Where can I find actual examples. My rule book only has examples without altitude changes.
If I want to go down just one altitude, is that really a special movement. So you can’t go down one altitude and then do a tight turn?
…as far as I can tell it was set up by Larry in October 2004 under the very general theme of “What are some MUST HAVE’S you like to see in an advanced game?” When someone on the board asked “What is this anyway? Is advanced axis and allies really being designed, and if so, about what percent is it done? Would we be able to expect to see this this year? Next? 2007?”, someone called Lobo answered “It’s something that Larry is interested in doing. It may or may not see fruition.” Larry confirmed this by saying “Lobo is correct. There are no definitive plans or time line for such a game. There is however an identified need for this baby.” So the board section seems to have been just intended for brainstorming purposes, not for the development of a specific game.
Just to put those threads into context: October 2004 is a few months after Revised and D-Day came out, four years before Anniversary came out, and five years before the first 1940 game (Pacific 1940 1st ed.) came out. So this notional “Advanced A&A” may in fact have generated some ideas that were incorporated into some of the A&A games that were published since 2004.
At this point in history fighters weren’t really ready to do any real damage to boats yet. Their speeds were very low and cross winds were very hazardous. Also planes of the time couldn’t carry very much in the way of firepower, so hurting a ship was outside their scope.
Really, with tactical bombers now available, they should take on the role that the old bombers had - attacking along with infantry & tanks, etc. The Strategic bombers should only wreck infrastructure and economy and perhaps lower morale.
No, I don’t think a unit should be limited too much. As you know, subs did sink battleships too, even if cargo ships were the main target. And heavy Bombers did carpet bomb soldiers on the ground and warships, even if bombing of infrastructure were the main purpose. I just think, that since we now got all this new units, they could get more special abilities.
Submarines should be stronger in attacking convoys, but for that to happen, only destroyers should be able to hit subs. If not, then no sub will survive the 1 Destroyer + stack of Bombers combo.
And, slightly off topic, I think the new Tactical should cost 10, att 3 and def 4. Special ability, target Tanks and Mechs before other casualties. The fighter should cost 6, att 1and def 2. Special ability, target other aircrafts in dog-fights before taking land unit casualties. The St Bomber should cost 12, att 4 and def 1. Special ability, do SBR against ICs
On 1942.2, play-tested a similar unit of Fg at the same cost but attack @1 on first strike.
The Bomber and Cruiser were at 10 IPCs, also. Tactical Bombers (A3-4 D3-4 M4) were at 9 IPCs.
Such a Fighter unit makes a too big competitive buying against submarines.
Same price, can do the same cannon fodder in Naval Combat and better on defense but also useful in ground battle. That’s seems a problem.
Everyone around the table agree that all the changes shifts the balance toward Allies, mostly due to cost decrease.
Did you introduce a three planes aircraft carrier? If not the case, this have a very big downgrading impact on the defensive strength of the combined units Carrier+2Fgs.
In addition, in Naval Combat, the special ability of Fgs have far less significance since, at 6 IPCs, it is always amongst the first casualty taken.
Destroyer (A2 D2 Cost 8 ) have a better combat value.
Maybe this last point is still more historical since many Fgs were destroyed and damaged in Naval combat, often in PTO, there was Battle between ennemy’s aircrafts against warships but not warships against warships.
If you also play-tested it, leave me some feedback.
Right, the UK should take full advantage of the Commonwealth and have Ottawa operate as the backup European capital. At that point the UK player could help the US mount a liberation campaign from Canada or put all its resources in South Africa to help out Egypt.
I like the general idea, but it could upset the balance of the game. Sea Lion would become less of a threat and may not be good option at all because it requires a substantial investment on the part of Germany. And with Sea Lion out of the way, the UK may not need to focus on home defense so much, and may be able to send more planes south towards the Mediterranean.
On a side note, I prefer to give Persia to Russia. The 2 inf are very convenient for taking Iraq next.
No, you are not missing anything. That is a perfectly legal move. I am assuming that the Allies still control Gibraltar, right?
In fact, in your example, since Gibraltar has a friendly naval base (assuming it hasn’t been bombed), the US fleet could go all the way to Sea Zone 95 and park right next to Italy if Italy had no ships there OR they just had submarines and/or transports. Even if Italy had fighters on their air base, they couldn’t scramble because it is the US NON-combat move.
You can basically move your ships to any sea zone you want as long as there are no enemy surface warships blocking your way, or as in your example you have cleared any enemy warships.
Of course, that US submarine would have to remain in the sea zone just east of Gibraltar since it moved in the combat movement.
Yeah, you are probably right about the islands.
I understand what you are getting at about Germany being able to put a Major IC in Norway. I have never put a Major up there, but I have put Minors in Norway before.
The rule states that to place a Major IC, the territory has to be worth 3 or more IPCs and be one of your nation’s original territories. One possible solution would be to use HBG’s 1939 variant map. I think you could still set it up to play 1940 and the only original German territories would actually be IN Germany itself. They couldn’t even place a Major in Romania.
And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.
I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.
I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all
I believe it originates between the Classic Map and the Revised Map. In the classics map, only Neutral Territories were represented, and due to the small number of territories and adjacencies, there were balance issues (I’ve seen arguments either way, but in general the smaller number of territories was a problem). In the Revised map, with the addition of more territories, there was probably also a desire to represent more historically accurate unit movements (and reduce axis advantage in snagging parts of africa and vice versa later in the game). The Himalayas isolated India from China, and the Sahara created a buffer between the axis mediterranean territories and british territories directly south.
In Classic, Germany had multiple routes to Africa (go south!). In Revised, there is only one (short of transports) - egypt. The benefit to this was to force egypt to become a back and forth battle between britain and germany as they vie for a strategic advantage.
In order to create a simple rule that aligned with previous mechanics (impassible neutrals), I would imagine that they simply desired these territories to follow the same rules and not allow flyovers either. After all, while it was possible to fly over the sahara and himalayas, it was very dangerous and hardly the preferred route.
As the game map has grown (classics - revised - AA50 - AA40), it has clearly remained a desire by the designer to maintain the strategic route through egypt. And because at the outset of the game allowing flyovers would favor the Axis (far more planes available in close proximity), I would imagine it’s a balance issue as well (at least, early game). Removing the restriction dilutes the value of Egypt.
I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.
In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.
Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.