my suggestion is to not add new major resources that become just as important or replace IPCs like metal, coal, and oil. Becasue then you have to have a chart that represent industrial capacity with wierd formuals nobody likes.
in my experice adding one major resource equals in additonal complexity about five new units each with a unique special ability

another note, i think the Finnish winter war and molotav cocktail ability and the UK's ultra+radar tech should only apply when they are defending becasue it just does not make sence if it helps them when they are attacking. and the ultra+radar should only wen their are air bases in the terriotry

And Italy not being able to move into western europe and fight with german troops in the soveit union is a weird rule  seeing as many Italians were garrisoned at the beaches of Normandy in static divisions and even more Italians fought in the Soveit Union with Germany and other allies

have you thought about starting the game in early 1940 and perhaps adding France or Italy to the mix.

I have always wanted a 1940 axis and allies type game with Panzer IIs tearing up the french country side,  i think it would increase the distictivness of your game.

anyways i also like how all of your rules feel hisotrical and i can tell you have a good understanding of world war II, yet you also leave room for intersting varations on history like a nazi space program!

I've thought of a variant which involves the addition of Italy, Romania, and Finland. Italy has four or five manpower points, but it's plagued with the "light infantry" "light tanks" and "inefficient manufacturing" techs. Romanian and Hungarian infantry are lumped together in the Romania category (no offense to Hungarians intended!) and are roughly equivalent to Soviet infantry. I've lumped the Baltic States and Norway in with Finland, and have given them infantry roughly analogous to Germany's. None of those three nations are allowed to send lend-lease aid to anyone, and they are considered "close allies" of each other and of Germany.

I hadn't considered a 1940 variant, but if this rules set catches on, hopefully someone will implement one. Game balance might be tricky, but could potentially be addressed if the U.S. stayed neutral throughout the game. (Or it could just be a passive source of lend-lease aid.)

Edit: I just updated the Flames and Steel website to include an optional variant with Romania, Italy, and Finland as separate nations.

I like Italy, but the way you have incorporated Finland and Romania/Hungary is very unhistorical.  all of norway the baltic states and greece were under direct germany control and this was also true for most of Yugoslavia.  having obviously ahistorical rules in your game is just out of place.  I like the idea of adding Finland and Romania but lets not put them on steroids.

also i think the rule set would have a lot easeir time of catching on if it had a different start date. the beuty about a spring 1940 start is that you have avoided all the scripted and boring moves of 1939, but it is still early in the war. Also if your going to go through the trouble of changing all the ipc values and adding new resources to the game, you might aswell add some new territories and France

Austria-Hungry

what are you talking about?

It is my understanding that trucks move units at the front and operate at the stratigic/opertional level but the mega stratigic movement of A&A is done by trains

another idea, have you thaught about adding rules or a unit for airborne operations since they were one of the major new developments in warfare. perhaps you could have an airborne units or tech to illistrate this.

also what about having a tech for increaded mechanization in the different armies or some way to simulate how the way armies moved was different and changed over the course of the war

have you thought about starting the game in early 1940 and perhaps adding France or Italy to the mix.

I have always wanted a 1940 axis and allies type game with Panzer IIs tearing up the french country side,  i think it would increase the distictivness of your game.

anyways i also like how all of your rules feel hisotrical and i can tell you have a good understanding of world war II, yet you also leave room for intersting varations on history like a nazi space program!

also i did not see a reference to a start date?
but flame and steel is a really cool name and i love the hardened infantry peice

i quickly looked over your website and the rules seem very interesting, it probalby would not be so hard to incorporate those rules into the AA50 map, but it is important that your game has its own map. How detailed do want the map to be? Judging by the movment range of the aircraft it would be similar to a regular axis and allies game. Perhaps you could use all the terriotores from the Europe and pacific axis and allies and use the AA50 boards terriotories to fill in the other parts of the world

Another interesting idea for a map would be one that looks down from the north pole so that the north pole is at the center, although the southern hemispehre would be really distorted so thats not a good idea

also do you want the US divided like in a&a or in the center perhaps. i guess i prefer the A&A presentation

I'll try to read your rules in detail and report what I think. also if you get a map i would love to talk about what territories should be considered.
I dont have any map making program skills, but many people on this forum do

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war... that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don't have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.

your wrong, not one truck in the whole history of World War Two transported infantry or supplies single handedly a thousand miles. If you have ever looked at a map of Europe or the Pacific ocean this would be pretty obvious. Certainly you dont think their were trucks driving from the Factories in the Urals to the Kursk salient! All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.

I think that if you look at something like the red ball express which transported supplies from the beaches at Normandy to Chartres, which is about 240 km, I'm sure that at least one of those trucks drove that 8 times in the 3 month span of the operation you easily come up with a truck moving supplies 1000 miles.  And since they had 6000+ trucks, they probably accomplished it.
http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-TWO-BALL-EXPRESS/dp/0711031924

LuckyDay you misdunderstood what i was saying and what the point of it was.
trucks do not transport in one direction to the front 1000 miles, so if they move peices across territories in A&A what exactly is being represented?

[Piece Name Attack Defense Move Cost Special]

What if instead of "land transports" trucks were "motorized infantry" distinct from mech inf.  I'm weary of this idea, because it overthrows some sacred A&A rules.  Here's my new land combat unit chart for FMG's New Pieces Project (NPP):

Piece              Name                            Attack         Defense               Move          Cost                  Special

Soldier 1        Light Infantry                1                 2                   1               3                  N/A

Soldier 2        Marine                         1                 2                    1               4               + 1 Attack during Amphibious Assult

Truck            Motorized Infantry          1                 2                   2               4                Can Blitz

Gun(1)           Light Artillery                2                 2                   1               4                 + 1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Gun 2**        Heavy Artillery               3                 2                   1               5                +1 to infantry attack on 1-1 basis

Half-Track     Mechanized Infantry        3                 2                   2               5                Can Blitz

Tank 1          Light Armor                    3                 3                   2               6                Can Blitz

Tank 2          Heavy Armor                  4                 4                   2               8                Can Blitz

*Note: Fighters can support tanks on a 1-1 basis.
**Field Marshal Games is not offering two artillery molds at this time (unless we beg them to).  Rather, it seemed to fit, so I added it as a possibility. 
             

I like this very much although some units seem redundent. also only the american and japanese had units of marines that were used on a signifigant scale. paratroopers are a much more universal unit

id like to hear what IL thinks

I did not i said trucks were not important, i just said they should not be represented in the game.

i agree trucks were extremly important, but not everything that is important is represented in axis and allies.

all the pictures of trucks you have seen most likely were pictures of trucks taking supplies from a a port or train to the front line usaully less than 100 miles away. In axis and allies  many territories are hundrends of miles in length so you c that their is no point to representing trucks. trucks transporting units from germany to russia is simply unrealistic.
you could say they represent logistical infrastructure, but then dont call them trucks.

perhaps if you still want to represent trucks as trucks you might allow trucks to give certain units double attacks which would simulate units suppllied by large numbers of truck can quickly follow up on succesful attacks and breakthrough the enemy lines

[Synopsis on my Proposes Paratrooper Rules]

Has this debate gone in full circle?  I'll just cast my vote w/ IL. 

My personal peeve is w/ the AA50 rule that bombers can attack w/ paratroopers.  I feel this tech should be renamed "gliders." 

Synopsis on my Proposes Paratrooper Rules

All bombers can be "retrofitted" as transport aircraft.  Instead of attacking on their own, they may carry 1 "non-vehicle land unit."

If the player develops Gliders, the bomber may "tow" an additional infantry, truck, or artillery independent of whether it is a standard bomber or a retrofitted bomber.  Heavy bombers may tow a 3-3 tank. 

All para-dropped units get a +1 modified opening fire hit.  Otherwise, they attack normally. 

these idea's have nothing to do with world war 2

well its not important who agrees with whom, but rather to find some more decent ideas because the OOB is too vanilla.

my idea is the most decent

I consider the truck as representing a significant investment in logistics support.  The moter vehicles present help get material where it needed to be.  Even the trains used in Europe needed an investment to keep them running so invensting in transportation should have a benefit.

Giving a truck a cost of 2 IPC and allowing it to move one infantry or one artillery 2 spaces in non-combat is a reasonable value to me.  It would take two trucks to maintain the chain from Germany to West Russia, so I think a cost of more than 2 IPC would be too much.  I also agree they should not have any combat value and thereby not be allowed to soak up hits.  They should be lost if the territory falls to the enemy.  On the other hand, I don't think they should be vulnerable unless the enemy's attack includes ground units.  Since a fighter can't "capture" a territiry, I don't think the trucks should be vulnerable to air-only attacks.

On the other hand, I would be happy not to use trucks in the world wide campaign games of the AA genre.

I agree, that is probalby the best way to represent them. excpet i dont see what is wrong with having to defend your truck from air attacks.

All strategic movement of land units was done by trains.

represented by trucks because trucks also were used and many more of them were around than trains to move logistics around the front. Trains didn't work too well in the Soviet Union when the gauge was a different size. What did they do then? They used horses and trucks.

sure, all tranporation in the soveit union was hard. But the germans i belive had both european and russian gauge trains so the major movement represented in axis and allies is done my trains. Trucks were useful at the front, but movement at the front is not represented in axis and allies except by attacking and retreating