I am mainly looking forward to see how Operation Flashpoint:Dragan Rising and Tropico 3 turn out.

Live action trailer for new game,


http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/852871/bungie-project-2/videos/haloodst_liveaction_trl_090409.html

Im sorry, Im being a jerk

Its just that I would realy enjoy if their was a Modern Warfare A&A that tried to reflect todays militaries and geopolitics in a smoewhat realistic way. A&A is of course not historical but it at least trys to be and it does represent some aspects of the war rather well. I think you could mkae a pretty good A&A variant out of Modern times and if you look at my posts i have offered a number of suggestions to accomplish that.

but if blockhouse elimate territory trading of france and karelia, then they add historical accuarcy and strategy to the game and so are not stupid at at all.

I vote for at least separate economies

yah defenetly, i dont think anyone disagrees with that

I wish

looks promising

Emperor, I don't think you read all my remarks.

I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc's generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC's. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so.

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game. There could also be a NO for commonwealth linked to it. Money talks.
Also it sounds like there will be an IC in some of the commonwealth tt. What stops the UK from investing in those areas is they have to first buy the IC only to see Japan target it. Now that that decision will be made for them I think the UK will invest $ down under (maybe forced to by rule).
I am wondering when/how Anzac will take its turn in the global game.
1)Two separate nations (like Germ & Italy)
2)Separate but together (like US & China)
3)All together, Anzac & Uk separate units but attack/def as one power.
Although the US had command of the pacific the Anzac was still part of the UK commonwealth. However if the Anzac were given option#3 it would be cool if they could give up there part with the UK and attack w/US later in that round. Kind like a joint strike.
I think the allies will try to get the most out of their minor powers Anzac, China and even the French.
I also agree the oob should dictate balance in each theater, not a house rule.

I see what your saying, but i it is my bet that even in the global game they will have sperate turns. If pacfic is being balanced for austrlia and the UK to half seperate turns then it will not change simply because europe is thrown in the game.

Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.

that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,

 the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general

Heh, guess I'm a troll, any threads I make invariably devolve into discussions involving historical accuracy or gameplay mechanics... OR...

OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!!  No wonder WoTC has such an easy time shoving 4023423908 box editions of Axis and Allies down your throats.  Apparently you LIVE for the next variant/edition.  Which usually doesn't fix ANYTHING, cause you'd need something with the complexity of Hearts of Iron to please the historical fanboys, something like Squad Leader to please the tactical base, and something simple like RISK to please the strategic masterminds.  AXIS AND ALLIES DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY COVER ALL THOSE BASES.  SO YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY, OK?  JUST ENJOY THE GAME FOR WHAT IT IS.  Play something else that is more suited to what you're interested in, TONS of different WWII video/board games out there... (which IS part of the original point I've been making, video game programs simplify the HELL out of this discussion).

As for Japan threatening Moscow... IF Japan had headed WEST instead of EAST in its plunge for world domination, there were MANY 2nd 3rd world semi-industrialized post-colonial countries RIPE for nationalization/liberation from the Allied powers.  LOTS of countries were pissed off at being colonial powers.

IF Japan had liberated/nationalized Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East AND kicked the British out of Africa it would have possessed all the oil, gas, rubber AND probably pissed off colonial manpower the Axis would have EVER needed.  Russia would definitely have been fighting on two fronts in the Caucaus.  Would America have joined the war IF Japan hadn't pulled a Pearl Harbor?  

With America's standing as a neutral power in 1941 (! even up to the last minute before Pearl Harbor !) I don't think so.

 SgtBlitz, I have been very please with every A&A game I have bought, I finish a face to face game of AA50(best one) at least twice a month. So it dosnt follow that I think A&A is horrible because i have many suggestions for improvement. If you think classic is the greatest game ever then what is your problem?

Also, A&A is very historical in a number of respects and with simple additional rules it a very resonable representation of the war and your simplistic explanation of why A&A is unhistroical or why certain powers joined the war shows a negligible lack of respect for the complex nature of history.

Blockhouse: attack 0, defend 3 or less, move 0, cost 5 IPC, support artillery to defend on 3 and for each artillery it support angainst an amphbious assualt that artillery may counter shore bombard at 3 or less.


How about that? 

I am not sure how a blockhouse would help artillery in any way.

And if they only defend at 3 then a tank would be a better buy.

blockhouses are made to protect artillery peices, with out artillery blockhouses would lose alot of usefulness.

 in a static situations these would be a better buy than tanks, because of the support and the lower cost. In most situations however mobile units like tanks would be a better buy, which is historical and better for gameplay.

Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.

that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,

 the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general

Balance would be achieved if the Anzac & UK are still separate units (they have different colors) but are both controlled by the UK and allowed to take their turn as one nation.

 , that would not change anything at all that is how it noramlly is. Allow australia to take their turn with the US, that is fairly hisotrical and that would defently encourage the US to invest in the pacifc. With the UK controlling austrilia they mainly let if die or beg the US to send some fighters towards it.

Well problems solved for warships. Not problem solved for 20 invasions of france, Karelia, and Caucasus each game. For that we need some defensive unit with teeth.

yes you are correct as always.

Blockhouse: attack 0, defend on 4 or less, move 0, cost 6 IPC

This fit right into the A&A line of simple units. No mumbo jumbo of opening phase fire or targeting specific units. Thank you.

Blockhouse: attack 0, defend 3 or less, move 0, cost 5 IPC, support artillery to defend on 3 and for each artillery it support angainst an amphbious assualt that artillery may counter shore bombard at 3 or less.


How about that?

I limit my games too 7 turns and then who ever has the most vicotry cities wins, or the game is a draw if each have 9 or in continues until someone has more.

This forces the allies to contribute to both theaters or otherwise Japan usauly gets too many VCs. It also makes the game  more historical with locations like midway and the soloman inlands becoming imporant battlefeilds. This one change to the vicotry conditions helps imporve hisotrical accuaracy alot.

Limiting Japan to not being able to attack Russia isnt going to make the pacfic more important or add to realism, if anything it just takes away a legitimate option that the Japanese command considered

If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn't have that now could we?

well, Brain Damaged, historical dosnt mean scripted or narative, it means that all the historical factors save strategic leadership(this is reperesented by the player) are as they were in history in a way that confronts players with the same or similar decisions as were their historical counterparts.