The Italians

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.
GROGnads
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, WA state USA

well it was

Post by GROGnads » Sun May 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Yeah! Didn't you KNOW that it was "Pink Floyd" that was at "the Wall"? They even made an album out of this encounter and that portion of it was even featured at some other well known "wall" later on as well. oh, by the way, which one's "Pink"?
"You had to 'GO'!?! Now we ALL have to 'GO'!" BIG Joe-"Kelly's Heroes"-the MOVIE

Rising_Sun_Warrior
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:27 am
Location: Japan

Post by Rising_Sun_Warrior » Mon May 21, 2007 10:39 am

Clearly there is a choice as regards to Italy. On the one hand there is the German-controlled Italy similar to the U.S. and China in AA:Pacific. This sounds good to me because it creates all Italian pieces and includes Italy as a separate country.

Then there is the choice for Italy being completely separate and independently controlled. This also sounds good because it adds a new dimension to the game. A new player positioned in Africa and the Mediterranean creates the need for new strategies to deal with him. Finally Italy can make its own decisions without being under the Nazi jackboot.

So given the choices, which one is best? Either choice is fine for me, I have no preference, but in everyone else's interest I suggest combining the two choices. How hard would it be to make separate Italian pieces and territories then include in the rules TWO ways to play Italy one with it controlled by Germany and one where it stands alone? That way everybody can decide for themselves whether or not they want Italy heavily involved or not.

The key for me is separate Italian pieces THOSE are what is necessary, the addition of Italy as a 6th power is not.

Cheers
RSW
"In wartime the truth is so precious, she must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -Winston Churchill

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon May 21, 2007 10:44 am

piece junkie :lol:

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

Post by Flashman » Mon May 21, 2007 2:59 pm

Essentially that's what I proposed in the topic on TURN ORDER. Depending on the number of players, Italy can be lumped in with Germany, the UK with USA. But they are played as separate powers with their own economies and pieces.
China cannot be treated in the same way as it didn't have the resourses to do anything more than raise infantry units. Making this a US satellite (with limited infantry recruitment in China) is more logical.

Although, until Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany was actually the biggest supporter and supplier of the Chinese Nationalists, who were more interested in fighting the Soviet supplied Communist Chinese than in driving out the Japanese.
Chinese Nat uniforms are pure WWI German.

GROGnads
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, WA state USA

except for

Post by GROGnads » Mon May 21, 2007 10:12 pm

Flashman wrote:Essentially that's what I proposed in the topic on TURN ORDER. Depending on the number of players, Italy can be lumped in with Germany, the UK with USA. But they are played as separate powers with their own economies and pieces.
China cannot be treated in the same way as it didn't have the resourses to do anything more than raise infantry units. Making this a US satellite (with limited infantry recruitment in China) is more logical.

Although, until Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany was actually the biggest supporter and supplier of the Chinese Nationalists, who were more interested in fighting the Soviet supplied Communist Chinese than in driving out the Japanese.
Chinese Nat uniforms are pure WWI German.
You DO have to keep a *spot* between the Western Allies and Japan in order to allow the AXIS to have a shot at *Surprise* in the "Pacific". So with Germany & Italy combined, then it is just like where the USA and China would do likewise during their turn. Just don't prevent there being all other Nations allowed into there on their own merits, so as to keep this within their realm of influences. Japan AND the USSR did Battle in 1939, but it is due to this for which they then signed the "Treaty"! There were "Communist Chinese" even then, but in much smaller quantities. It's a good thing that I have some WW-I Troops of Germans and their DARK blue "color" would be good for the DARK green USA. There's even some "Flamethrower" guy, like I really NEED him eh?
"You had to 'GO'!?! Now we ALL have to 'GO'!" BIG Joe-"Kelly's Heroes"-the MOVIE

Rising_Sun_Warrior
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:27 am
Location: Japan

Post by Rising_Sun_Warrior » Tue May 22, 2007 10:24 am

adlertag wrote:piece junkie
Yes I'm afraid I am... :oops: Oh well that's not so bad; I'd rather sift through the box for the right pieces than use the wrong ones.

Flashman I like your idea of combining US and UK, although the English might not take too kindly to it! :lol: However, I think that by bundling the UK and US together you would lose the feeling of actually playing as a separate country. It'd be like a three-player game where the Axis is split between teo players but the Allies are all controlled by one person. Then all the Allied countries are following one, singular will which is just not what it should be. I think that the only exception to Britain being a separate country should be Europe and Africa.

The rule could be "If British and American troops are present in one territory in Europe or Africa then those units may attack together on Great Britain's turn; if not in Europe or Africa then those units must attack separately on each respective Power's turn."

It's time for the rules of attacking separatley to be bent a little to allow for some historical continuity. Just my take on it.

RSW
"In wartime the truth is so precious, she must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -Winston Churchill

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

Post by Flashman » Tue May 22, 2007 2:25 pm

Regarding Chinese uniforms, I am referring to the LATE WAR types such as these:

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Rev ... code=02504

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Rev ... &code=7203

rather than the Airfix Pikelhelm chaps. The Revel doods are in a sort of greenish grey.

Don't know anything suitable for Reds, but apparently Caesar are working on figs for both Chinese factions at the moment.

The map and rules I'm working on has Chinese Communists in the north controlled by USSR, and KMT in the south west controlled by USA. They can attack each other!
Also, attacking Japan with Commies does not violate the R/J treaty. With most Chinese occupying mountainous terrain China is no longer a cakewalk for Tojo.
Swarms of Japanese tanks heading for Moscow? Not in my game.


Regarding UK/US, I'm not advocating merging them, merely that in a 4 player game they are played by the same person, as would be Germany and Italy. Logical, as these two partnerships can co-operate and occupy the same territory, while their more distant allies Japan and USSR cannot co-operate (Xenophobia) and are thus best played individually.

Rising_Sun_Warrior
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:27 am
Location: Japan

Post by Rising_Sun_Warrior » Wed May 23, 2007 10:23 am

Flashman wrote:Regarding UK/US, I'm not advocating merging them, merely that in a 4 player game they are played by the same person, as would be Germany and Italy.
Are you saying that US and UK should be controlled by one player always? or just if there are fewer than five players? I think if there are five players then Britain should be separate.

Germany and Italy should always be grouped and controlled by one player, unless of course there is a variant included in the rules allowing for Italy to be separate. (We should take a vote.)

RSW
"In wartime the truth is so precious, she must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -Winston Churchill

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests