Naval Changes

@Gargantua: Aye BUT a battle in a seazone around England, IS a battle over England according to the rules! I like the concept Jen, I’m just giving you a hard time. Yes I see that.  I specifically excluded it from the rules - and yer the reason I burned one of my manuals to dust!

I used the tanker rule to do so. If you have a tanker. (Cost 4 IPC) Your naval fleet can make a 3 sea zone movement. The tanker has no attack capability but defend on a 1 against warship. No defence against sub!!!. The limit is 3 tanker per player. For sub lovers,  it’s a must…. Alan.

Hainan cant be captured by the chinese, and serves the same sz.

…which were quickly wiped out by Japan and not replaced. The Soviet Navy had to build ships in Russia then sail them out to form the Pacific fleet. I don’t buy the idea of complexes as staging areas - this can apply to any area where you build up forces, and doesn’t need a factory.  To me, “Industrial Complex” means a vast industrial base of economic production in which weapons of war are forged.  To establish such a base overseas from scratch is simply not realistic. Much, much cheaper and quicker to ship/rail the units from their base of origin in your home territory which is exactly what the game should reflect. Industrial complexes (at least building new ones and using other player’s) are one of those hangovers from the original game design that somehow haven’t been updated because they feel like too much a part of the A&A tradition.  But, like the Sinai peninsular being in Trans-Jordan, or the disturbing re-appearance of the Hiberno-Caledonian land bridge, they don’t belong in a game which purports to represent World War II.

I like it. Simple and effective.

Yeah exactly. Another huge problem I have with this game is as said in the other forms, that units should have different attacks and defense against certain units. Transport craft in WWII have basic defense abilities against aircraft and fast attack craft so I still argue that it should have a defense of 1 for the sake of logic in this game.

CRUSADERIV, its like your reading my mind. I have air supremacy rules too. There’s someone in my head but it’s not me! (Pink Floyd)

IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP. Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn. Roll your diplo dice. Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income). Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income). Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase. Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice). Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact. As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply. *As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.