Our Dream Axis and Allies Games…

[MrBlack103]

Hmmm. Might check that out :-)

[maverick_76]

@WILD:

I think I would like a game that tracked some of the logistics/supplies. You can’t build mech inf/aircraft, unless you have rubber. Can’t move your navy/tanks unless you have fuel etc…   Certain tt would offer such supplies, that each power would fight for, and you have to transport them to your factories (would require a supply ship).

I would also like more terrain like mountains/swamps slowing/stopping movement, and weather/seasons to have an impact to slow or stop movement. Allow for a Russian winter, or random hurricanes at sea etc…

I would like a computer high bread game that you could track these things, along w/normal movement and attacks. I would like to make my moves w/a mouse, but roll my own dice, enter the results to the computer then have it played out. You could play over the internet w/a camera over looking a dice box, so your opponent knows your on the up n up.

Well again I would suggest Hearts of Iron, those games basically track everything. The only bad thing is that those games are true micromanagement games. Everything is in real time so to play the game you really have to be dedicated and a spazz about complexity. The game is fun but only in short stints for me, it is draining to the point it almost feels like work, almost……

[Guest]

A game that feels like work :?

I’ll pass.

[The Fire Knight]

Sounds like my kind of game. And it’s dirt cheap. I might try it out. Quick question… I just told a friend about it and he thinks he’ll buy it too. Is it multiplayer? B/c that would be epic.

[almashir]

Some things I’d like to see:

1.  Terrain effects on movement and combat.  Maybe print a movement cost on each territory, to represent:  1.) the difficulty of movement through mountains, jungles, forests, or undeveloped areas with few roads; 2.)  the difficulty of keeping units supplied in rough terrain; and 3.) the vastness of the area represented by some territories.  If the Japanese really want to send their tank armies to Moscow, or the Italians want to drive overland to South Africa, it should take a while.

2.  Rail movement.  Allow each country to send 2-4 land units per turn by rail, which gives them unlimited movement, as long as all territories through which they pass were freindly controlled at the beginning of that country’s turn, and all are connected by land.  Each country would have its own rail allowance.  For instance:

Russia:  3 units
Germany:  4 units
Italy:  2 units
USA:  3 units
Britain:  3 units
Japan:  2 units
ANZAC:  2 units
China:  1 unit

3.) More realistic starting forces.  This would involve a larger set of playing pieces.  But the more units on the map, the lower the likelihood of one or two bad die rolls deciding the game.  The more dice you roll, the closer the results will be to their statistical probability.  The Royal Navy should not be wiped out by 3 subs and 5-6 aircraft.

[Guest]

@cminke:

we need mines!!!
if there is gona be a game with flags as ncp’s than we need mine pieces.  we also need to have a texeured board.(ie. a few riples in sea zones, raised/elavated mountians, elavated land that is higher than the sea zones) and for the sake of all humanity CANDADA PLEASE!

Table Tactics makes mines:

http://www.tabletactics.com/products.html

[KurtGodel7]

@MrBlack103:

-every concievable power ever
-slightly more realistic combat rules (Bombers hitting fighters on a 4?), especially in regards to surface combat vs. air
-politics sounds pretty interesting
-individual victory conditions so that even if one side is winning, the winning player is yet to be determined
-national advantages + disadvantages so that each power looks and feels “unique”
-really big tech tree
-more scenarios
-no cardboard pieces (maybe even little flags for occupation markers)
-more territories
-active battlefields
-some sort of AI for neutrals
-more in-depth American neutrality
-totally unique moulds for each power (unless some historical reason). NEED UNIQUE ANZAC INF!
-actual kamikaze attacks with your aircraft

To sum that up, more stuff in general.

I’ve addressed some of the above things in my rules set.

• Fighters are excellent at anti-air, but not good for much else. A dogfight takes place at the beginning of each combat round, making the air superiority fighters provide critical.
• Dive bombers are specialized for attacks against surface targets (land and naval). They also give you some anti-air; and a faint hint of strategic bombing.
• Strategic bombers have little value in tactical combat, but have the ability to do permanent economic damage on strategic bombing raids. Fortunately, you can defend against them with fighters and (if necessary) other air units. There is never any nerfing of airplanes’ anti-air rolls; so a player must earn some degree of air superiority–or at least parity–for his strategic bombing missions to succeed.
• Most units have multiple hitpoints. Injured units are killed before non-injured units become injured; preventing the multiple hitpoints concept from becoming overpowered. This means that a heavily armored tank will be harder to kill than a light tank; and that a jet will be harder to shoot down than a piston-driven aircraft.
• Luck no longer plays any role in technological research. The role of luck has been reduced for combat.
• Nations have their own unique lists of advantages and, in some cases, disadvantages. Each nation has its own tech tree. These are different enough to give each nation its own feel.
• To collect income from most remote territories (almost all islands, Africa, South America, etc.) you must have a transport in the convoy zone adjacent to the territory in question. This makes convoy raiding a more viable strategy than ever. A player can physically sink enemy transports, or, barring that, can at least drive them away from wherever they would need to be for the enemy to collect income.
• While there is no neutral U.S. rule in the main rules set, I’ve created one for the rules variants. The “neutral” U.S. collects income normally but experiences double its normal unit costs. To compensate for that, it is allowed to send double the normal allotment of lend-lease aid, and can also physically ship non-infantry units to its allies’ territory. Those units become the property of the Allies that receive them. The Axis player is allowed to either attack the U.S. at any time, or to allow America to remain “neutral” for the rest of the war. Attacking can cause a devastating short-term effect on U.S. naval fleets and transport capacity, and also eliminates the special lend-lease advantages the U.S. had been receiving. However, an attack also means that the U.S. is now allowed to attack the Axis, and that its unit costs are now normal. Effectively, an attack on the U.S. causes significant short-term harm to the Allied war effort, but a long-term gain.

[MrBlack103]

:-o

The utter and complete perfection of those rules astounds me.

[finnman]

I like most of those ideas.

[Imperious Leader]

I think they are a bit too much. Kinda takes the fun out of it?

[KurtGodel7]

@MrBlack103:

:-o

The utter and complete perfection of those rules astounds me.

Thanks! :) I’ve been working on these rules, off and on, for two to three years now, and they’ve come a long way from my initial ideas!

[maverick_76]

I have to admit that I will just stay with the basic rules, my games hinge more on fun than perfecting realism. Now if they include those as a standard rule I might like it, I might not too.

[finnman]

My dream game is at the scale of the new global game except be 1939. All Germany would own is Germany, Austria and Ckeukleslovakia. Every Power would have it’s own pieces and rules. Eg. Belgium would have for dark brown infantry, is neutral, and joins the Allies if France and Britain join the war. Belgium can’t build more units and moves and attacks if at war with France.

[A Former User]

I would like to see a deluxe version of AA42 that has all the goodies in it like Revised.  :)