Why not a rule to attack with multi-national forces - the one flaw of the game.

[Crossover]

Multinational forces would make the Allies win too easily, such as happened in history. We want a board game that every side can win.

Making this game more historical would make it boring. To be accurate you have to give US about 55-60 IPC on the pacific side and about 50 IPC on the atlantic side. The Allies will always win, such as happened in reality. But would you like that kind of game ?

Even more: you would have to customize all units: German Tanks should cost 6 IPC but attack at 4. US and UK tanks cost just 4 IPC but attack and defend only at a 2. German infantry should cost 4 IPC but attack at 2 ,3 with artillery, while Russian infantry just cost 1 IPC and is an 1/1/1 unit (see battle of Stalingrad where Russian soldiers were sacrificed as cannon fodder). German fighters had just 3 movement while UK and US fighters had 4-5 range. Rules would become even more complicated, and believe me it is already complicated ! You can’t start a game with beginners without about 30 minutes of rule explaining and at this forum the rule clarify section is the most visited one with the most replies…

Despite all that, you are right, but it’s not a flaw, it was planned this way to balance the game.

[WILD BILL]

Maybe we will get d-day back when AA42 comes out this fall.

[Adalwolf]

@Crossover:

Multinational forces would make the Allies win too easily, such as happened in history. We want a board game that every side can win.

Trying playing the Axis then.  Your right though, with the option of a D-Day attack, it would be really tough on Germany.

[Adalwolf]

@GoekaWar:

This is the Anniversary Edition with a new map, new country’s to play with, AND new rules. So we are not playing Revised now. Maybe the Axis the can do the same, with Germany and Italy, as a multi-national force. :-D But A&A is just a game, , it was not to be a historical game in the first place.

This one is more historical IMO than any of the rest…especially with the national objectives to earn extra IPCs.

The many games I have played, it seems to end all the same.  America and Britain end up in Germany through Italy.

[Gargantua]

The joint strike rule, was the WORST optional Axis and Allies rule of all time.

All Britian would do the whole game is not spend Any IPC’S.

the IPC’s they saved could then be spent before the German turn for units to be used that turn by America.

Basically it amounted to having to defend yourself constantly, everywhere, against units THAT DIDN’T EVEN EXSIST. :( :( :(

that means if you didnt have a full slate of units locked down in France, and Germany, Or anything else you planned to keep, you would get raped.

It was alot of BS and we had better never see it again.

[critmonster]

@Gargantua:

The joint strike rule, was the WORST optional Axis and Allies rule of all time.

Don’t beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel!  :wink:

[Omega]

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

[Adalwolf]

Yeah, I think that is probably the best…a house rule.  I have just found for the Allies once to get on France and stay there you have to have some sort of combined effort from UK and US powers.  Britain has to attack France first and then the US can attack or reinforce.  If Germany defends or counterattacks and holds or retakes France then was it really worth it.

We shall see…I will play some more and see how it goes.  Thanks for all you all’s input.

[Omega]

You said it yourself. A combined attack of UK and US can happen. It just needs some coordination. IF you set it up correctly, Italy should not be able to retake France because Italy is threatened by USA

Robert

[Gargantua]

You should change your forum name to Robert Omega, so that you don’t have to sign off “Robert” on every post.

[Omega]

Omega is my nickname in most forums/games (when I can). Its a very common nickname, so its very hard to get it. I’ve been lucky enough to call myself Omega on this forum.

signing my name is a habbit I have when posting anywhere :) and RobertOmega is an ugly name.

The most beautiful things in the world are always the simpliest things. :)

Just noticed V from V for Vendetta :D

Robert

[Bigtiti]

@Omega:

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land

worth a fighter?