I like the concept. The main difficulty I see with a 2 ipc rule though, is that the some of the major transcontinental railways that existed at the time would violate the rule (by passing through 1 ipc territories.) The Trans-Siberian, Trans-Canadian, Tran-Australian would all be out for example.
Something along the lines of what Narvik suggested might be workable, but there the issue would be max capacity of the rail lines. For example, it’s conceivable that some units could be redirected from one end of the rail network to the other, but not all units at the same time. So would there be an upper limit on how many units could move around like that, within the broader region they control by rail?
It might be interesting if the total rail capacity was somehow related to total production capacity of a Nation. For example, if the max number of units that could be moved around like this, was limed either by your total IPCs or by the number of nearby factories, or something of that sort.
The idea of caping the movement at 2 for all ground units would fit with the concept generally, but would definitely diminish the value of tanks and mech as others pointed out. A bonus of +1 to all units, is another alternative, though this would dramatically increase the value of tanks and mech. Its an interesting trade off, but on the whole expanded movement makes me a little nervous. It really needs to be handled delicately, since it’s much more powerful than expanding say attack or defense values. The long range air tech, or ABs have been an example of this, and they can be very potent, and crazy game changing.
I still like the idea of a rail base though, or some kind of rail component to the factories, or ways for Infantry to move at an accelerated pace under some conditions like those.
I’ve seriously considered using the map and customizing it for my never-ending variant project.
One thing I like in both Risk! And Attack! That I didn’t like previously is the “sea lane” movement as opposed to A&A’s transport only movement. This idea is one I’m tinkering with on the A&A maps not only to speed up the game but to also break away from standardized strategy. Which not only lengthens the game but contributes negatively IMO to replayability as well as other aspects.
It seems to me like in a lot of cases retreat would not be an option, unless like Black Elk said they could choose any adjacent friendly territory.
Here’s an example using 1942.2 with Germany and Russia:
Germany starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter in Ukraine.
Russia starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank in Caucasus.
Russia decides to send 2 infantry, 1 artillery to Ukraine from Caucasus, 1 infantry, 1 tank to W Russia from Caucasus.
Germany sends 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter to Caucasus from Ukraine.
Now there is a border clash. Let’s say Germany wins losing 2 infantry. Now Germany has 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter that move on into the Caucasus. Basically, Germany now takes control of the Caucasus.
Let’s say the battle in W. Russia goes badly for Russia and they decide to retreat the 1 infantry and 1 tank that came from Caucasus.
How would you handle this retreat? Would they go to Russia or Kazakhstan?
Or would they go back to Caucasus and fight the German units there? If this were the case, would they act as attackers or defenders?
Or, if neither Russia or Kazakhstan were available as retreat options, I guess the infantry and tank simply fight on in W Russia until they are destroyed?
––If you want an longer A&A game with expanded unit types, new countries to play, and some additional land & sea zones I suggest you check out HBG’s Global Warfare 1939. It has been play tested for approximately two years and is quite balanced now.
––IMHO,…it is just what you have described. You can use the A&A units you already have and just add the new countries units and the new unit TYPES for the ‘standard’ countries.
----I have no doubt that HBG’s Global Warfare 1939 is to be the future of our A&A gaming experiences. They are already planning to release a 1934/36/39 version later this year(2014).
If you just want to change from D6 do D12, then just double all attack and defenses values, unless you want to edit costs and powers to satisfy historical details, such as better german tanks, etc. But then you have to mess around with initial deployment too (if russians are gonna have weaker infantry, then they need to start with more of them, right?).
I have a 30 sided die i got as a gift. So i’ll just multiply everything by 5 😄
Not really. Hope Autumn 2nd Ed will point the right way.
As Russia and the 18 Eastern Inf are not on the map makes it easier for Japan as they can empty Manchuria and Korea and send them against the Chinese.
We need a Manchuria garrison ruling(eg: keep 6-8 units in Manc).
Alpha 3 helps as it reduces Japan’ s air power.
US’s starting income is weak(17), perhaps that will be enhanced to include Central US. War income adequate, not brilliant. Play the 5 NO for owning Philippines when at war of course and no Tech.
You are right little boots the game is horribly unbalanced in the axis favour. It is so unbalanced you were able to notice it after only your first play. Th#e more you play it the more you realize how unbalanced it is.
I have always been in favour of the incremental research system whereby each Power begins the game at some point along a ‘ladder’ in achieving a given tech. When they reach the end of that ladder, they have achieved the tech. Each tech lader would be say, 10 points (or steps) long and it would cost 5 IPCs to move your Power’s control marker one step further - but perhaps you could only attain one point per tech, per turn.
So for example, Germany may be at 7 or 8 towards Super Submarines, and maybe 6 towards Rockets, but only 3 for Heavy Bombers. And this would be based on the historical situation.
I’m sure this system has been proposed before by people but I think it needs to be raised, now and again, as a possible house rule.