New pieces

@hengst yea i read through them again. Some cool ideas. The End Points are interesting. Kind of a Railroad type thing. For Land anyway.

Got a couple other things going, but yea, gonna check it out some more :)

I like the idea of Transports as units that are A0 D0 M2 C7 units that haul ground units from one shore to another. I also like the idea of groups of transports, that’s 2 or more transports, have a single collective defense roll of 1 on a d6. The transports would be taken as casualties last but so long as there’s 2 or more, they continue to take potshots @ 1 at their tormentors.

And here I thought I was being unique for having thought that up myself, before I read this thread. Parallel Evolution, I guess.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

@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.

@Tall:

Tobleone77,

––I didn’t mean it to appear I was in anything other than AGREEMENT with you on the issues of Air Transports & Paratroopers. :-D
----I simply wanted to share what seem to me to be very logical and obvious points so that others might consider them.

––Axis & Allies is such a FANTASTIC game that I feel it’s very important that any alterations or ‘house rules’ that we make keep all of the main gameplay attributes included.
––IMHO changes just for the sake of change,…or changes that would drastically lower the cost of units for the sake of “more action” would radically imbalance the game and should be discouraged. However, I completely respect the right of any/all players to play the game as THEY like it. But their changes shouldn’t become the normally accepted ‘house rules’ for the majority of A&A players.

“Tall Paul”

No worries brother. I was using my smart phone when I tried to quote you… didn’t quite come out right. My para-token idea was just a springboard for those who don’t like the HBG pieces. I personally already have most of what I need to get all of my player countries stuff for paras and air transports. I’m hoping we’ll eventually get gliders from someone someday. Cheers!

What they are getting at is the respective VALUE of conscripts.

Chinese “soldiers” without rifles, equipment, or even food, do not equate with American GI’s for example.

Some people made them into technology, but i like them just as new pieces. and Table tactics makes mines already.

My only problem with LL type SBR rules are, they are a distinct advantage for the side that already has the lead.  Say a Japan earning 40+ vs. a Russia earning 20 or a US and UK earning a combined 55 vs. Germany earning 30.

Once you have the economic lead the cumulative effects can be devasting even if you are only doing 3 damage while also losing 3 each time.

I’ve thought about keeping the regular AA fire rules, but for the attacker 1’s and 6’s are removed.  So you can still do 2,3,4,5 in damage but once again the extremes are removed.

++++ or you can do this:

roll one D6:
1-2= 2 ipc lost
3-4= 4 ipc lost
5-6= 6 ipc lost

or
1-2=1 ipc lost’
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=4 ipc lost

I’ve also thought about making aa-fire two-fold.
First you roll, then if you get a “1” that means you’ve done damage to the Bomber.
So, a 1/6 shot at doing damage.
Now you roll to see how much damage.
On your second roll if you roll a:

1 or 6:  Bomber is destroyed (about a 5% chance when first roll is taken into account - I think)

2, 3, 4, or 5:  Cash damage to attacker

(alternative)
2,3,4: Cash Damage
5:  Non-lethal hit to bomber, no damage.

In the real war only 10% of sorties were lost on avarage due to flak batteries ( ground based causes)

under our system rolls one d6  if you get a one roll again

if you roll one a second time its destroyed, 2-3 it must return to base no mission. this is dont before any defender can even engage the SBR planes and/ escorts.