@Narvik:

@amanntai:

Like Young Grasshopper said, A&A favors the aggressive side, and Axis is always the aggressive side.

Like in chess, I believe A&A favors the side with a better brain.

But if two “infinitely good” players play chess, it always ends in a draw. If two infinitely good players play Axis and Allies, The Axis will win, unless the dice intervene.

Brains alone cannot fix the inherent game mechanics that favor Axis.

The aggressive player need luck with dice to succeed.

Yes, but so does the defender. Dice and luck does not mean Axis and Allies does not favor the Axis.

I would say that by making Germany go first, Axis will always have a slight advantage, all other things being equal-ish. Axis gets to set the strategy for the game: they male the moves, and then the Allies must respond. This sort of forces the Allies to prepare for multiple possible Axis moves, while the Axis merely need to prepare one strategy to take, maybe a backup for bad rolls (something low luck and battle calculators have eliminated for some players).

Like Young Grasshopper said, A&A favors the aggressive side, and Axis is always the aggressive side.

1. Heavy Tanks: Tanks may now take 2 hits

I find this tech extremely questionable from both a gameplay and historical perspective.

Gameplay wise, would this not make tanks really overpowered? They’d be vastly superior to 2 Infantry offense-wise, but also nearly their equal defensively!

Historically, heavy tanks were not that great. They were expensive, slow, prone to mechanical failure, and generally not that much better than medium tanks, which is why they aren’t used in modern warfare. Main battle tanks are superior.

What happens if Japan does a turn 1 declaration of war? Immediate Combat? And can the US move these units into China, or out to sea? Can the US move its Navy into the neighboring sea zone, or does the “no ending next to a japan-occupied territory” rule still apply?

Also, are the Marine and gunboat units different units from the out of box units?

These questions must be answered before I can give an assessment of this house rule.

@ZeusEQ:

Hi,

First off, I’m sorry if there’s already a topic about this (if so, please point me to it). I don’t know if it is like this for everyone, but the “google custom search” functionality places its results overlaid on the topic overview, making one unreadable mess of letters .

As far as I know, that happens to everyone.

@ZeusEQ:

So my questions:

– Would this be feasible, or is it too OP?
– How many points do you think this unit should cost?
– Do you have specific rules for rocket artillery, and what are they?

Thanks, Zeus

While everyone else seems focused on their own ideas of an MLRS unit, I’ll comment on your idea.
I think it is definitely feasible. To avoid being OP, I’d either up the cost from 4 to 5, or keep cost at 4 but drop the defense value to 1 instead of 2 like artillery, since rocket artillery always seemed more offensive than defensive to me.

I have no specific rules myself, but a unit with your fire twice ever other round property and the following values would likely be used by me:
C5 A2 D1 M2 (no blitz), can support Infantry on attack.

@Young:

2 Tactical bomber on the air base rolls a 6 - the air base is now damaged

I think you meant to write “1 Tactical Bomber on the air base rolls a 6”, unless you meant to include the one bomber that was shot down.

I think I like this system a lot more than OOB, as it doesn’t guarantee damage to factories (although admittedly, you’d need to pretty bad luck to fail to do any damage with 12 bombers), and it prevents a massive bomber stack from annihilating interceptors by restricting the fire to one die per group.

One potential suggestion would be to change the result needed to damage a factory to 4 or lower rather than 3 or higher, to keep with the normal combat mechanics of rolling low to hit. It also mimics the Bomber attack value, so it’d be even easier to remember.

Hey, Baron… whatever happened to the anti-tank gun (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35315.75 ) ?
Did you scrap that unit, or is it just waiting to be implemented later?

But everything here looks nice, I will try to playtest this and tell you more about what I think.

Hey guys!
I’ve been away for awhile, and noticed this thread… but 40 pages is a lot of reading.
Can someone summarize the proposed changes, or is there a google doc of all the changes, or something?

So, to shift the topic back towards the topic, and away from Egypt…

It seems that:

1. Russia’s historical economy is accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition, so doesn’t need a boost.
2. Germany’s economy is not so accurately modeled, and might need the NO for Leningrad removed.
3. The US economy was clearly the strongest among the allies all throughout the war, increased throughout the war, and this is not accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition.

I am in favor of an exponential increase in US income, starting from Turn 1, rather than entering the war, so Japan still has a reason to do a DoW on their first turn. I think somewhere between 1-4 IPCS per turn per turn should do it. Then by Turn 16 (by some reasoning ~1944) the US could have as many as 64 extra IPCS per turn, which about doubles the US starting income while at war, consistent with the historical GDP increase.

In total, this would force the Axis to win quickly before the US totally dwarfed them in income, and would open up a possible KGF if the NO for Lenin grad was removed.

This seems to be the most historically correct fix. What are your opinions on it gamewise?

@ItIsILeClerc:

After all we all know the good guys lost in WW2…. Just kidding of course :mrgreen:

I bet you are German, Elrood?
Don’t worry, it won’t be held against you :-D.

I have used a ~12-bid to add all Russian Units, once. And it didn’t make much of a difference against a G4J4 used against me that time. If used in the Med it certainly would have been of better use… Don’t know what it could have done against a different axis strategy, though.

Whoever is interested in knowing what would have happened if certain historical mistakes would not have been made: A&A is not the right game for that. It is certainly a fun game, but with more similarities to chess than with WWII, I’m afraid.

Moscow is definately the kick-dog of this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCARDozMEU
Aren’t the developers Americans? If so, this is probably by design :P.
But seriously. I think you are right about Russia being designed to go down economically. I don’t like it, but if Russia could hold their own against Germany, it would certainly be moot to play the game (USA would kill Japan, while UK + Russia sandwich Germany). Though it could be a little harder for the axis to reduce Russia to an economic non-factor.

Hmmm… an interesting point. If the game is made truly historically correct, can the Axis ever win? In this case for the sake of game play Russia cannot be historically correct, for the same reason France is not historically correct.