Lets Talk Oil

:-P dude, i did it twice  :-P

Actually, Upside-down_Turtle comes from my early Star Craft days.  Basically, in a 3v2 game, I’d be the odd man out as Terran and essentially be a non factor.  I’d maybe get off an expand or two, but eventually “turtle up” and suck all my minerals dry.  Then I basically pray my buddies won the huge battle I had no part in.  Otherwise, I was easy pickings.

Best run I had was as the zerg.  Captured, like, ten minneral fields in the middle of the map.  Problem was, no one could attack anyone else unless they went through me.  It was like a giant Hydralisk meat grinder.    :-P They kicked me out eventually, but it was a good run.  8-)

Oh yeah, and I almost killed someone with a Zelot rush  :-D

That settles it, I’m Googling Star Craft II videos…

@Upside-down_Turtle:

@Imperious:

no its too many pieces and ideas to keep track of.

agreed

and yet, if I saw you in a desert….

@Bardoly:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

You know, a 1-1-2-3 jeep actually makes a good justification for truck pieces being Motorized Infantry at 1-2-2-4, does it not?

Although, were there really whole units made up of jeeps?  In North Africa, maybe.  Perhaps Trucks ought to 1-1-2-3 as well.

Well, it seems that every army needs its fodder units, so I would rather have 1 armor unit 3-3-2-5 and 1 jeep unit 1-1-2-3 for a total IPC cost of 8 than have 2 motorized infantry at 2-2-2-4 at the same IPC cost of 8, because when you lose the first hit, then you still have a 3 attacking/defending.  Now, if you give the motorized infantry the ability to be upgraded by artillery units, then it may be more balanced, but getting the artillery to keep up with them is a different matter.

I agree.  If I had 30 IPCs to spend, I’d buy 5 jeeps and 3 tanks.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Well, technically tractors are in the game, only they are armed, armored, and have bigger engines.  They’re called tanks and half-tracks.

ya, I guess so

if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that?  if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side.  if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…

–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that. 
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll.  in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.

I think there is a need for convoy zones in AA global games. They kinda introduced it in AA50. There are several ways to do it.

Have all powers include sz in their NO’s like w/Italy in AA50. Separate sz from the NO’s and create new NO’s for the sea. That way you would have land NO’s & sea NO’s.
**NO’s have been introduced into the game, and would keep things sorta simple. I’m not sure I like that though because it would be an all or nothing deal. Have certain sz worth 1 ipc or so (as Bardoly said) and basically let each power fight over them. Sorry still not to crazy about Germany being in what would be considered a UK zone and getting paid for it. Assign sz to each power and if those zones are in enemy hands it cost you $ or damage markers at your capitol.(could be determined by dice but might cost to much with SBR & rockets) this makes sense because loss of ships would cost $. Assign 3-4 sz to each power as describe by myself and others. If you keep these zones clear of enemy war ships you collect a bonus per sz (1 ipc each) or have the chance of a larger bonus if all sz’s assigned to you are clear. You could in rare cases assign the same sz to 2 powers to add some spark (for Bardoly). In this case it is assumed each power gets more income but by not keeping your convoy zones clear you lose it, results from the ships being sunk.
**As I was typing this out I noticed it might be cool to combine #4 & #5. Say on Germany’s turn it takes control of 2 sz’s assigned to the UK. Uk places 2 damage markers on its capitol. On Uk’s turn it clears those zones so now it gets a bonus to help pay for damage. On second thought I think that would defeat the whole purpose, but in AA their is a counter balance for most things lol.

@Imperious:

Pay 6 IPC gain one MP… heck id rather buy a sub for that or 2 infantry or half a bomber… or?

1 extra movement point would definitely alter the game somewhat, because one would be able to affect one’s opponent’s fleet maneuvers, say if he wanted to position subs and/or destroyers.

I think that the simple expedient of putting the ports into the game from the beginning with the +1 movement rule would be nice.  So every power would start with at least 1 port, and some would start with several.  But building a new port during wartime would have been quite difficult for most of the nations,  (I’m talking about the fully functioning ship-building, ship-repairing, aa-defended, kind of port.) so why even have a special piece for ports?  Why not just add the +1 movement point ability to any IC which can build naval units?  This would make building ICs a little more attractive for the 15 IPCs which you must spend.

Actually, it refers to the type of bathing suit worn by the girls painted on the plane.