Keep it simple

Transports can carry 1 infantry and 1 non-infantry

or

Transports can carry 3 infantry

House rule it and see if that works

Kim

Grasshopper, I’m afraid Larry’s interest in doing anything further with this game has passed and that any play balance will have to come from the community.

That said, the bid is long accepted as the most agreed upon means, however to put some new life into that system for more strategic variability, how about inverse bidding? The bid is instead of ADDING units equal to the bid for the Allies, but is instead for that amount in units belonging to the Axis that will be REMOVED from the set up!

How much are you willing to give up as the Axis knowing that your opponent will be REMOVING that amount of units of yours of Their Choice?

A 20 point bid is now possibly 2 less Axis fighters, or a capital ship, or a couple tanks and a transport, the options are endless. The Axis may have to totally alter the Standard Opening’s and rethink their first turn attacks.

If the Axis advantage is material, then TAKING AWAY some of that advantage just might be much more effective than Allied bid additions, as well as taking away some of that early initiative with well calculated attacks.

What does Japan do with 4 less Infantry and 2 less Artillery do in China? How effective is Germany with 2 less Fighters to take on the UK navy? Italy could suffer a major disaster in Africa!

Think of the possibilities and then rethink what the bid might be. The options could really dictate some major strategic thought on both sides.

Kim

The Russians produced more tanks then the Americans (and certainly better tanks); twice as many artillery pieces, and twice as many soldiers as the US. Russian aircraft production exceeded Germany throughout the war (and Germany’s went UP every year through 1945). An extra income bid for the Russians makes far more sense than for the US.

Eliminate the pre-game unit bid for the Allies (effectively the UK) this allows the Russians get the income Bid each turn. With no extra units for the UK, Italy can make a fight for the Med and assist the Germans in Russia. The Eastern front is now a battle of uncertain outcome every game, and if Germany knocks out Russia, the extra income for the Allies is gone! (It never goes away for the US).

The original post is the right idea; it’s just for the wrong country. I gotta go along with Vance and Garg on this, and I think it makes for a better game all around.

Kim

I like Garg’s idea!

Eastern Front is the least historical part of A&A and it would be great to actually have the Russians have a shot of turning the tide of the Hun’s as they historically did. I

like this approach much better then US cash, UK extra units (it’s always them that gets it) and an actual chance for a Russian player to make a game of it instead of just trying to see how long they can go before getting crushed.

Thanks Garg.

Kim

How about making Sicily important!!

One of the major campaigns of the war is simply not a part of this game whatsoever. It should either be worth some IPCs or at least of value as an NO to the allies. Pretty ridiculeous that there is no reason to invade an island that was of historic importance.

same could be said for the Solomons too!

Kim

@MrRoboto:

I’ve never seen it happen, but I guess it could be some kind of very high risk, high reward strategy. Taking Spain/Portugal will give you additional scrambling options.
Taking turkey will lead to Germany focusing on Med, africa and middle east while trying to contain Russia.

I don’t think it is possible though, since Germany simply has not enough troops for that. And the allies will get free IPC too with South America, Arabia and so on.

I have done this before. Build a major industrial complex in Romania, attack Turkey turn 3 and drive for all the middle east and into India.

Caught my opponent completly by surprise and Germany (with Italian help) took out all of Africa and the Middle east then drove hard for Russia. Axis was making a small fortune that was tough to overcome.

In a long game, it probably won’t do as well.

Kim

I have a question as an observer. If Seth believes that in battles involving Subs vs destroyers should be rolled on the forum, how come no one does this on G1 when the Germans attack SZ111 and this very situation occurs?

I’m hoping to start playing on the forum so I just want to know what would be proper. Thanks

Kim

Part of the “skill” in Axis and Allies, is knowing when to Gamble.

How True!

Much like professional poker players who understands “pot odds”, the risk vs reward is much of what Axis and Allies is about!

Kim

We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.

Much Better!

Kim

Jenn,

I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.

Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.

Kim