Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:15 pm

I would very much support Canada as it's own nation but that would require a reprint. Also, if this goes into effect south Africa should generate either 3 or 4. I know for a fact that they controlled south west Africa at the time and I think they also controlled Rhodesia.

stew8888
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by stew8888 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:26 pm

So make Canada it's own power with a starting income of 7. It'll have an NO of +5 if Canada controls all it's original territories as a function of USA support. This is how the Canadian board would look
Ontario - 1 man 1 art
Quebec - 1 man 1 tank
New Brunswick - 1 Air Base and 1 fighter
SZ 106 - 1 Destroyer 1 Transport (possibly 1 cruiser or 1 sub)
SZ 109 - 1 Transport
UK - 1 CND INF 1 UK INF 1 French INF
Hong Kong - 1 CND INF 1 UK INF (possibly remove this INF) there really was only 4000 or so CND defending Hong Kong
Give Germany - 1 Destroyer as well.
Although this gives the Commonwealth more money it makes it more separated forcing the UK or Canada to spent some money in the Atlantic.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:29 pm

stew8888 wrote:Another fun way of doing things would be to make Canada it's own power and give them an NO. 5 IPC if Canada controls all their original territories as a function of lend lease from the USA. Lots of the USA help for Britain came to them through Canada. Now Canada has 12 IPC income but is a separate power. So the UK would only have 21 IPC and Canada would be forces to get troops over to UK to help defend it. They may also require a few more units a cruiser in 106 or what I like better is an air base in Halifax with one fighter there. As well the transport in sz 109 could be canadian but not the destroyer. Now the Commonwealth has more income but is separated even more. Making the supply lines worthy of fighting on the war in the Atlantic very hard to fight, which it was. At least 1 infantry maybe two infantry in the UK could also be Canadian and lost the French infantry and make it UK. Dunkirk could still happen bringing the French across.
Just some thoughts
Stew, I was thinking a similar thing actually, right after I wrote my post. For my version of the NO though, Canada would only get the 5 if they controlled all of the Canadian territory AND the allies controlled London (aaron, how is it bad to say allies control london? My point is that the Axis doesn't control it). They would benefit conceptually from UK's logistical support and coordination of their efforts. I think 12 is the perfect income for Canada, at least while London is allied. I don't know if Canada should be its own power, but it could be cool to have it be like India, where it buys and places separately but is otherwise the same. That way we wouldn't need a whole 'nother set of pieces and we don't need to add another turn.

As for Aaron, it would be a lot easier to respond to your posts if you took the time to type them in clear English. I don't mind a few spelling errors, but your post was pretty nonsensical.

Until then, all I can really say is that by Canada and SA being tied into London's system and the flexibility that entails, it becomes a matter of having cake and eating it too. The starting system is an abstraction of reality, nd it makes no sense for Canada and SA to gain all the benefits from that abstraction, but as soon as the drawbacks may come into play, they throw off the system. They are fully integrated into London's control, but the second London is taken, they become independent?

By that Logic Ukraine needs to get it's own income once Moscow falls, Los Angeles needs its own when Washington falls, and Romania gets its own when Germany falls.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

stew8888
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by stew8888 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:35 pm

Stew, I was thinking a similar thing actually, right after I wrote my post. For my version of the NO though, Canada would only get the 5 if they controlled all of the Canadian territory AND the allies controlled London (aaron, how is it bad to say allies control london? My point is that the Axis doesn't control it). They would benefit conceptually from UK's logistical support and coordination of their efforts. I think 12 is the perfect income for Canada, at least while London is allied. I don't know if Canada should be its own power, but it could be cool to have it be like India, where it buys and places separately but is otherwise the same. That way we wouldn't need a whole 'nother set of pieces and we don't need to add another turn.

I like this idea where Canada is like India with a separate income and purchase but everything else is the same. The 5 IPC NO is perfect but I still beleive they should get it whether London is captured or not. If anything the USA would have helped even more to Canada had London fallen. I think in this case there needs to be an airbase in Newfoundland and a fighter helping to defend the Canadian convoy as it did in the real war.
I may try this in my next game for fun

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:51 pm

Personally an ideal system would be what the posts above have described where Canada has its own income, maybe 12 IPCs worth but operates under UK Europe. I also think ANZAC should be under the control of UK Pacific but thats just me.

User avatar
Gargantua
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:08 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by Gargantua » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Screw any thoughts of an extra power - and split incomes, THOSE ARE CRAZY!

Alpha + 2 is GOOD ENOUGH.

And since this thread isn't locked as per my request...

IF you want some real excitement and to impact the game positively, change the turn order again.

AXIS first (All playing roughly at the same time, but with a "technical" turn order

ALLIES second.

It spares any problems with italian fleet. It speeds up game play and cooperative performance. and it gets sht done.

WOW, I said it. What do you guys think?

The game is even called Axis vs Allies. sounds like a good turn order to me.

edfactor
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by edfactor » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:24 pm

mantlefan wrote:
stew8888 wrote:By that Logic Ukraine needs to get it's own income once Moscow falls, Los Angeles needs its own when Washington falls, and Romania gets its own when Germany falls.

None of those were their own country with their own national capital

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:38 pm

Gargantua wrote:Screw any thoughts of an extra power - and split incomes, THOSE ARE CRAZY!

Alpha + 2 is GOOD ENOUGH.

And since this thread isn't locked as per my request...

IF you want some real excitement and to impact the game positively, change the turn order again.

AXIS first (All playing roughly at the same time, but with a "technical" turn order

ALLIES second.

It spares any problems with italian fleet. It speeds up game play and cooperative performance. and it gets sht done.

WOW, I said it. What do you guys think?

The game is even called Axis vs Allies. sounds like a good turn order to me.
I think all axis/all allies creates nightmarish balance issues. I think a request to lock this topic is less reasonable than a request for you to be permanently banned. It's simply absurd that you request a thread be locked because you don't like it. I think everyone who has had any contact with you over at AA.org knows this site has become a significantly worse place to discuss this game than it was before you joined.

That's what I think.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests