So, A&A takes place in an era where the locomotive is a mature and widely-implemented technology, even in remote regions like Africa. Why can infantry only move one space? For combat movement, this makes complete sense. The troops are moving in a hostile situation in which every mile can be a struggle. But, why couldn’t the USSR move troops from Vladivostok to Leningrad in a single turn? Turns represent a lot of time, plenty of time to shift all the resources that go along with an infantry unit. Trains are fast, when its simply a matter of moving men and equipment through friendly land.
Now, A&A is a game and is not always realistic. But, being able to move troops more fluidly within friendly territory could open up the game’s strategies somewhat. I think it makes an interesting thought experiment. I’m using AA40G to think this through - but it could be applied to other versions as well. Its particularly important for the AA40 series though because of the larger map size that can mean some land units move entirely through friendly land can sometimes take 5-6 turns to get where they are going - far too long. 4 Turns to shift infantry from Normandy to Poland. 6 turns from Korea to Burma. Russia’s Eastern Front to the west… etc. This unnecessarily ties game resources up.
All powers in possession of their capital may move land or units that have not moved in combat at all and are on a land friendly space (not on a transport) to any other friendly land space, as long as a path can be traced that only involves land spaces that started the turn under your control. Air units may then make an additional non-combat move as per regular rules.
Can you guys help me think this one through?
The game is not designed around this, which means assured problems with the setup. Is there any potential leapfrogging abuse? Say, my ally takes over a space, and then during my turn this paves the way for me to take some abusive path.
It also means the extra price of Mech and Armor is not as worth it. They are much more flexible on the front, since they can attack two spaces away, but it does boost the effectiveness of Infantry and Artillery which decreases Armor and Mech by comparison.
How it would affect powers:
Germany: I actually think this would add a lot to the game, since Germany’s troop deployment is more liquid. You still have to keep troops on the Atlantic coast to resist allied landings, but Germany can also react to these landings effectively. This also means that getting air units to Norway is easier.
The USSR has 18 infantry on its eastern front. If they are more easily able to send things between east and west, those 18 become a bit much. This seems solvable though - reduce infantry that start there and then add some in case of Japanese attack or some such. I think the change will make their front with Germany more interesting.
Japan is able to funnel troops into SE Asia much more easily. It presents an interesting dynamic where Japan could keep lots of transports in the sea of Japan to funnel troops into Manchuria, then from Manchuria to their destination the next turn. I like this dynamic, but this rule change seems like it could break an already troubled India. Perhaps a reduction in starting units could offset the advantage that increased mobility gives them - they benefit from it more than any other Pacific power.
UK is now able to move troops from South Africa to Egypt very easily. This makes stopping Italy very hard. Other than that, so much of the UK is overseas that they benefit very little.
Anzac can move troops to Western Australia with ease. I think this is a good thing - it means if Japan invades they don’t invade lightly.
Italy is able to help Germany out on the eastern front more easily. They also are able to shuffle troops plunging into Africa back to defend Morocco.
United States: This makes it easier to shuffle troops between the east and west coasts. A plane built in Eastern US can make it to Hawaii. Which actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t view the decreased need to commit builds to one front or another as a major problem for the game - naval builds are still committed and other builds are committed the second they leave the continental US.
France doesn’t have their capital and can’t take advantage of this. This stops them from stockpiling their African troops in Egypt.
China doesn’t have a capital, can’t ever use this.
Anything I am missing? Thoughts?
Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I dont recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have its own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well.
If two(2) Allied pieces are moved they must be of different origins(USSR, UK and US.)
Limits are … no ICs and no more than 1 Bmr per side(Axis & Ally), not country.
Met a guy the other day who plays with this rule. He said it makes the game more flexible, like bidding, but more flex for more players(2 to 5.)
His usual group plays RR, SS, and 1 hit BB(otherwise the extra pieces are too often BBs.)
I think I’ll try to talk my local opponents into trying this one.
With all the variations we keep trying Hillary will probably be
president by the time we try this one.
Or, use A@A pieces on a risk board.
Infantry are worth 3 reinforcemint point
artillary are worth 4 points
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!
well you are right in some points and may be wrong in others. My opinion is that is excellent to develop new ideas, but you are just altering too many points.
Try to make fewer changes and them we can all together develop the game instead of replacing the game.
If you and/or your friend are really upset about the loss of the original MB A&A tech chart, pretty sure that method and chart are still 100% compatible with the current 1942.2 game if you really wanted it (I’m not talking about game-balance, but mechanically speaking, it would still work).
The old method was spend 5 IPCs per die you wanted to roll… if you spent 20 IPCs, that’s four die rolls. You’d roll the dice… each result of “6” was a breakthrough and you’d then reroll for each breakthrough and apply it to this chart:
Jet Power (fighters defend at 5)
Rockets (1 rocket attack on enemy industry a turn for any AAA within 3 spaces of an enemy Plant… 1D6 IPC loss to enemy)
Super Subs (subs attack at 3)
Long Range aircraft (all aircraft have 2 more range)
Industrial Technology (all units are 1 IPC less)
Heavy Bombers (all bombers roll 3 dice instead of 1… note this essentially ended the game… lol).
If it’s really a big deal to you guys, all the above rules would work mechanically with A&A 1942.2… however, not all are balanced, especially Heavy Bombers, but that could be changed (maybe roll 3 dice and choose your favorite of the three).
There’s lots of custom rules for tech research… its not hard to either add the original rules, use someone elses posted on the forum, or just make up your own house rules. In any case, this is one of the easiest rules to add back into the game if you really miss it.
I found a pack of these at a Dollar General store. They were on sale for 25% off so with tax the pack of 4 cost $.80. Thanks for the tip. I can’t wait to paint these and add them to my games.
Good to hear you tracked some down; are they exactly the same? Paint 'em up and post some photos.
Yeah, they are the same. Package was a little different but the pieces are the same.