I do hope they find it in their hearts to at some point update the British Infantry… we’ve been stuck with the lame 8th army sculpt for far too long!!!

@Cmdr:

All this tech does is allow you to keep your artillery safely behind the lines - you know, where artillery is in REAL LIFE?

Counter battery fire is what tends to get artillery… anway at the scale of Axis and Allies this would make it more effective than MRLS!

@The:

I’m tired of seeing infantry take down fighters where in real life this would be impossible.

This game is NOT real life… it’s highly abstract, and what it represents is a sustained air-ground campaign to knock out fighting effectivness.

Many planes were shot down conducting low-level attacks over occupied France.

A modern equivalent is Vietnam - look how many planes were shot down over North Vietnam. In game terms, an infantry peice shooting down a US jet peice…

However what Axis and Allies does model well is the econmics of war - so to throw fighters against infantry is uneconomical and foolish. Better to escort bombers to raid industry, which means they can’t replace their losses from repeated ground attacks.

AND - if the Allies are fighting properly, the Americans and British will knock out German industry - whilst the Soveits batter their ground forces. Later in the game, Germany has to sustain three turns worth of attacks (US, UK and USSR)… wthat will quickly thin out their infantry.

There are other WW2 games out there- that include the option to attack neutrals.

It gets to the point that if you have using too many house rules, you have another type of game…

Axis and Allies is not a ‘serious’ wargame - it’s a good fun, solid game with a strong WW2 theme. It’s one of my most played WW2 games, but it just seems easier to play another game with all the rules for neutrals, production, occuption, base industry growth, etc etc…

I’m waiting for the holy grail of a game that sits between Axis and Allies and A World at War - the Europe Engulfed games are pretty good. They would be worth looking at for some ‘house rules’.

http://www.gmtgames.com/bleu/main.html

@Emperor_Taiki:

trucks do not move soldiers thousands of miles. lets try to only add new units if it is realistic

Trucks and jeeps were what helped the Soviets win the war… that is exactly what trucks do, move infantry thousands of miles so they don’t have to walk - they also move their supplies to maintain rapid advances.

The Germans used horses - the Russians and Allies used trucks.

TRUCKS were a war winner…

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Basically, it’s a debate over whether there should be a “clearinghouse” for A&A House Rules that tests and endorses them for general use.

Ogrebait’s position is that too many isolated groups create too many wacky results.

I think you are both right… rules do need testing, and it takes many games to make sure rules maintain a balanced game and don’t break it…

BUT - the free flow of ideas is a good thing, but rules do need to be tested, and if you fix one thing with a rule, it make break something else in another part of the game.

@Imperious:

no they destroy units. This is wrong. Its impossible to destroy an army from a Battleship, but the unit can be reduced in effectiveness and i feel this is a good model. And since the BB can effect units defending in a range of 1-4, while cruisers its 1-3. This gives the BB a new advantage as well.

I like this idea - I don’t know if you have played The Napoleonic Wars, Wellington, or Kutuzov by GMT games - but their combat system is one dice per unit - or three dice per ship - and each ‘6’ is a kill, and each ‘5’ is a disrupt - which means in the next round of combat those units don’t get to fire.

So, the idea that naval bombardment hits ‘supress’ enemy units is pretty cool - and something I’m going to house rule. I also like where you are going with artillery discussions… do you use them for a preliminary bombardment to ‘supress’ enemy untits or save them for combat to kill - knowing that killed units fire back, but supressed units (whilst they will survive) will not get to fire - and may be killed by other attacking units.

Have no idea how that will work without testing - but there have been some really interesting ideas thrown about on the board.

@runyan99:

I’m very suprised that AA50 does not include a rule for the Japanese/Russia non-aggression pact.

It does - but in a more realistic way.

Japan has to go after China and Asia, and the Germans have to go after Russia to get bonus IPCs…

So - by default Japan ignores Russia, and Russia is too busy defending against the Axis powers in the west.

Of course - as happened, Russia may chose to violate that ‘arrangement’ - and Japan can chance an East Wind Rain approach…

but then if Japan ignores the US, the US builds a mighty force to sweep Asia clean of Japan.

I think the new way is better - it gives more freedom to players, and I think playes should be free to follow unhistorical approaches - but that there should be ‘historical’ consequences for doing so.

@Rakeman:

I really like the idea of no using enemy ICs, I just see these loopholes.  Unless you plan on playing where ICs can not be built.

How about you can only place infantry in captured ICs… assuming that heavy weapons, like tanks need your home industry - or home ship yard facilities that take years to build.

Those half factories from THE WAR GAME are useful to denote this status… same with newly built ICs - they are only able to place infantry.

I think Italy has been done well - it’s a very hard country to bring into a game as frankly, they sucked compared to the Germans or Soviets.

From a wargame perspective, Italy is usually a liability than an opportunity - so it’s difficult to make it an ‘equal’ partner in a six player game of Axis and Allies.

My own view is that Larry has done a great job making them ‘fun’ to play… is their role in the game historic? No, I think they are somewhat overpowered compared to the other nations - but then, no one would want to play Italy under those circumstances, and you might as well include them with the Axis powers.

Given that Axis and Allies is first a game rather than a simulation, I think the inclusion of Italy has worked really well - and I am a sceptic who has been won over.

When I mod, I like to try and introduce the history at the higher levels - I took part in a simple wargame, as in the mechanics were about the same level as Axis and Allies - but there were nearly 100 players. (http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/tlw/index.htm) That way you simulate the reality of missinterpreted orders, bad briefings… I like to try and do this for Axis and Allies, and hope to get 12 people playing in the new year. This way you can have Japanese Army and Japanese Navy and make them argue over strategy. Ditto the US are split into ETO and PTO - that way you don’t get such a strong KGF, as the other player wants to follow KJF.

There is so much that can be done with Axis and Allies - it’s a reall cool base game in that respect, and Italy throws a whole new load of possibilities into the mix.