Having just finished my first full read through of the rules, I thought I’d post a brief summary of my impressions. This is largely in order of the game manual subject listing.
Ahistorical Japan
Judging from the posts so far, this seems to have been a rather limited success. A lot more needed changing if a geographical solution was required. Essentially two things: difficult terrain in Siberia/China, and a more accurate representation of Russia - with Moscow in it’s correct location. Of course this means rather small areas in Europe with lots of units in them, but we are getting a bigger board….
I instinctively dislike the National objectives idea, which seems too far down the World at War route, and against the spirit of simplicity that characterises A&A.
In my view a much simpler and more elegant fix is the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression treaty, which I’ve detailed elsewhere. This should of course be optional. Moreover the archaic capture the capital rule still makes Moscow a gigantic Axis tank magnet, even with a few more territories and Chinese units in the way.
To balance the removal of this threat to Russian from the East I’d implement the “Soviet Xenophobia” rule, banning USA/UK from pumping troops into Russia.
Italy
A welcome addition, as the 3 vs. 3 balance more than makes up for the reduced power of Germany. However the roundel and unit colour are mistakes, and I’d give Italy more beef by placing Finland, Romania and Vichy territories under Italian control. This gives Italy a big block of land in West Africa, as well as Madagascar. On my map it also gives Italy southern France.
China
I generally like the new China rules, but reports are that the country doesn’t last long anyway, probably through a shortage of starting infantry. I have the USSR controlling northern China (CCP), though the limit on 3 units per territory could be seen as representing the in-fighting between Chinese factions.
Give China more starting units but make the flying tigers American to minimise the threat to Japan from this quarter.
Board
I think the lack of terrain types is a missed opportunity. Certainly mountain areas required a very different approach from attackers.
I also think the inviolable neutrals are unhistorical, and I’d like these countries to have IPC values and defence forces.
My issues with board specifics are legion (compare with my map), but the most pressing to me:
The Atlantic should be wider (a minimum 2 turn crossing) to simulate U-boat warfare;
A Pripet marsh territory in Eastern Europe (roughly where “East Poland” is) to give some shape to this front and represent partisan activity;
India should have many more areas with Delhi in a central area the VC;
Suez should be in one territory (Egypt) only;
Money
Shouldn’t be needed! The new and much improved SBR rules, combined with collecting income at the start of a turn (something all reason cries out for) should have rendered this stuff so much waste paper.
Combat Forces
Surely anyone with 3+ brain cells could’ve told them that Italy should be in light grey. And yet, and yet…
Order of Play
Collect income should be 1.
Non combat movement should be deleted i.e combined with Combat movement into one phase.
(see discussion elsewhere under NW Europe topic)
Research and Development.
Difficult to comment on the system without playing it. I generally only like techs if there are specific units to represent them so I can immediately see which units have tech, and so that only newly placed units have them. Without such pieces I find techs too much of a chore to keep track of.
I would only even have techs which have physical units rather than abstract financial fiddles, and would definitely have heavy tanks, rockets (rather than the silly use of AAs) and RADAR installations in neutral colours like AA guns. Armoured trains would be pretty cool also.
Guest Fighters
I don’t much like these, different fighters need different engineers, fuel, spare parts etc. Could a US carrier service a Russian fighter?
Tanks
I really don’t like the established tank movement rules. Tanks moved to the front the same way infantry and artillery did - by train.
I delete the blitz move and replace it with tank “breakthroughs”. Basically this means that tanks normally move only one space as per other land units, but after a round of combat in which enemy defending units are outnumbered (2-1?), tanks can force a “breakthrough” and move a further space into enemy territory, or back into friendly territory if they wish. This better simulates blitzkrieg warfare, while forcing players to think about defence in depth.
I also have a “breakdown” rule for mechanised units which can lead to their capture by enemy forces.
Defender Retreats
I’ve always been in favour of this, Hitler’s orders to “always fight to the last man” are deservedly ridiculed. As explained elsewhere this stimulates quicker, more dynamic and intelligent play rather than the cheesy land-grabs of legendary A&A.
I also think a rule allowing transports to “evacuate” retreating land units to sea should be implemented, though tanks and artillery must revert to infantry on evacuation.
Capture the Capital Rule
Delete, delete, delete!
“Only minds ossified in the ideas of passed centuries can possibly believe there is any point in capturing the capital.”
Winter Rules
Consider each full turn a season, i.e. every fourth turn is winter, with appropriate effects on unit movement/effectiveness.
Complexes
As I’ve discussed at length in other threads, allowing players to build units at captured factories is absurd. Building “new” complexes also. The only circumstance in which factories can be altered during a game is that of the Soviets moving a factory east to the Urals in the 1941 scenario, but the new official map scarcely makes this viable as it perpetuates the distorted map with the Moscow territory effectively already in the Urals.
Battleships
I prefer the repair at friendly base idea to auto-righting. A damaged BB should also fight at only 2-2.
Carrier
I think these should also have 2 hit points, subject to similar repair rules as per BB.
Finally a couple of political points:
Brazil did not enter the war ‘till 1943
Australia, and in fact all UK Pacific islands, were in effect under US control from about March 1942. Therefore in a 1942 scenario I make them all US territories, with the implications of the Australian VC and possible IC.
Right, I’ve just time to catch the last episode of WWII Behind Closed Doors, with the post war plotting of the Allies to attack each other. Individual winner rules?
Also possible: Big Three Conferences! Combined attack?