F;ashman posts:
For this post I’ll refrain from commenting on the map, except to ask why Eire has a Union flag printed on it?
MINUS POINTS
(Note that these are not all criticisms, just a comparison with how I’d do things.)
China added as independent power. Can’t buy the idea of China building battleships. Even if we use the fiction of a United China, it was far from an industrial power. I much prefer the idea of rival Chinese factions controlled by the USSR and USA respectively.
As you now know they don’t have any ships except the one destroyer and transport that comes with the game . They dont start with any and if they even decided to build a ship it would be blown up by Japan
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.
This is the same as revised. But incidentally they only stipulation of that agreement in a historical perspective was to stay clear of each other. At any point either could attack the other and in Aug 45 thats what the Soviets did. So to create an artificial rule ( e.g. if either attacks the other side immediately can place 4 infantry for free) type of thing is not very historical anyway.
Major and minor factories. Don’t see the need for this, just limit production to IPC income of the territory.
As you may know all factories are not created equal. Some were for just tanks ( tankograd in Urals) and others could build naval vessels… the game abstractly represents this notion.
Building factories; using captured complexes. Just both completely wrong. When France was liberated the new French army went back to war using American uniforms, vehicles and equipment. It was more efficient to ship them across the Atlantic from established production lines than re-establish French production.
Captured factories produce 1/2 rounded down of their original capacity. This is mostly for the axis anyway which did employ all sorts of foreign workers in major industry. This production is allowing placement in the conquered territory but its really an implied system of redeployment rather than ‘home grown’ equipment and production.
Lend-Lease. This seems too powerful, I prefer a more risky transport-IPC-via-convoy system which the Axis can actively intercept.
Its not really but its compensation for game balance issues relating to no Allied units allowed in SU. Its the games way of compensation.
As I’ve stated many times before I don’t like the non-combat-movement phase. In war ALL movement of war material is a combat move. I would limit this purely to aircraft landing, and train movement.
Its mostly rail movement and its necessary to do this after combat. when you play you will discover real quickly why this is so.
Different unit costs per nation. I prefer to reflect this in base IPC income levels.
Not a good way to go because a nations IPC was not always allocated in the most efficient way as another. Some nations had more manpower to draw from and other better utilized it. That cant be allocated easily into just a number.
Artillery/AA gun hybrid. No, sir. The principle role of artillery was to soften up land defences, not shoot down aircraft.
you said before that its ok but that you would only have heavy artillery to have this capacity.
Tank blitz. Can’t believe Jeff couldn’t come up with something better than the obsolete blitz move from official A&A. As I’ve detailed elsewhere something along the lines of a pass-through move for tanks simulates blitzkreig warfare nicely.
Its not obsolete. its just a simple way to keep the same idea. Tanks cant blitz a vast space the size of half the USA now can they?
Stop-drop transports. Another hangover from ye ancient A&A manual that makes no sense. WHY can’t a transport unload into two territories if able?
Why can’t amphibious assaulting units (or defenders) retreat to sea if they have available transports?
They can they just cant invade more than one territory with the same transport. thats not realistic.
Order of battle. Can’t find this in the rules, but why not just let the defender choose the order in which combats are resolved? OK, after a few plays most people will dump the battleboard, but simultaneously fighting all adjacent battles must get hard to track, especially when considering pass-throughs. Defender decides first eliminates the flanking attack menace much more simply.
When you play this will all make more sence to you.
Infantry placement seems very powerful; I severely limit this ability with only a few designated depots to be used.
Again it represents strategic redeployment and ability to enlist members of conquered lands into the war machine.
It occurs to me that building ships at sea is absurd. Ships should be built at an IC same as any other unit. The NEXT turn you can “launch” the ship into a neighbouring sea zone, together with cargo if applicable, thus simulating the longer build time of warships.
They are built in ports except that the piece itself is placed in the sea zone as its launched. Each turn is 6 months and its easy to get thing ready to fight. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea and still made it to Midway in 10 days time.
I agree with Dezrtfish, the pay-money-for-invading-neutrals rule seems like another vestigial leftover from classic. We want neutral armed forces.
They are in the game but those are advanced rules not yet released.
The idea of tanks being wiped out by viscious sand dunes and angry mountain ranges is hilarious. Prefer defensive bonuses in combat.
Tanks are not wiped out… rather they run out of petrol in the middle of the Sahara… no gas stations for fill up.
