The Rules:

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:47 pm

TMTM wrote: limiting infantry buys.. maybe a token system can be used... so you can buy as many infantry as you want as long as you got credits to cover it... when your credits run out then you are limited to a set number you can buy from there on... or a reinforcement chart for land units and one for naval units could be devised and you are forced to buy whats next in line.
That is taken care off already. Germany can only build 10 units in Germany and 6 units in italy, and this is the limit of men. Now if Germany is poor, she can only give this men plain rifles. But if Germany is rich, this men gets tanks and planes too. You see, this is an abstract game. I love you Larry

TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:40 pm

I'd like to see a turn limit like in D-day.. could be used as a bidding method or measurement of skill of play.

FleetAdmiral
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:32 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by FleetAdmiral » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Imperious leader wrote:I dont like 2 player USA but i like being forced to allocate money for each campaign. It would open up more strategy than having USA be mostly a supporting role to her other allies.

good idea.
In order to allow the US to effectively run a two theatre war, we have to drastically increase the amount of IPCs the US gets - probably to at least 60 IPCs.
Ever had the IJN have 4 BBs, 4 fully loaded CVs, 2 DDs, 5 TRNs, and 1 Sub -VS- 3 US BBs, 3 fully loaded CVs, 3 TRNs, 11 DDs and 1 Sub?

Commands: Galactic Empire Data Bank

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 » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:08 am

It should be about twice what germany has and the imbalance could be addressed by adding Italy and minor axis allies to the game along with more german pieces and having the axis play before the allies as they dictated the affairs of the war in 1942.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

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

Post by Flashman » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:06 am

FleetAdmiral wrote:
Imperious leader wrote:I dont like 2 player USA but i like being forced to allocate money for each campaign. It would open up more strategy than having USA be mostly a supporting role to her other allies.

good idea.
In order to allow the US to effectively run a two theatre war, we have to drastically increase the amount of IPCs the US gets - probably to at least 60 IPCs.
What happens if the USA is invaded? Are we to assume that the East Coasters will calmly keep shipping units to Europe and ignore the large Japanese invasion fleet off California?
If Japan takes Western USA, does it have to stop there and not go for Washington because "it's in the wrong theatre"?

There has GOT to be a better way of diversifying strategy than this.

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 » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:08 pm

Thats easy. The IPC that are commited to the Pacific are established as a Minimum amount and of course it will be less than the Europe theature. After germany is defeated then the income can be allocated in any manner.

So if what you say happens, the US player can boost what he needs to fight in the pacific.

THe only restriction is a small limit on what can be used to fight Germany so as not to ignore the japanese. Strategy should be employed to both sides with resources going to each campaign to make it more interesting and historically accurate.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Comrade Tiki
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Comrade Tiki » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:52 pm

Flashman wrote:There has GOT to be a better way of diversifying strategy than this.
Alternatively, the Panama Canal can be restricted to Destroyers, Subs, and Transports (requiring a long southward trip for larger vessels) while at the same time limiting the US factory productions to be more divided between East/West. The division could be put forth further by restricting per-turn production of ships to one-per-type.

If more territories were added to the United States, it could appear a more tempting target for Japanese (and German) aggression, without having to suffer from a quick counterattack from the opposing half. This would also promote the U.S. to not spend the time transporting units across their country, from west to east, for loadup to the European theatre.

FleetAdmiral
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:32 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by FleetAdmiral » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:18 pm

Using Imperious leader's IPC idea of 80 IPCs for the US, among others.

The US must spend no less than 20 IPCs in the Pacific and 20 IPCs in the Atlantic. The remaining 40 IPCs can be spent however the United States wishes to do so.

This way it guarantees that no one theatre is neglected, but it also allows the US player freedom of choice and action.


At any given rate, most games I've every played, the US usually ignored Germany, and commits its resources against Japan.
Ever had the IJN have 4 BBs, 4 fully loaded CVs, 2 DDs, 5 TRNs, and 1 Sub -VS- 3 US BBs, 3 fully loaded CVs, 3 TRNs, 11 DDs and 1 Sub?

Commands: Galactic Empire Data Bank

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests