Unit Increases or

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:16 pm

Comments noted
Yes - there are ways to make this happen TMTM

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:49 am

I lean towards having more units rather than less. I believe fewer units would lead to a concentration of those units on a few key areas, leaving large regions of the board empty, which I don’t like to see. Also, battles with fewer units are more dependent on chance, whereas I want a game that is decided more by intelligent marshalling of resources.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:54 pm

I want more units but want to avoid the tactic of waiting "sitzkreig" with large hordes of infantry guarding the gates. It really makes for a static battlefield condition, and was a resaon for the changes on the revised map in Russia (e.g. kariella/ eastern europe) I especially want more naval units.The main idea is to give the incentive for a nation to build a more varied mix of pieces, and to provide reasons why they should... One way is to end the idea of 1-2 infantry into 3-4, so the defensive cheap builds solely on infantry will not work anymore.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:25 pm

Comments noted
I'm confident that AA&A will address these issues. I completely agree with both of you and see the value in your positions./

elbowmaster
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:23 pm

sitzkreig!!! LOL :lol: i love it!!

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:14 pm

Comments noted
Sitzkreig - That one took me moment.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:19 am

I should have said that I regard AAR as very well balanced in this respect - very few empty areas, but not too many big stacks.
However, as IL said, navies still tend to suffer from wipeout. I think sensible defender retreat rules should solve this problem.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:17 pm

Comments noted
Yes – Both Attacker and Defender being able to retreat will have many positive impacts on the game indeed. I do of course wonder about what negative impacts it will have. I want the navy to not be “wipedout” I’m reducing cost and incorporating other concepts to keep them alive. The retreat ability is probably the most impactful element todate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest