Australia

7 IPC England would play differently due to build limits.

And Craig Yope’s Victory Cities is a pretty interesting way of getting the Allies into defending areas like Australia and Hawaii ^^

@Bean:

7 IPC England would play differently due to build limits.

Good point – so would Japan at 10 IPCs and EI at 3 (instead of 4) IPCs.  Every territory’s value is set based on strategic considerations and game balance, IMO, and only loosely on historical value.  How else to explain Italy being valued the same as France, for goodness sake!

One interesting concept would be a bidding system where, instead of bidding additional IPCs in hand to spend, you bid for additional IPC value on Axis territories.  So, for example, a bid of 4 would allow the Axis to add a total of 4 IPCs of value to one or more of their territories.  Now THAT would impact game play, don’t you think?  And in unpredictable ways too.

So, for example, a bid of 4 would allow the Axis to add a total of 4 IPCs of value to one or more of their territories.  Now THAT would impact game play, don’t you think?  And in unpredictable ways too.

To be honest, I think we should bid in terms of battleships  :-D

4 battleships to SZ8, please!

Jennifer, have u tried POS?

Imo, if A&A should be changed to become more historically correct, it would probably become a game which is not fun to play.
A variant which could work, either as a computer game or boardgame, is if u can build armies from 1933 to 1939 etc…
Germany was better prepared than any other European country, but US had big industrial production which
was swiftly changed to producing war materials.
Maybe if Germans could build more subs, instead of BB’s, more ftrs, then later on the great US ipc advantage would come into
play, but this could theoretically be too late. Germany could never challenge the US, but Germany could possibly
win the war against UK and Russia. And Jap could also possibly contain US out of pac for several more years than what
actually happened. If someone makes an A&A variant of this, or a new game, then it’s possible to have more
historical value than the current version.
Then some countries will have turns (buying units) while other countries can’t buy anything, just wait for the war to begin :P

@Gamer:

One interesting concept would be a bidding system where, instead of bidding additional IPCs in hand to spend, you bid for additional IPC value on Axis territories.  So, for example, a bid of 4 would allow the Axis to add a total of 4 IPCs of value to one or more of their territories.  Now THAT would impact game play, don’t you think?  And in unpredictable ways too.

That’s an interesting idea! I haven’t heard about this one before.
I would like to try it though. Would be exciting to see what level the axis bid would be with equal players.
Usual bids are 6-9 with 1 or 2 units pr. TT’s.
With a TT production bid I would guess it would be lower than 8-9…

Well, Bean and Gamer, I agree.  But it might be more interesting for a change of pace!

Dunno if it would be good or bad though.  Maybe the changes should be coupled with unlimited production in your own capitol?

Bit of a tangent here, but I recall Larry Harris (the game designer) indicating that if he were to make the next version of A&A that he only wanted capitals to be able to build things; he didn’t like the idea of being able to freely move IPCs around the world to make 3 bombers in India for instance. I think the idea is that complexes increase the value of the territory instead of being able to produce there, which is interesting. But remember this is all speculation from a couple years old post.

Australia and other TT’s in pac r not good implemented to real WW2, but then it would be a completely different game.
Imo is just wasting time to try to change TT’s value or some other details.

Discussions might be interesting, both game and real WW2, but what u r asking for is not A&A revised….!
The most important issue here is that Jap tried to go west against Russia, but were badly beaten, and they also
got stuck in China. And it is not uncommon to see Afr in yellow, Japanese colors in games that axis is leading, from
rnd 10 and further…  :lol:

@Bean:

Bit of a tangent here, but I recall Larry Harris (the game designer) indicating that if he were to make the next version of A&A that he only wanted capitals to be able to build things; he didn’t like the idea of being able to freely move IPCs around the world to make 3 bombers in India for instance. I think the idea is that complexes increase the value of the territory instead of being able to produce there, which is interesting. But remember this is all speculation from a couple years old post.

That would be interesting….planning strats to attack the enemy supply lines, if u only could place units in
capitals, the supply lines will be both long, thin and vulnerable :)

Might be fun if every nation was limited in where it could build.

Russia would be Russia/Caucasus (two major industrial centers)
Germany would be Germany/S. Europe (two major industrial centers)
England would be England, maybe Australia, but I’ll explain why not later
Japan would be Japan
America would be E and W USA

England should be limited to England because Japan is limited to Japan.

Of course, all industrial centers would have to be unlimited production and to capture the treasury of a nation you would have to own all industrial centers.  So the fall of Berlin wouldn’t necessarily be the end, Germany could still buy, build and collect in S. Europe, etc.