I’ve played with the house rule of- everyone(except China) gets one free roll at the beginning of every complete round. If you want more, you use the OOB rules for R&D as usual.
Our Dream Axis and Allies Games…
-
@Brain:
My dream A&A game is AAP40 because of…
-No stupid errors in the rulesWhen did they re-release the game?
I think he means his dream game would be AAP40 with no errors, more realistic rules, and faster game play. :|
-
I think I would like a game that tracked some of the logistics/supplies. You can’t build mech inf/aircraft, unless you have rubber. Can’t move your navy/tanks unless you have fuel etc… Certain tt would offer such supplies, that each power would fight for, and you have to transport them to your factories (would require a supply ship).
I would also like more terrain like mountains/swamps slowing/stopping movement, and weather/seasons to have an impact to slow or stop movement. Allow for a Russian winter, or random hurricanes at sea etc…
I would like a computer high bread game that you could track these things, along w/normal movement and attacks. I would like to make my moves w/a mouse, but roll my own dice, enter the results to the computer then have it played out. You could play over the internet w/a camera over looking a dice box, so your opponent knows your on the up n up.
-
Well, if there is one thing i like to see, is a possible US atom bomb. Basically, if Japan has lost control of all the pacific island, and the us has an airbase on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it can build an atomic bomb for 45 IPC. The roll a dice to see whether the bomb hits anything (a 4 or lower) and if it does, roll ten dice and destroy a unit for every dice that is a 3 or lower. If the bomber is shot down, the bomb doesn’t activate and is assumed the bomb has been destroyed on impact.
-
Poland- with little calvary pieces.
Vichy france- I don’t want a new power I just the old ones to switch sides.
Balanced NAs
Anti Tank piece
Better neutral rulesPoland with calvary pieces??? LOL. Just use the ones from your RISK set.
-
@WILD:
I think I would like a game that tracked some of the logistics/supplies. You can’t build mech inf/aircraft, unless you have rubber. Can’t move your navy/tanks unless you have fuel etc… Certain tt would offer such supplies, that each power would fight for, and you have to transport them to your factories (would require a supply ship).
I would also like more terrain like mountains/swamps slowing/stopping movement, and weather/seasons to have an impact to slow or stop movement. Allow for a Russian winter, or random hurricanes at sea etc…
I think is is beyond the scope of A&A, and would make it much more unnecessarily complicated. If you want something like that you should try the computer game Hearts of Iron III, which is probably one of the most in depth WWII strategy games out there. You can literally play as any nation that existed at that time period and the start date can go all the way back to about 1936 if I’m not mistaken. Lots of micromanagement.
Well, if there is one thing i like to see, is a possible US atom bomb. Basically, if Japan has lost control of all the pacific island, and the us has an airbase on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it can build an atomic bomb for 45 IPC. The roll a dice to see whether the bomb hits anything (a 4 or lower) and if it does, roll ten dice and destroy a unit for every dice that is a 3 or lower. If the bomber is shot down, the bomb doesn’t activate and is assumed the bomb has been destroyed on impact.
I really don’t think an A bomb is necessary, in games I play if Japan is reduced to having control only of the island, it’s obvious that the allies will win and continuing further is simply unnecessary, as even without an a-bomb piece the US will eventually overpower the Japanese infantry stacks eventually. Game is all but over by then, and you can assume or pretend if you want that the US wins by dropping the bomb.
-
@WILD:
I would also like more terrain like mountains/swamps slowing/stopping movement, and weather/seasons to have an impact to slow or stop movement. Allow for a Russian winter, or random hurricanes at sea etc…
WWII Struggle for Europe and Asia has terrain effects.
-
@WILD:
I think I would like a game that tracked some of the logistics/supplies. You can’t build mech inf/aircraft, unless you have rubber. Can’t move your navy/tanks unless you have fuel etc… Certain tt would offer such supplies, that each power would fight for, and you have to transport them to your factories (would require a supply ship).
They kind of did this with Bulge and Guadalcanal. But yeah, it think it’d be cool to ‘port’ supply rules to the main game.
I think that a 3-resource system–say, oil, iron ore, and wheat/rice–is kind of where you’re going with this. Each territory could have a different number for each of these (including, of course, ‘0’).
Wheat would be most plentiful and allow you to make infantry builds and attack with them, but you’d need iron ore to produce any mechanized units, and oil to make them move (as well as a little bit of wheat for their personnel).
The only problem I can see is that certain territories on the board would be incredibly valuable because of their high yield of rare oil or iron ore deposits, and once a certain power got a stack of infantry on them, they could lock their enemies out of the game by denying them the power to buy/build mech units: there’d be no chance of recovering from that (especially if those territories were islands, i.e. the Dutch East Indies, and to get at those resources in the first place you needed oil to get your troop transports moving).
Maybe you could have a resource trading schema in place to overcome this factor, though; kind of like that system in Settlers of Catan where you can trade off unused resources at a loss (to the ‘bank’) for the kind you want (e.g. 5 wheat for 1 oil; 3 wheat for 1 iron ore).
-
Sounds like you should get HOI for the PC.
HOI?. Not familar with that term. Care to specify? Anyway, some of the things I listed might lean towards PC game, and I’m still absolutely happy with A&A as it is :wink:
I believe he is referring to “Hearts of Iron”
-
Thanks bennyboyg, Brain Damaged, and Make_It_Round for the game suggestions, I’ve heard of these games and will check them out.
-
I’ve heard Hearts of Iron is a huge time investment.
-
@Brain:
I’ve heard Hearts of Iron is a huge time investment.
It is. It’s not for everyone but if you really like in depth micromanagement and strategic warfare. The game itself technically takes place real time, but it’s real time in that every second real time is an HOUR game time. Granted this can be sped up and paused, but if you want to do well you basically need to sit through 2.5 hours per year, and each game usually takes at least 5 years. I got it but it’s a bit too much for me. You can play as literally any nation though, ANY, including Luxembourg. It’s not fun, believe me I tried it haha (That is playing as Luxembourg I mean, not the game itself)
-
Hmmm. Might check that out :-)
-
@WILD:
I think I would like a game that tracked some of the logistics/supplies. You can’t build mech inf/aircraft, unless you have rubber. Can’t move your navy/tanks unless you have fuel etc… Certain tt would offer such supplies, that each power would fight for, and you have to transport them to your factories (would require a supply ship).
I would also like more terrain like mountains/swamps slowing/stopping movement, and weather/seasons to have an impact to slow or stop movement. Allow for a Russian winter, or random hurricanes at sea etc…
I would like a computer high bread game that you could track these things, along w/normal movement and attacks. I would like to make my moves w/a mouse, but roll my own dice, enter the results to the computer then have it played out. You could play over the internet w/a camera over looking a dice box, so your opponent knows your on the up n up.
Well again I would suggest Hearts of Iron, those games basically track everything. The only bad thing is that those games are true micromanagement games. Everything is in real time so to play the game you really have to be dedicated and a spazz about complexity. The game is fun but only in short stints for me, it is draining to the point it almost feels like work, almost……
-
A game that feels like work :?
I’ll pass.
-
Sounds like my kind of game. And it’s dirt cheap. I might try it out. Quick question… I just told a friend about it and he thinks he’ll buy it too. Is it multiplayer? B/c that would be epic.
-
Some things I’d like to see:
1. Terrain effects on movement and combat. Maybe print a movement cost on each territory, to represent: 1.) the difficulty of movement through mountains, jungles, forests, or undeveloped areas with few roads; 2.) the difficulty of keeping units supplied in rough terrain; and 3.) the vastness of the area represented by some territories. If the Japanese really want to send their tank armies to Moscow, or the Italians want to drive overland to South Africa, it should take a while.
2. Rail movement. Allow each country to send 2-4 land units per turn by rail, which gives them unlimited movement, as long as all territories through which they pass were freindly controlled at the beginning of that country’s turn, and all are connected by land. Each country would have its own rail allowance. For instance:
Russia: 3 units
Germany: 4 units
Italy: 2 units
USA: 3 units
Britain: 3 units
Japan: 2 units
ANZAC: 2 units
China: 1 unit3.) More realistic starting forces. This would involve a larger set of playing pieces. But the more units on the map, the lower the likelihood of one or two bad die rolls deciding the game. The more dice you roll, the closer the results will be to their statistical probability. The Royal Navy should not be wiped out by 3 subs and 5-6 aircraft.
-
we need mines!!!
if there is gona be a game with flags as ncp’s than we need mine pieces. we also need to have a texeured board.(ie. a few riples in sea zones, raised/elavated mountians, elavated land that is higher than the sea zones) and for the sake of all humanity CANDADA PLEASE!Table Tactics makes mines:
-
-every concievable power ever
-slightly more realistic combat rules (Bombers hitting fighters on a 4?), especially in regards to surface combat vs. air
-politics sounds pretty interesting
-individual victory conditions so that even if one side is winning, the winning player is yet to be determined
-national advantages + disadvantages so that each power looks and feels “unique”
-really big tech tree
-more scenarios
-no cardboard pieces (maybe even little flags for occupation markers)
-more territories
-active battlefields
-some sort of AI for neutrals
-more in-depth American neutrality
-totally unique moulds for each power (unless some historical reason). NEED UNIQUE ANZAC INF!
-actual kamikaze attacks with your aircraftTo sum that up, more stuff in general.
I’ve addressed some of the above things in my rules set.
- Fighters are excellent at anti-air, but not good for much else. A dogfight takes place at the beginning of each combat round, making the air superiority fighters provide critical.
- Dive bombers are specialized for attacks against surface targets (land and naval). They also give you some anti-air; and a faint hint of strategic bombing.
- Strategic bombers have little value in tactical combat, but have the ability to do permanent economic damage on strategic bombing raids. Fortunately, you can defend against them with fighters and (if necessary) other air units. There is never any nerfing of airplanes’ anti-air rolls; so a player must earn some degree of air superiority–or at least parity–for his strategic bombing missions to succeed.
- Most units have multiple hitpoints. Injured units are killed before non-injured units become injured; preventing the multiple hitpoints concept from becoming overpowered. This means that a heavily armored tank will be harder to kill than a light tank; and that a jet will be harder to shoot down than a piston-driven aircraft.
- Luck no longer plays any role in technological research. The role of luck has been reduced for combat.
- Nations have their own unique lists of advantages and, in some cases, disadvantages. Each nation has its own tech tree. These are different enough to give each nation its own feel.
- To collect income from most remote territories (almost all islands, Africa, South America, etc.) you must have a transport in the convoy zone adjacent to the territory in question. This makes convoy raiding a more viable strategy than ever. A player can physically sink enemy transports, or, barring that, can at least drive them away from wherever they would need to be for the enemy to collect income.
- While there is no neutral U.S. rule in the main rules set, I’ve created one for the rules variants. The “neutral” U.S. collects income normally but experiences double its normal unit costs. To compensate for that, it is allowed to send double the normal allotment of lend-lease aid, and can also physically ship non-infantry units to its allies’ territory. Those units become the property of the Allies that receive them. The Axis player is allowed to either attack the U.S. at any time, or to allow America to remain “neutral” for the rest of the war. Attacking can cause a devastating short-term effect on U.S. naval fleets and transport capacity, and also eliminates the special lend-lease advantages the U.S. had been receiving. However, an attack also means that the U.S. is now allowed to attack the Axis, and that its unit costs are now normal. Effectively, an attack on the U.S. causes significant short-term harm to the Allied war effort, but a long-term gain.
-
:-o
The utter and complete perfection of those rules astounds me.
-
I like most of those ideas.
Suggested Topics
