps I’m familiar with, I’d say Revised is probably the closest; the ruleset obviously most closely resembles Classic, but there are also a few W@W-isms.
My hunch is that some of the technologies (and maybe the spying) will be the hardest to implement; the other hang-ups (also mentioned earlier in this thread) would be not allowing allies to land planes in newly-captured territories, as well as the ‘universal’ infantry placement rule. Also, tanks being able to move on non-combat and combat movement is pretty unique, for A&A; the submarine rules were also a bit of a stumbling block, since they’re not entirely clear.
Were there any specific rules questions you had about E&W?