For me, it's just simpler to blow up the whole stack 

thats not history and thats not strategy, so for me it would not be fun

When you ask where are the historical airfields in the Solomon you get a list alone with 30 of them.

yah but were they all there before the war started.

One airfeild marker could represent a region with at least 30 airfeilds.

The japanese thought they needed to build more for some reason!, probably becasue they needed more planes on the inland.

so all inland can noramlly hold 1 or 2 air units, but if you build an airfeild chip you can have as many as you want.

you got rid of my crusiers and battleships!

i dont think neutrals should have transports and tanks and to much artillery, those are all mainly offensive weapons so neutrals would not want those. there should be more fighters

I mentioned all the neutrals except saudi arabia, i dont think it has any IPCs or military so i dont see why it needs to be in a block, because if you want to invade it  or make it your ally you just send troops in.

South American Block
                                  IPC       Military
Northern South America    1         1 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 crusier

Peruvian Central              0         none

Argentina Chili                 3         2 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 crusier


Spain and Portugal plus territroies block
         IPC   Military
Spain   2     2 Inf 1 crusier and 1 destoryer

Everything else is worth nothing and has no forces in it


Northern European Block

                     IPC        Military
Sweden           2           1 Inf, 1 fighter, 1 Battleships or 2 Crusiers
Switzerland      1           1 Inf 1 fighter

Turkey is its own block

           IPC   Military
Turkey  2      3 Inf, 1 art, 1 fighter, 1 crusier

All the other asian neutrals are not worth anything and and have no military


The himalayas are immpassable and the sahara is either impassable or has other movement restrictions.
the movement restirictions of the sahara should also aply to mongolia. Afghanistan is perhaps immpassable as well.

just what i think

I selected stalingrad and other, but i would only buy stalingrad if there were all new molds and at least three completely new peices with their own molds for both countries and peices for the Axis minors. In general i would only buy another axis and allies if all if it had 10 or more new molds.

What I would really like is a truly advanced axis and allies not A&A50 which just gives you one new country and one new peice.

It should have a start date of fall 1939 or summer 1940

it should have at 8-12 new units with their own molds and for each country

this includes units for all the unit realated techs from AA50: rocket artillery, stratigic rockets, airborne, mechanized infantry, advanced submarines, radar instalations(imporves fighter defence), jet fighters, and heavy bombers.

The possiblities for the reamining four are Fortifications, selfpropelled Tank destoryers(this could also represent 88s),Heavy Armor, ground attack aircraft, and Light carriers, Heavy flack defence, "Fat Man" Atomic bomb peice(propably to politically incorrect), anti-aircraft crusiers, super battleships, pocket battleships, minor factories or a number of other types of units that are regularly discussed on this fourm.

There should also be chips that represent motorazation, leadership, and strategic movement capacity(one for airborne, and another for land) for each nation.

Port markers should be preprinted on the map, and their should also a airfeild chips so you can build them on inlands which will normally only allow you to base 1 aircraft on them.

The map should be redrawn, and new territroies added in order to increase realism and illistrate why the decision makers of the time did what they did. The rules should be changed so nothing happens that is unexplained, like territories producing double the resources.

Also their should be an option for individual victory and each nation should have histroically accuarte objectives.

And you should be able to attack neutrals, France should be added as a new country with its own set of peices and there should be new 2 new sets of peices in addition, one for neutrals if they join the allies and the other of neutrals that join the axis.

I know this is alot, but you asked me what I want .

Still, it would add some stratigy and refelct something that did happend.

afterall artllery, something already attahed to every infantry and armor unit, is in the game right? what does that represent?


an airfield could represent a heavy concentration of airfeilds that allows for an increased amount of air units on an inland.

like normally only one air unit per inland put with an airfeild you can have as many as you want. and maybe you could also have rules for bombing them.


ports were pretty common to, put we are talking about adding them in the game.

ports and airfields go togther like peanut butter and jelly, it would be wierd to have a game without with one but not the other.

I still think the commander peice should only represent leadership and supplies should be represented by trucks.

I understand alot of other war games use the HQ peice, but axis and allies is a very different game and I would like a peice that simply represents the twist that humans put on the battlefield.

I still think the idea that i posted here a few posts ago, is better.

What is wrong with it?

An unoccupied captured victory city gets 1inf for every turn it's left unguarded, they can't move or liberate, they just deny income and act as roadblocks

that rule compleltly leaves out the belorussian partisan movement, which was one of the largest if not the largest of the war.

How about this?:

Move: 1 (can't leave costal seazones)
Transports: 1 inf
Blocking: none
Atk/def: 1/1
Cost: 4 ipcs

they should also be like transports where you cannot take them as causalties and they are all killed when the regular ships are destoryed.

Maybe you should change the name to torpedo boats.

Why should you not give sea zones Industrial Production Values?

hmmm...

becasue their value  in industrial production is ZERO!

control of the sea can only   increase your Industrial production if you control land. simple controling the sea does not get you anything.

I understand now Bardoly you simply want to keep the game as close to OOB as possible, which is a noble goal, but before you were talking about that bogus morale stuff, so excuse everyone if we did not understand your reasoning.


And i think it is not to complacated to just subtract instead of subtract and add, plus it goes along way in adding realism and stratagy.

That's definitely a better way to do it, but I can just imagine a situation where the US has a fleet on the west coast which wants to go to Australia, but the Japs anticipated the move, and have blocked it, but the ships decide to circumnavigate the world by way of the Panama Canal and get to Austalia by going through the Atlantic Ocean -> Indian Ocean -> Australia.

Perhaps this would work if you put a limit on the number of zones which could be traversed in this way.  Perhaps 6-8?

 :-Dlols, i didn't think of that!

well yah, how about a limit of eight, same as a heavy bomber and would allow british ships to reiforce egypt and india in one turn if they control the atlantic while also allowing the US to send solderis to austrlia and Burma if the japanese do not control the soloman's. Or you could have it cost money to move over eight spaces, 2 IPCs for trans and destroyers, 3 IPCs for crusiers and subs, and 6 IPCs for carrier's and battleships.

and submarines and transports also do not count as blocking port to port movement

2 miles in all directions is 16 sq miles (but we'll take only 2 miles total for this instance). 

no, it is 12.56 square miles. so that means it would take just under 31 A-bombs to compeletly destroy Moscow(I said almost fifty earleir so I correct myself), of course that is assuming none of the bombs miss or land on same spot. But even then you have only destroyed one of the cities in the Russia region.

one city, quarter-million dead,

What?, less than 200,000 combined

yes, and your point being...?  the population density in Moscow was higher than in either of the 2 bombed cities

I beleive you were talking about the bombs dropped on Japan, so the point is that what you said was wrong,

The complete devistation blast radius of a Fat Man fiisson bomb is 2 miles in all directions. In 1950, Moscow covered 386 square miles. So one bomb would have taken out the kremlin plus a good part of central moscow, but much of the population, industry and infrastucture would have remained intacted. Even after a few more bombs moscow would still be inhaitable and war production could still continue. On top of that there are many cities in an A&A region and so it requires a good amount of a-bombs to destroy all that.

2 miles in all directions is 16 sq miles (but we'll take only 2 miles total for this instance).  New York, which is larger than Moscow, had 2 buildings destroyed in 2001 and the entire city shut down in mass panic and hysteria for what about a week plus.  Imagine that multiplied to 2 miles or (16-half the entire size of Manhattan), plus taking out the not only the leadership of the city, but of the nation itself, plus a radiative cloud orbiting the city, sweeping across it and depositing fallout on everyone and everything in it's path.  Now imagine the mass hysteria and panic that would ensue with the communication abilities and technology of that day with that kind of a disaster?
Exactly how much of that capacity to produce weapons and goods and services will really be able to continue when they have no leadership and their neighbors are dying from radiation burns all around them?
 
 The US picked it's bombing targets in large part to what hadn't been firebombed, like Tokyo, to get a handle on the true magnitude of the bombs.  The horrific devastation that was seen in those two target cities would only have been magnified in a larger urban setting .

terrorism is not modelled in A&A, you should compare A-bomb destruction to that of other bombing raids since they are very  similar and show up in A&A. Also modern war econamies are very different from World War 2 era war econamies so the above point is just not relavent.

and just to give you guys a little more perspective, the  March 9/10 1945 fire bombing raid on Tokyo killed over three times as  many people as the Nagasaki atomic bomb attack

that's an apples to oranges thing--neither of the cities bombed was the size of Tokyo.  The bombs took out half the population of those cities immediately, with much of the rest dying with months from radiation or days from fire/exposure.  A bomb to Tokyo would have had a much larger toll simply based on the larger population.

sure, and the hills in nagasaki also reduced damage, but let me ask you this. How many people do you think would have been killed in a Tokyo attack, lets go crazy and say a quater-million would have been killed. But thats only one bomb? a group of bombers can attack repeatedly over the course of the 4-6 month turns, and in each night they firebomb a city the size of tokyo they kill half as many people as in the atomic attack



All i am saying is that regular stratigic bombing  is not so different than atomic attacks

In 1950, Moscow covered 386 square miles.
In addition SAC preformed drills on atomic bombers crews that revealed a number of promblems with delivering a-bombs accuartly
and in the case of moscow, the soveit union distorted maps of the country to confuse invaders, so it is not inprobable an a-bomb attack ordered  on moscow would miss the target completely.

Just for kicks, how does one miss a city of 386 square miles completely...?

that is my point, you could miss a whole city, even one as big as moscow. crazy right.
All it takes is one of the bombers to get lost and you have lost a fourth to a half  your payload, depeding on whether it is 2-4 bombs in an attack.

I would think that a atomic bomb should be used against industrial capacity and not in combat, who wants to send in troops to fight where you are nuking people?  Like sending  the cavalry in while continuing to fire with the archers.
12-15 ipcs per bomb, 1 per round. requires heavy bombers
roll 3d6, taking 2 highest as immediate loss to IPCs in hand and the third die being permanent damage to IC's production
Example--roll 3d6= 2, 4, 6.   4+6 for 10 IPC damage immediately and 2 for permanent damage (-2 capacity each turn)

I think bomb units should represent 1 bomb, or if 2, i would change to 4d6 above.  one bomb will allow bombs to be used, but not necessarily be an immediate game breaker, while 2 could have a devastating enough effect to possibly end the game, ie, 6 days for Japan to surrender.  Given that a number of techs would have to be researched this would allow for later game development anyhow when it could have a scale-tipping effect anyhow.

my reasoning behind the 2+ number is that in the one an only nuclear campaign two bombs were used, and if we are limiting a bombs to one bein gbuilt every 4-6 months, and there was a game of A&A that had battles take place hisotrical, then there would have to be bombs built in what would be 1944


anyways we really dont have any differences in terms of the way we think stratigic attacks should be carried out

my main point is that although i think you should be able to use a-bombs against ground units, i just dont think is should be cost effective.

Many jumped on board with the Allies before it all ended to get a better spot at the table of the UN. 

effectivly a country like that is still neutral

wow....that's profound.  wrong, but profound.

In what way is that wrong?
 and if it is wrong how is it profound?

A country that declares war but adds no IPCs or units or anything connected to the game has not joined the war in a way the is relavent to Axis and Allies.

then ehy did the japs need to build one on guadacanal