If I were Larry, I would…

[Cow]

bombers industrial bomb 1d6 only.
change shared sea zone rules.
go back to the faster and simpler convoy disruption rules (quicker to play the game than to roll every single convoy disruption).
add bomber to russia and 1 japan inf to korea.
I would like to see the poland tactical in germany, so that there would be more consistency to how G1 goes.

If russia’s african NO were to go away I believe a russian bomber would be fine and/or +5 russia if iraq, persia, and nw persia are pro allies or neutral.

also weird exceptions to rules like allies can land on the dutch islands the same turn they take it… is super weird, get rid of that.

[Commando Brado]

If I were Larry, I would have fixed Alpha 2 by giving the Axis a few more starting units or changing the unit setup a little bit to help the Axis, rather than changing the rules to Alpha 3. Seems like Alpha 2 was a pretty good version. The Axis were at a disadvantage a little bit. But, Alpha 3 seems to favor the Allies even more.

[Cow]

I thought a2 and a3 favored the axis. Axis been winning on these forums, triplea, and reports from live games typically show axis winning.

Jen has her alpha 2 tournament still going, people took axis at -24, they just remove aa guns for the most part from the axis (they bid reverse, subtract units from axis instead of bidding to add units to allies).

[Cow]

I have been thinking, maybe they should buff italy and russia, then there might be more action on the europe front… most of the action is in the pacific, which is kind of sad.

[Veqryn]

1. Change Russia’s NO to not effect any territory in Africa or the Middle East.  It should be Europe only.  (Because seeing Russians running around africa and getting on uk transports is ridiculous)

2. Give Russia +12 more IPCs to start the game.  They can buy a bomber with that.  Or they can do something else instead.  (This is compensation for the stupid national objective being changed.)

3. Change convoy disruption back to just do 1 damage for each dice that would have been rolled.  This makes it easier to plan how many units you need to fully disrupt a player, and gets rid of some of the useless luck (as if we don’t already have enough luck involved already).

4. Give Japan +1 AA Gun in Korea (can keep as a fodder unit against Russian aggression).

5. Change Japan’s National Objective for controlling “ALL” of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands, to instead add “Marshall Islands” and change it to “Controll 4 of 6, out of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, Solomon Islands, and Marshall Islands”.  (Who in hell has ever gotten this objective?  When you need only 4 of 6, and one you start with, this makes this objective actually possible, if still unlikely)

6. Add an objective for France: +5 PUs if France controls all her original territories.  (for flavor purposes)

7. Add +1 more infantry to Southern Italy.

[Commando Brado]

Alpha 2 favors the Axis?! Wow! I just don’t see it this way. Must be some weak Axis players.

[Cow]

do what lots of other board games do, basic and advanced rules. Aside from fans of axis and allies, I don’t see why someone would play this game.

Commando Brado, I remember alpha +2 now… it was not that different aside from france having 1 more unit and uk not have aa gun cannon fodder. Italy was not so easy to push over. then again kamikazes weren’t always active so japan was kinda gimped in that aspect and couldn’t be as aggressive.

Honestly, I like the new kamikaze rules, it is simpler and it promotes japan to be aggressive. The game should promote action otherwise there is no point to playing a war game if we are all going to be one with the turtles.

[Guest]

I would allow tactical bombers to SBR ICs.

You could bring all 3 types ofplanes.  Fighters to be taken as casualties in the air battle (if there is one), and then remaining tactical and strategic bombers target the IC.  Any AA hits may be taken on the tactical bombers instead of the strategic bombers.  You would then be pretty sure you will do 1d6+2 damage per strategic bomber plus 1d6 for any tacticals that survive the air battle and AA.  Less risk to the strategic bombers and more reliable damage to enemy ICs would convince more of us to do SBR.

[Cow]

bombing raids on russia is the problem.

[Veqryn]

I could easily make a mod for this.  Obviously I’d want to follow what I mentioned are what I would do, but I am open to arguments against my ideas or for other ideas.

[Cow]

still would like to see bombers do 1d6 only. Bombers used to cost 15 and they were used back then, they went to 12 and were used still, now they are 12 with extra damage.

would also like to see carriers go up to 18 cost. the amount of defense a carrier and 2 fighters brings to the table is absurd for the low cost. - this is the reason for all the mexican standoffs we see in the pacific, no one wants to showdown because defending is cheaper and you get to repair if you are at a naval base so the risk for the attacker is greater and so is the cost.

global is a flop, because players want a more aggressive game. There are other games that are not aggressive in the war genre, those games sucked for a reason.

Check it out, risk is a classic war game, because statistically attackers win so you can expect to see fireworks.

A&A players still gravitate toward 50th even though they played the hell out of it already. why is that? Action. There is plenty of action in aa50 and it doesn’t take long to get to the main showdown which is japan attacking moscow and allies taking italy / berlin… if players don’t want to be aggressive they play for income and holding territories, but they still battle for it… primarily for national objectives.

Global lacks incentive to have skirmishes in europe, but I am not sure what you can do about that.

[Veqryn]

I’d rather carriers got +1 attack and -1 defense (become 1/1 units) instead of up their cost.

I would also like tactical bombers to go to 10 cost, since they are 3/3s that are only 4/3 under certain circumstances.

I like bombers as they are.  With the bigger map, it is much tougher to get in range of the things you really want to bomb.  Plus, factory damage rules, (and tech for radar and improved factories) help to limit the effectiveness of bombers.

One prime reason we see less attacking is that we now have 2 types of infantry (infantry and mech) which are both 1/2 units. 
While artillery is still around, Tanks got increased to 6 cost, making them a luxury purchase that rarely happens.

If you want to see more action, reduce tank cost to 5 and make them 3/2 units instead of 3/3.  (like classic)

[Cow]

You should bomb russia in our game veqryn, you grossly underestimate the impact. No, go for pacific victory.

mmm I would like to see tanks cost 5 and russia’s production increased (from national objectives).

[Spendo02]

Increase the cost of Subs to 8 IPC, increase their attack value to 3 when no DD is present for defender.  Eliminate the autosink w/out DD present.

Tech tokens

Remove Tac unit pairing:  Tac attack @4 if defender has no Ftr present or if defender has Armor present.  This better reflects tank busting of a tactical bomber that was more focused on blowing stuff up on the ground than air to air combat.

SBR (IC): Interceptors roll @2, Escorts roll @2, SBR aircraft roll @1, AA roll @1 per AA present (no innate IC AA).

SBR (Naval): Interceptors (Ftr only) roll @2, Escorts (Ftr only) roll @2, SBR aircraft (Tac only) roll @1, CV roll @1.  All surviving Tac roll @3 to target (declared) any ship in the combat zone to exclude SS.

[Cow]

wow nerf subs…? it is hard enough for one player to attack another players naval as it is.

catch 22 rules just add more rules to the game without adding any value to it.

[Mallery29]

….get some f’ing nachos! Nachos rule!  :evil:

[Gargantua]

…take back the copyright of Axis and Allies from WoTC, and give it over to a fan based organization, before it’s too late.

[RedHunter]

@Veqryn:

I’d rather carriers got +1 attack and -1 defense (become 1/1 units) instead of up their cost.

I would also like tactical bombers to go to 10 cost, since they are 3/3s that are only 4/3 under certain circumstances.

I like bombers as they are.  With the bigger map, it is much tougher to get in range of the things you really want to bomb.  Plus, factory damage rules, (and tech for radar and improved factories) help to limit the effectiveness of bombers.

One prime reason we see less attacking is that we now have 2 types of infantry (infantry and mech) which are both 1/2 units. 
While artillery is still around, Tanks got increased to 6 cost, making them a luxury purchase that rarely happens.

If you want to see more action, reduce tank cost to 5 and make them 3/2 units instead of 3/3.  (like classic)

I think part of it is the group you play with. The group I normally play in person with tends to be full of agressive but tactically sound players. We don’t turtle and if the people playing the Axis want a chance of victory they have to be very agressive. I still buy as many tanks as possible with Germany or Russia because even at 6 cost they are a good buy. Germany can still tank shock the hell out of Russia especially with Japan assisting. I have never seen(in our games) Russia get units into Africa. Especially not by transport. Axis players do their very best to sink the allied ships and a transport trying to reach Africa would be sunk by someones fighters. And frankly the way we play if Russia wants to pull units it needs to defend Russia and put them someplace else they can do so by all means. Just makes killing them that much easier. They are already hurting because Germany turn 1 should be able to make it impossible for the UK to land on their shore by taking their fleet out.

Granted tech rolls and results can cause some weird changes. I have seen Japan run totally wild because they got shipyards for example, ditto with the USA, then once the USA is at war you are in battleship and carrier hell. One game we had the USA get shipyards and supersubs in the first two turns. Then we had the USA uboat fleet that annoyed the living hell out of Japan(because their fighters couldn’t sink the subs).

Who wins often depends on who plays what nation and also on dice rolling.

[oztea]

Total rework of the convoy system.

Players should have to control sea zones so their IPCs can flow to the capital safely.

We need some battle of the Atlantic action.

[gamerman01]

@Axisplaya:

@Alsch91:

@Young:

5. Allow US ships to maneuver within sea zone 121 while neutral.

This is already possible.

You sure of that ? I thought they were limited to sz101, 102 and 89 in the atlantic.

Greenland has a USA symbol on it.  According to Alpha3 rules, US ships can end in any seazone next to US territory.  So 121 is eligible while USA is neutral.
Not that it matters.  I see no reason to go there, even if you built a naval base there….