Blind A/A

I agree this should be addressed. On the custom map we use all islands are worth at least 1 IPC, which helps somewhat, but like you said, it’s only financial.

I like the supply concept you have. Instead of tampering with all the unit stats, perhaps you could say that no surface attacks can be launched unless a friendly land zone is located in an adjacent sea zone. (double that distance with a naval base)

Seems not very rewarding to built them.
5 IPCs 1D6-2 damage
Why not lower cost to 4 IPCs and lower damage to reach an equilibrium?
Something like Convoy damage: rolls 1,2,3 = 1,2,3 IPCs damage 4,5,6 = 0 damage.

Questions always come up about Mongolia in Global and the technicalities involved (who attacks/moves where, etc). To make life easier, I propose making Mongolian TTs pro-Russian neutrals that can be activated by Russia one TT at a time in the NCM phase. This will be considered an act of war against Japan.

Japan in turn can invade any Mongolian TT if it pleases, constituting an act of war against Russia. The remaining Mongolian TTs will stay pro-Russian neutral and not immediately activate.

I find the current rules overly complicated and not necessarily historical: Mongolia was a client state of the USSR and could easily be persuaded to join the war effort against Japan, and did so in 1945.

I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Re: House rule proposal
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914

I’d like to play with the idea of added a General or ‘Hero’ to each country… Not giving them too much power but just to make things more interesting I guess… Any suggestions? Of course they cannot be bought again… Maybe raising the defence or attack of ground units…? This might’ve already been discussed before, if so a link to that thread would be appreciated. Thanks!  :-D

I was thinking of allowing fighters to intercept w/ radar along w/ the bonus to AA.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but before British radar stations were fully operational, the Germans could achieve relative surprise, as they would constantly change their attack routs, thus RAF interception was rare, and almost required an unlucky running into a patrol.  It was not until radar stations were fully operational that fighters could be directed directly to intercept the Luftwaffe.

Also, it wasn’t long after the Germans discovery of Britain’s advantage that they established their own radar defenses, which considerably contributed to the high casualty rate among allied bombers.

Thus, I think adding fighter interception to the radar tech effectively demonstrates it’s historical key role in the development of a defensive air combat command and control.

Finally, I’ve heard some say that radar is too weak, since “AA never hits anything anyway”.  Besides, the enemy can always counter w/ fighter escorts.

IMO, keeping the Japanese focus on the American threat and the Chinese irritant is the preferred way to keep Japan out of Moscow… pretty much the way if happened historically.

If we find those two factors consistently being so minor that strategic adventurism prevails for the Japanese player then I’d lean towards beefing up his Pacific opponents versus “treaty handcuffs”.

ok 1 artillery is less then 1 tank and 1 inf. i think 1 artillery and 1inf. no armour/tanks are allowed in transport planes