• @insanehoshi That’s what I’m assuming was meant as well. And I agree with you, I wouldn’t like limiting builds to ports or airbases only. I do like the idea of specialist forces being limited to builds in Home Country though, I think that’s a step in the right direction for sure!

  • Banned

    @chris_henry
    I meant both. Yes home country is logical. Ports for marines is logical because all the facilities are present. Like airbases for airborne. It makes these facilities more important in the game and keeping them undamaged to be able to place units may become an incentive for defending them. So strategic bombings of these facilities might become more important and creates dilemmas. Do you produce your marines at the front line or at a safer distance? It has not been playtested, but that is why they are houserules to tweak with and perfect. So post your experiences 👍🏼

  • Sponsor

    Unnecessarily complex.

  • Banned

    @mountaineer
    Hi Bob,
    Nice of you to join the dialogue and an honor that you are reading my posts for inspiration. Unfortunately you don’t have a lot to say about it. Please give us some more insights of your thoughts. You have written quite some complex expansions for Global War. Tell us why these simple and easy to remember concepts are so complex in your opinion? Everyone seems to like them except you. So we must be missing something here. Enlighten us please?
    Regards, Delaja


  • @delaja I definitely get what you’re trying to imply, but I just think it adds an extra layer that, to me, doesn’t seem worth it overall.

    I get what you’re saying about marines and airborne units training at naval or air facilities, but think about the hundreds upon hundreds of real world air facilities and naval facilities that must have existed in real life that are not shown in this game. I think you can just make assumptions that the factories have the training grounds necessary to create/train troops. That’s my thought anyways!

    I just think the game is already complex (the reason I enjoy it, don’t get me wrong), and adding some smaller things like this for me make an extra complexity that I’m just not sure adds an extreme amount to most games!

  • Banned

    @chris_henry
    Excellent example of argumentation. 👍🏼
    We can agree it is taste. It is a choice between complexity and historical accuracy.


  • @delaja Haha thanks! I find it helps to have constructive comments that actually add to a conversation! Plus there’s a way to do it respectfully. It’s lucky not hard to be nice about all these ideas people have, because there are sooooo many ways you can house rule your games or think of ideas. Nothing says everyone has to use everything!


  • @delaja said in Marines & Airborne Placements:

    historical accuracy.

    But historically neither Marines nor airborne units were mustered or trained at air bases or major ports (or whatever their real life equivalents would be).

  • Banned

    @insanehoshi
    If they were not near deepwater ports or other naval facilities, where are those training camps of say US Marines located?

    North Carolina, north Virginia and California happen to be coastal states. For marine training camps that is not a coincidence. It is quite hard to practice an amphibious assault in the middle of the desert or a forest or the Rocky Mountains. The balance between game play and historical accuracy is important. Ofcourse there may be exceptions for certain camps. Anyway I am not here to compile a complete and perfect rule for this. Just sharing an idea and people can use it how they want to. Take what you need.

  • Banned

    @Chris_Henry
    We all share a love for the game. And house ruling should be fun.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 6
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts