Mixing 'Mechs with A&A?

@Argothair: Should it take more turns, in general, to move a basic unit by land, by sea, or by air? Why? For whatever it’s worth, sea transporation and land transportation and air transportation in the real world exist on a continuum in which speed is inversely proportional to tonnage.  Shipping by sea is (and has been since ancient times) the cheapest way to move vast quantities of goods over great distances, giant supertankers being a good example of this principle, but it has the disadvantage of being slow and (for obvious reasons) of being limited to oceans and seas and coastlines and certain rivers.  Shipping by air is the fastest method, but it’s expensive and it involves much smaller payloads; it also has limitations imposed by landing strip requirements.  Helicopters are more flexible in this regard than fixed-wing aircraft, but they have terrible fuel consumption, a short range, high maintenance costs and small payload capacities.  Transporation by land is roughly half-way between those two extremes.  Of the two land options, rail shipping is in many ways superior because combines fairly high speed with low fuel consumption and large payload capacity, but it’s limited to places where rail lines exist.  Trucking is more versatile because there are more roads in more places than rail lines, and in a pinch some trucks can operate off-road, but they’re not as efficient at moving tonnage than trains.

@Pitt79 please elaborate the usa russia scenario thanx

Did some real brief digging around on the wiki and found this… The last part seems to confirm those speculations in Reason 2 Marc mentioned aboved. Though I think there might still be enough in here to justify a starting Strat B for the Russians. The fact that the Russians are unlikely to ever be able to afford another one would put a ceiling on it, and give a nod to the fact that the Soviet strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 were dwarfed by those of the Western Allies. The logic there I guess would be that Britain and America can readily expand their bomber arsenal through purchasing, whereas the Soviets are basically stuck using what they start out with, or risk just getting crushed in the land war haha. Anyhow, here’s quick copy paster… "Soviet strategic bombing See also: Shuttle bombing and Operation Frantic The first Soviet offensive bomber campaign was directed against the Romanian oilfields in the summer of 1941.[185] In response to a German raid on Moscow on the night of 21�22 July 1941, Soviet Naval Aviation launched a series of seven raids against Germany, primarily Berlin, between the night of 7�8 August and 3�4 September. These attacks were undertaken by between four and fifteen aircraft�beginning on 11 August the new Tupolev TB-7�from the island of Saaremaa, base of the 1st Torpedo Air Regiment.[185] (At least one raid of the 81st Air Division took off from Pushkin.) Besides thirty tonnes of bombs, they also dropped leaflets with Joseph Stalin’s defiant speech of 3 July. The Soviets sent a total of 549 long-range bombers over German territory in all of 1941.[185] In March 1942 the strategic bombing arm of the Soviet Union was reorganized as the Long Range Air Force (ADD). It raided Berlin from 26�29 August and again on the night of 9�10 September with 212 planes.[185] It raided Helsinki for the first time on 24 August, Budapest on 4�5 and 9�10 September and Bucharest on 13�14 September. The German-occupied Polish cities of Krakow and Warsaw were not exempt, but the bombers concentrated primarily on military targets.[185] There were 1,114 sorties over Germany in 1942. In March 1943 there was a strategic shift: in preparation for the Kursk Offensive, the bombers were directed against the German railroads behind the front.[185] In April the Long Range Air Force expanded to eight air corps and eleven independent divisions containing 700 planes. After the Kursk preparations, the Soviets turned their attention to administrative and industrial targets in East Prussia in April. With 920 aircraft taking part, they dropped 700 tonnes of bombs there. The largest Soviet bomb of the war, an 11,000-pound weapon, was dropped on Konigsberg during one of these raids.[185] Throughout 1943, the Soviets attempted to give the impression of cooperation between their bombers and those of the West.[185] In February 1944 they again shifted priority, this time towards terror bombing, with the goal of knocking Finland and Hungary out of the war.[185] Helsinki was struck by 733 bombers on the night of 6�7 February, by 367 on the 15�16th and 850 on the 25�26th. A total of 2,386 tonnes of bombs were dropped.[185] Budapest was hit four straight nights from 13�20 September with a total of 8,000 tonnes by 1,129 bombers. The Soviets flew 4,466 sorties into enemy territory in the year 1944. In December the Long Range Air Force was reorganized as the 18th Air Army.[185] The main task of the 18th Air Army was to support the final offensive against Germany, but it also undertook raids against Berlin, Breslau, Danzig and Konigsberg.[185] In total, 7,158 Soviet aircraft dropped 6,700 tonnes of bombs on Germany during the war, a modest 3.1% of Soviet bomber sorties, a mere 0.5% of all Allied “strategic” sorties against German-occupied territory and a measly 0.2% of all bombs dropped on it.[185] After the war, Marxist historians in the Soviet Union and East Germany claimed that the Soviet strategic bombing campaign was limited by moral qualms over bombing civilian centres.[185] One early bombing theorist, Vasili Chripin, whose theories influenced the Soviet Union’s first strategic bombing guidelines (1936) and the service regulations of 26 January 1940, drew back from terror bombing as advocated by Western theorists.[185] The Spanish Civil War also convinced Soviet war planners that the air force was most effective when used in close cooperation with ground forces. Nonetheless, after the war, Marshal Vasili Sokolovsky admitted that the Soviets would have gladly launched a strategic bombing offensive had they the capability.[185] In reality, the Soviets never geared aircraft production towards long-range bombers, and so never had enough to mount an effective campaign. The land-based nature of warfare on the Eastern Front also required closer cooperation between the air forces and ground troops than did, for example, the defence of Great Britain.[185]" That note 185 heavily referenced above shows the following as its main/only source… so there’s that too I guess. Little lackluster, but you know what they say about beggers lol Horst Boog; Derry Cook-Radmore, trans., “Part I: The Strategic Air War in Europe and Air Defence of the Reich, 1943�44”, in Germany and the Second World War, Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943�44/5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [Stuttgart: Deutsche Veralgs-Anstalt GmbH, 2005]), 153�58.

also beware that this file doesnt understand the concept of original ownership. If Germany captures Tobruk it should revert to Italian control, not become German. Id really like to know if there is a way to fix this outside of edit mode.

ATTENTION: After consultation with interested people, new drafts have been presented and will be voted on after further inspection.  These are posted so they can be read and commented on.  Please see reply #126 and #130 of the Government in Exile Discussion thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25549.120 http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25549.120 I have locked voting on the early drafts.  A binding vote will be coming soon.

@Panther thank you - I didn’t see your post until now, sorry since that post I’ve found numerous house rules and also figured out how the Kamikaze rule works.

Or, use A@A pieces on a risk board.     Infantry are worth 3 reinforcemint point     artillary are worth  4 points     tanks 5     fighters 10     bombers 15     transports 8     well, you get the idea. Build a factory, (15 points) and all the units that you buy to place there, cost 2 points less!   Protect it well, if a enemy captures it, then they can use it.     The only way to get from one continent to another is with a transport “bridge”. One transport per dotted line is enough to ferry your army/armies across.    Use A@A combat rules, and movement, or risk combat and movement, your choice on what you are comfortable with. It will be a slower game than Risk, but interresting none the less.   I think I will set this up this weekend and see how it plays myself. It could be a good cross-over to get Risk players  interrested in playing A@A.  Bottom line, have fun!   

Thanks for your imput. I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me. I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point). I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas? I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options. As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances. I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.