@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.