Modified turn sequence?

I support Gamerman01

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w

So it would take 1 year for ships off California to reach Japan?

IN AA yes.

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.

I hadn’t really given it a thought, but here’s two ideas that just came to mind:

Make it so that the player has to somehow “transfer” the precious metal from the area. This could be as simple as forcing there to be one unit in the zone, or somehow involve a shipping convoy.

Another thing I was thinking that might help with the same old boredom in Africa, is perhaps gold or silver can be used to recruit more African locals and deploy infantry in the colonies.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.