How much would the game change if…....

I find it odd that a single unit can be used to stop an army of 50 divisions. Given that a single turn can make the difference because your enemy can stop you cold with a lone infantry, I was wondering if a small tweak would be interesting.

The tweak would be that units contesting a territory can only “hold up” 3 times as many units on the enemy side, allowing said enemy to move “through” and continue the attack in other areas.

For example, if the attacking side has 20 land divisions and the defense has 3, the attacker could choose to move “through” with up to 11 units (being forced to leave 3*3 = 9 divisions to fight) and attack an area behind the enemy lines or to the side. To do this, the attacker would be forced to commit to an assault on the 3 divisions; it can’t just move through without fighting them.

The number could be tweaked and there’s probably a ton of ramifications I haven’t thought about, so feel free to point out pros and cons. I just feel that stopping gigantic armies with minimal forces is very advantageous for the defender, which is usually the Allies. Giving the opportunity to move troops around would make for more aggressive and interesting plays. It would force the defender to choose to either sacrifice more armies for the delaying actions or just plain retreat and give that space entirely.

Let me know how you would implement this !

I recently played a game with a new group, and they had a few changes that altered the game dramatically. They edited units so that they “represent” real units during the war. For instance, they changed German tanks to Panzers and made them 4/4/2’s for 8 IPs. They gave Russia 2 free INF at the start of their turn to place at an IPC before mobilization. They made Japanese fighters into Zeros making them 3/3/4’s for 8 IPs. British AA guns hit is increased to 2 while in London. Lastly, American transports get to move one space after offloading, but cannot pickup or dropoff during this move. This was my first exposure to these rules. In my opinion, the US transport rule made shuck-shuck much faster. These rules clearly favor allies, but definitely changed the game. Give me your thoughts, changes, etc.  :mrgreen:

Moderator’s Edit: Added [Spring 1942] to title

Hmmm, How do I alter the topic title? It says 1942 as the year - that was a mistake - the darn thing took so long to type.

I think what I would do is just stack Paris, sink z96, and grab Java and land the ANZAC fighters there.  I calculate that Germany would have to use the entire luftwaffe plus all land units in range to take Paris without losing large number of tanks/mechs.  I think this is historically fair because stacking Paris would be in the spirit of France being in defensive mode, and let’s just say that in the real war France got diced by the sickle cut.  It should have been harder for Germany.  So in this scenario the royal navy would be quite safe and without any possibility of sealion they could easily afford to nuke Taranto and build an IC in Egypt right away.  Russia gets some breathing room and a strong UK gives USA more room to focus on the Pacific. ANZAC having an extra round of income and $14 for the first couple rounds is a small help too.

I have seen many Axis won games where the Axis won by the skin-of-their-teeth. If those games went on a couple of more rounds, it would have surely turned into an Allied victory.
For example, I have seen this happen: Germany takes over Russia gaining Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. They already have Berlin, Warsaw and Paris, plus Italy has Rome. There is 7 of the 8 VCs they need to win on the Europe board.
While Germany was fighting in Russia and Italy was dealing with the British in the Med, the US fleet stomps the Japanese fleet and has them cornered on Japan. The US also builds up a HUGE invasion force in the Atlantic. They move it to SZ 91 off of Gibraltar. That same turn, Italy finally manages to grab Cairo from the Brits –- VC #8 — and puts a single destroyer blocker in SZ 92.
See, the Allies are screwed. That big US invasion force could easily take Rome, but the US fleet has to stop in SZ 92 to smash that 1 Italian destroyer. Therefore they can’t get to Rome, or Cairo. From SZ 91, even with the Gibraltar Naval Base, there is no other European VC that is under Axis control that they can get to. They could invade W. Germany, but while that would hurt the German effort, there is no VC there. Both Berlin and Paris are 1 more turn away. At the beginning of Italy’s turn, the Axis win.
Berlin, Rome and Paris could all be totally undefended, but since the Axis captured their 8th VC and held it for one full round, they win. In a way, this kind of sucks but that’s the rules. I guess it is designed to make the Allied players think harder about their defence of VCs. Perhaps go all out on that critical 8th VC to keep it from the Axis an any cost, whether it be Cairo, Moscow or even London.

…which were quickly wiped out by Japan and not replaced.

The Soviet Navy had to build ships in Russia then sail them out to form the Pacific fleet.

I don’t buy the idea of complexes as staging areas - this can apply to any area where you build up forces, and doesn’t need a factory.  To me, “Industrial Complex” means a vast industrial base of economic production in which weapons of war are forged.  To establish such a base overseas from scratch is simply not realistic. Much, much cheaper and quicker to ship/rail the units from their base of origin in your home territory which is exactly what the game should reflect.

Industrial complexes (at least building new ones and using other player’s) are one of those hangovers from the original game design that somehow haven’t been updated because they feel like too much a part of the A&A tradition.  But, like the Sinai peninsular being in Trans-Jordan, or the disturbing re-appearance of the Hiberno-Caledonian land bridge, they don’t belong in a game which purports to represent World War II.

@Napoleon:

Someone tried to put extra chinese infantry on all empty territory?

Does it make a difference?

It made China an annoy bitch.

I will need to play first to give a true assessment.
My gut thought is one of curious excitement at the new combat system/dice.
It’s natural evolution for this kind of change to come to the game.
If it always stayed the same it would become just another “Revised” edition.
I hope that it’s a well received game as I’d love to see more battle specific games come to be!
Peter
Thoes426 :evil: