• What effect do you think North Western Europe will have on the game?  Giving the Allies 2 landing spots may make things a bit tougher on Germany…


  • I think they added it to give the historical german defence of having the 15th army defending Pas De Calais and Le Harve because thats where the Germans expected the invasion. I was hoping that the IPC for west france reduced to 4 and Germany going to 12 ( from 10) because the 6 IPC spot is too tempting and their is no way its 60% the value of Germany.

    Its not more than 3-4.

    The northwest territory gives Germany another place to launch rockets and bomb UK if France is gone.


  • it shows that germany had to defend alot of beaches in ww2 like a&ae there is beglium and holland, and france then behind em is eastern france and vichy france

    I dont need that much detail but i wanetd to see more space in between to show how much force germany had in ww2 in those spots and how long it took just to get to spot the size of luxembourg

    And were is luxembourg i am disapionted


  • @Rakeman:

    What effect do you think North Western Europe will have on the game?  Giving the Allies 2 landing spots may make things a bit tougher on Germany…

    Hi Rakeman,

    Great topic  :-)
    I actually really like this map change.

    In Classic or Revised, the Allies were basically forced to dump into Finland/Karelia because WEur was essentially inaccessable.  Germany would always put enough troops there to either withstand the 1-2 from the UK-US entirely, or at least make it very costly for the UK to even try.

    With the new territory, Allies can now look at trying to make their European foothold there… OR, they can bring 1-2 troops over/turn and effectively make it a dead zone (territory which neither side can take and hold, but rather, just take over with minimum troops and exchange each turn).  By doing this, they wittle down Germany’s defensive numbers making an attack on WEur later on more viable (once the Allies have built up their transport fleet)

    Now, while the map change is nice, I agree Germany is gonna be in a world of hurt  :cry: …

    1. WEur will require more resources to defend
    2. Germany is already facing a reduced income due to inclusion of Italy
    3. No convoy raids and weak, nonviable Subs means little ability for Germany to slow down UK Naval builds
    4. And to top it all off, Germany also has SBRs to worry about

    Now I know we should wait until the game is out, but barring an extremely favourable initial set-up for the Axis, I think Germany is toast   :cry:

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think it would have been interesting if Northwestern Europe was more defensible and included all of the territory west of the Rhine (down to and including the Black Forest.) That way instead of having Germany border France we would have had a 1-2 step for the Allies: First to France, then Market Garden/Bulge for the Low Countries and the forests of W. Germany. If you separated Austria into a Central Europe space (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Slovakia etc.) then you’d always have 2 spaces between Germany and Italy in either direction, and could use it as a safe spot for the german bank account.

    Or you could merge Austria, Bohemia and Bavaria, into some sort of ‘Greater Germania’ space, and leave Prussia as the name of the space with Brandenburg-Berlin etc.

    One of the first acts of the victorious Allies was to punish the state of Prussia by abolishing it forever; so for the purposes of the game it would probably be fitting and would certainly make sense as a name.

    The map and values are already set though, so that doesn’t really help us with AA50.
    Still, it would have been nice.

    :)

    I think in AA50 it will turn into a deadzone as Joe suggests, because its accessible from sz 7 and an easy target for the US or Britain.


  • @Black_Elk:

    I think it would have been interesting if Northwestern Europe was more defensible and included all of the territory west of the Rhine (down to and including the Black Forest.) That way instead of having Germany border France we would have had a 1-2 step for the Allies: First to France, then Market Garden/Bulge for the Low Countries and the forests of W. Germany. If you separated Austria into a Central Europe space (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Slovakia etc.) then you’d always have 2 spaces between Germany and Italy in either direction.

    Well, it does take 2 steps to move between Italy and Germany in either direction, since Italy doesn’t directly border Germany anymore, if that is what you mean.

    I do like the idea of making it a 1-2 step though, I actually had a similar idea.


  • Maybe a northern Germany territory would be interesting. Or making Danish straits impassable for navy if you don’t have Denmark (Northern Germany) + Norway. I’m tired of having to defend Berlin from amphibious assaults from England  :-P


  • maybe when italy lost in afrika and cant get it back big time italy cna help defend france with  like giving it 3 inf. every 2 turns/3 turns


  • @Funcioneta:

    Maybe a northern Germany territory would be interesting. Or making Danish straits impassable for navy if you don’t have Denmark (Northern Germany) + Norway. I’m tired of having to defend Berlin from amphibious assaults from England  :-P

    Same  :oops:


  • me to many cheap skates take germany and forgetting about gerry


  • i meant france so ya man i think dansih shoudldnt b passable untilfranc taken


  • Personally traded zones make the game silly like a cartoon where some Elmer is opening a drawer to find the rabbit and the rabbit is always in the unopenend drawer like a sick joke.

    It also makes for a busted game mechanic derivative of what happens when reality is ignored. Allies landing in the same place and trading the same territory with the axis with double income collection should have been fixed like some other rule sets do ( no i am not plugging like others).

    Trading the same zone over and over because the ‘system’ allows it should have been fixed.

    Invasions should cost IPC, they are not undertaken lightly. It takes years to prepare for it.


  • @Imperious:

    It also makes for a busted game mechanic derivative of what happens when reality is ignored. Allies landing in the same place and trading the same territory with the axis with double income collection should have been fixed like some other rule sets do ( no i am not plugging like others).

    Trading the same zone over and over because the ‘system’ allows it should have been fixed.

    Invasions should cost IPC, they are not undertaken lightly. It takes years to prepare for it.

    Agree, it would not be difficult to make an easy ruleset which prevents TTT. By accepting same TTT in AA50 like AAR, A&A also has some technicality matters like chess, which is not bad by itself, but a 1-2 punch is both logical and acceptable, TTT is not.

    I do not agree that invasions should cost ipc, more than it already does, you pay for units when they are bought, and A&A has no logistical mechanic like some other wargames. Its not free to have soldiers neither at home or at the front, soldiers must eat and need ammo, new guns and stuff, but this is already paid for when units are bought.
    If a crucial issue like this is changed then its no longer A&A, and it would be difficult or close to impossible to rember everything, its already too complicated to remember all the rules playing the boardgame, thats why I prefer TripleA.
    With logistical cost A&A would be like Panzer General, which I hope it will never be, even if PG was funny…

    Best option imo is to change TTT only, say Germany must keep TT for one hole round to get money for TT’s. So if there is 6 powers in AA50, Germany plays first, Germany will get their money after US/China turn.


  • A number of options can solve the problem beyond what i offered. Any number of them can easily solve the problem without having a cost, but having rules for weather ( you roll to see if the ocean permits a smooth landing) or some defensive benefits ( blockhouse/fortress). Its not too hard to make it somewhat more realistic with minimal rules.


  • I personally think the best method to counter ‘trading’ territories, would be to make an incentive for one to hold it continuously. More specifically, collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn, THEN purchasing your units. It doesn’t make much sense to be earning x amount of man hours towards your war effort if that territory was just a war zone. It takes time to coordinate masses of people and having them change their economy as to benefit your own war effort.


  • @Admiral:

    I personally think the best method to counter ‘trading’ territories, would be to make an incentive for one to hold it continuously. More specifically, collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn, THEN purchasing your units. It doesn’t make much sense to be earning x amount of man hours towards your war effort if that territory was just a war zone. It takes time to coordinate masses of people and having them change their economy as to benefit your own war effort.

    I agree, if you want to end this flaw, this is the cleanest way to do it.  However, I believe the rule is like that to encourage attacking, so this could lead to more defensive play.


  • Exactly Rakeman…

    Less Stacking, More Attacking!!!   :-D

    I remember classic where Germany built up in EEur, and the Allies built up in Karelia.  Those were true snoozefests.  Now that they added a whole bunch of territories to the Eastern Front, it makes things a lot more dynamic, and in turn, more fun.


  • Collecting income at the end of the turn does encourage people to attack, but it encourages attacking on faulty logic! How can France, a 6 IPC territory produce 6 for the Germans, then 6 for the Brits after they conquer it? That means that France produced 12 IPCs in one round! Ridiculous!!!

    By collecting income at the beginning of your turn, it would encourage aggressive play, but in a different way. Lets take the France exchange as an example again. If the British take France, they don’t gain anything this round per se, but they deny Germany 6 IPC’s of income the next round. In turn, the Germans would want to counter attack in order to deny the British their income from France. This means that this zone, which is continuously being overrun by armies and having its infrastructure being destroyed in the battles, is unable to produce anything until it finally sees a bit of peace. If you want to gain an income from a certain zone, you have to earn it! Take it, and by god HOLD IT!!


  • Yes, but then there isn’t enough money in the game.  Perhaps if the IPC level of all territories was increased by 1, then there would be enough money in the game to collect money at the beginning of your turn rather than at the end of your turn.  That solution would also partially solve the problem of having too few locations with which one can build an IC because now every territory would be a minimum of a 2.


  • @Admiral:

    Collecting income at the end of the turn does encourage people to attack, but it encourages attacking on faulty logic! How can France, a 6 IPC territory produce 6 for the Germans, then 6 for the Brits after they conquer it? That means that France produced 12 IPCs in one round! Ridiculous!!!

    Looting and pillaging!  \m/ :evil:

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts