Germany take Caucasus and gains 5 IPC plus VC point
Russia gains nothing but loses Caucasus
Net German gain 8, Net Soviet loss 3
net result is aggregate gain of 5 IPC
Under new system Germany take Caucasus and gains 3 IPC
Plus gets additional VC requirement, and Russia rolls D6 and loses average of 3-4 IPC..This income is lost and does not go to Germany.
net result is aggregate gain of 6 IPC
So you got more or less the same result but only added 3 more IPC to any player
IL, What this doesn’t take into account is the proximity of major ICs. Any cash Russia has can be placed in Moscow, much closer to the lost fight. If they have less money, they have less to get back into the fight. However, giving Germany more money doesn’t help them prolong the fight. They have to place in Germany and truck it back. I suppose that with the new factory in Ukraine it doesn’t make much difference.
What I don’t understand is the need for a NO to represent oil at all. Having an Axis only VC for Caucus, et al implies that only the Axis need oil. Didn’t Russian benefit from it as well? Why not just increase the IC value of the oil fields? Make Caucus worth 8. If that +5 would give Russian too much money, subtract 5 from various territories. It seems unlikely that every space in Russian had some production value up in Siberia.
This would reward players for success, but make it equally damaging to your opponent. The current NOs might not do that. Germany wants it for +8. Russia might not care because it’s only -3 for them. Conversely, if Caucus was only worth 3, I personally wouldn’t waste my time going south as Germany. Blitz and take it for free, maybe, but it’d never distract me from Stalingrad.
So what is the upper limit on time to play? You don't mind 12 hour games?
I set aside a weekend to play any A&A game. And over the course of that weekend, hope to finish 2 games (or 1 Global). It’s the perfect gaming weekend. I love the evolving strategy required by the game, why would I mind if it takes 12 hours? Isn’t that 12 hours of bliss? I don’t understand the impatience with it taking so long. Are you the player constantly demanding that everyone “hurry up” so it’ll get back to your turn?
That aside, I don’t have the chance to play very often, as a whole weekend dedicated to gaming is rare, but I remember EVERY single game I’ve played because of it.
For me the upper limit is Global. If it lasts any longer than it currently does, I won’t be able to play it. If there’s another A&A game down the line with even more spaces, money, etc, I simply won’t play. I won’t vie for people to shorten the game, because I’ll still have Global. I haven’t heard any complaints from my A&A friends about how the game takes too long, and we’ve played several games so far.
the point is not how many hours it takes to play, but the acknowledgment that Global 1940 is a MUCH LONGER GAME THAN ANYTHING BEFORE IT.
And I openly acknowledge it takes a long freaking time, but to me, that’s not a problem. Did you expect anything less with the sheer size of the board and total incomes generated? A shorter option would be nice, but not if it affects the current rules & set up to such a drastic degree. I personally love all the money.
It is not, i designed it back in 2004 with AARHE. Thats why sometimes i need to claim my idea back, because i post it and nobody reads it, then years latter claim they invented something when they really just read my post but didn't want to admit i created the idea before. One of the reasons why i repeat myself like my idea that Italy should be neutral at start till her own turn, or that Norway is a glitch since USA can build a major factory and end the game for axis.
Sorry, IL, but two people can have the same idea independent of one another. You don’t own a monopoly on thinking about A & A here. I haven’t been on the boards since 2004. If you had the idea back then, I could care less. My friend and I came up with it on our own, without input from you. There was no intent to “steal” your idea. We just think it’s a good rule that should be included. If you agree, congrats. Did you post it on the boards first and think of it before me and my friend? Sure. I don’t’ really care. We thought of it too. Don’t discredit another person’s thinking simply because you’ve already had the same idea.
It is very egotistical to assume any A&A idea someone comes up with is really just another person stealing your ideas. I’m sure we both think about A&A a lot, and I’m pretty sure this won’t be the last time other people come up with the same ideas independently of one another.
There are better ways to state: “I had the same idea back in ’04.” Rather than claim someone is stealing from you. Should I apologize because I made a post about a rule my friend and I want included in the game because you had already thought it up 6 years ago? Clearly it didn’t stick because that rule isn’t in the game yet.
I guess I should stop trying to improve the game because you’ve already thought of everything. That’s what these kinds of statements imply.
What about techs apply on your next turn ONLY IF YOU succeed on the very first roll? Beyond that, people know what you’re trying to develop anyway. This would stop the stack some bombers, then hope for heavy/long range, spend all your money on a single turn on development, then immediately implement it.
I like the idea of NB giving some kind of defensive bonus in the case of an amphib. Say infantry roll higher for a turn? All attackers roll at a 1 for a single turn? It would make fortifying islands more attractive, which there is very little of at present. Leaving an INF or 2 behind will die with offshore shots alone.
What if having a NB negates offshore shots, or those offshore shots must first damage the naval base before they can take casualties? Then the attacker would also have to repair the base to use it next turn. It’s not too far fetched that a NB would take damage during an invasion.