no way. That map is bigger than huge.

The basic idea is that the game has a natural balance, in that Germany and UK/USA should each give equal emphasis to both fronts in order to prevent handing a walkover victory to whichever opponent they don’t attack.

@Imperious:

slippery slope will follow that kind of rule. it should be one and if you do with 2-3 or even 4 it turns into WW3 ICBM game. Thats not really AA. It could be fun once, but a trick to be exploited. In all house rules you have to get away with the idea of allowing players to buy tons of items that can break a game. This would be the case with the old discussion on paratroopers and that “buck Rodgers exploit”.

I willl try to play a game soon with my a-bomb rules( which is really yours) , and tell you how it goes

@Upside-down_Turtle:

@Imperious:

no its too many pieces and ideas to keep track of.

agreed

and yet, if I saw you in a desert….

MY buddy and I tried out landmines  on Monday. We made them 5 IPC, covered one border, and basically acted the same way AA guns do, but for land unites. If territory was captured mines are destroyed.  Found out these make USSR a bit to powerful, however they did come in handy for Italy as well.

I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.

Have all powers include sz in their NO’s like w/Italy in AA50. Separate sz from the NO’s and create new NO’s for the sea. That way you would have land NO’s & sea NO’s.
**NO’s have been introduced into the game, and would keep things sorta simple. I’m not sure I like that though because it would be an all or nothing deal. Have certain sz worth 1 ipc or so (as Bardoly said) and basically let each power fight over them. Sorry still not to crazy about Germany being in what would be considered a UK zone and getting paid for it. Assign sz to each power and if those zones are in enemy hands it cost you $ or damage markers at your capitol.(could be determined by dice but might cost to much with SBR & rockets) this makes sense because loss of ships would cost $. Assign 3-4 sz to each power as describe by myself and others. If you keep these zones clear of enemy war ships you collect a bonus per sz (1 ipc each) or have the chance of a larger bonus if all sz’s assigned to you are clear. You could in rare cases assign the same sz to 2 powers to add some spark (for Bardoly). In this case it is assumed each power gets more income but by not keeping your convoy zones clear you lose it, results from the ships being sunk.
**As I was typing this out I noticed it might be cool to combine #4 & #5. Say on Germany’s turn it takes control of 2 sz’s assigned to the UK. Uk places 2 damage markers on its capitol. On Uk’s turn it clears those zones so now it gets a bonus to help pay for damage. On second thought I think that would defeat the whole purpose, but in AA their is a counter balance for most things lol.

I’ve only seen these in WWI A&A variants.  How would they work?  Is it a viable unit in A&A, or just a waist of plastic?

@allboxcars:

I’d add the rule that before using the piece, the owner must first loudly declare “I’m going commando!” to activate it.

Commando attacks get +1 bonus for each opposing player who does a “spit take” in reacting to the announcement.

lol
In my play group it’s understood that someone is always going commando  :-D

:wink:

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

And another question if they were in a formerly Neutral territory would they be “bipartisans”?

With the above post in mind, I propose the following for both Escort Carriers AND Naval Fighters.  Also, with Naval fighters being slightly weaker than their land-based counterparts, I propose that the regular aircraft carrier’s IPC cost be slightly tweaked.

Regular Aircraft Carrier

1    Attack
2    Defense
2    Movement points
11    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 10 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    May  hold up to 2 naval fighters.

Escort Carrier

1    Attack
1    Defense
2    Movement points
7    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 6 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
-    May only hold up to 1 naval fighter.

Naval Fighter

2    Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3    Defense
3    Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
–    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters MAY be used on land.

Regular Aircraft Carrier + 2  naval fighters

5    Combined attack value
8    Combined defense value
3    hits
27  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

Escort Carrier + 1 naval fighter

3    Combined attack value
4    Combined defense value
2    hits
15  IPC cost
–    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

These stats seem to fit a little better into the naval chart.

Recently it has like 99.8% been regulated to discussion to that end.

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

Anyone want to be part of the first ever online league for the axis and allies variant game called superpowers?

Games are played online. Season will be 12 weeks long plus play-offs. You will be emailed when its your turn to act. players do not have to be online at the same time. This is going to be great!

http://www.superpowersgame.com/scripts/league_info.php

@Bardoly:

0   Defense - This unit can stop tanks from blitzing the same as an aa gun can.

thats kind of a crazy rule, i dont c the point in it or the historical backing.

Otherwise my main concern is that i dont think these rules add a lot of stratagy except making three of each players land armies super strong.

Why cant you have naval or air commanders?

@Imperious:

Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?

1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.

I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice.  So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several.  But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations,  (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports?  Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units?  This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.

Yeah.  They can be captured as well.  Maybe each fort can modify defense of inf based on the level.

Level 1 boosts i inf defense

Level 2 two inf, and so on.

How about torpedo boats attack 2, defend 1, and cost five, otherwise the same as PT boats in terms of movement and hits.