@superbattleshipyamato Right. alot more complications introduces longer play. More areas means longer play, More units longer play. I wish their was a light 12 page version with only about 6-10 more units, not 60 more. The map would have about 60% less areas and play would take 2-3 hours but still be buckets of dice concept. That would be my wish plus dedicated piece sets or a version that used counters like nova games edition.
After Action Report! Good News! and bad…
-
One question I do have: When a new rules revision is released, what is the best method for showing what has been changed? Summary page? Different color text in the .pdf? Any suggestions on this would be nice.
I would suggest starting a new thread, and you put out an outline of proposed changes before you make them official, so you aren’t retracting stuff from the official rules as we go.
Something like this,
Summary of proposed changes:
-
Treat Holland like an allied minor power under the UK ……
-
Argentina can be activated by either Germany or Italy…
-
Neutral beef-up, add 1 inf to Columbia, 1 inf to Peru…
-
Naval base AA fires one shot per round at 2 or less… or what ever
-
There is a perceived problem with a couple of undetected subs taking out an entire fleet (multiple warships with transports). Subs warfare was more of a hit and run attack, so rule change I’m considering to reflect that is:
Undetected attacking subs are immune from taking hits from surface ships or air units in the first round of battle. If there is a second round, and the def ship(s) survive they will return fire at normal def values along with any def air units and be able to hit undetected subs (subs gave up their position with continued attack)…maybe not extend it to def air units 2nd rd? -
Place a minor IC on Stalingrad, and the Russians get scorch earth. Any IC that is turned over to the axis has max damage…
This will also allow us to help test things for/with you, and give feedback (everyone on same page). Then once the rules settle out and you have several changes in order, then you could alter the rule set in red and cross out things that aren’t relevant anymore. If you do a complete revision in the end it is nice for the changes to be noted some how (red text).
-
-
One question I do have: When a new rules revision is released, what is the best method for showing what has been changed? Summary page? Different color text in the .pdf? Any suggestions on this would be nice.
I prefer a different text color in the PDF. Was a pain in the ass for me to go through the whole pdf of your last revision again.
And additionally you have to remember, that not everyone might read a thread on these forums and will just download the new pdf. -
I agree make all rule changes on different color text.
-
-
Guys,
I agree make all rule changes on different color text.
I second this motion.
––This sounds very logical and easy to follow, making it what we need. Much like Yellow ‘highlighting’.
“Tall Paul”
-
Hey guys,
Variable and I will get together and discuss a lot of these points that are being brought up. Give us a little time to really look at the rules and the mechanics of the game and we will do our best to improve this game. As for now just soldier on and we always encourage house rules!!
-
Here are the house rules we use with this game
we use the mongolia rules from G40
Germany has to be making 50$ at the start of their turn before they can try to influence Spain/Portugal into joining. Otherwise Spain is neutral.
Germany must be making 55$ before they can try to influence Turkey into joining.
(This prevents Italy from walking in at the beginning of the game and also keeps SZ 43 out of the game for a while)When Germany controls Egypt they can try to influence Iraq into joining.
When Axis control Egypt, the UK can try to influence Iran into joining.Influence spend $5 and roll a d6 on a 1-2 you influence the nation into joining. One roll per turn only, done during the build tech step.
Also when someone attacks a neutral that neutral should it not be taken over automatically join the opposing side.
Same with attacking a pro leaning ally of the opposing side. This automatically actives the pro leaning ally.to represent this on the map i do the following.
nations that can be influenced into joining the axis are yellow until said time the join, then they become black.
Iran is a light green then it becomes tan
Siam is pacific REDPro axis / axis minors are (classic Germany grey which becomes black when activated)
Finland (is xeno blue)
Pro allies (light blue)
Dutch (orange)
true neutral (white)
Mongolia (light grey)Another reason I do this is I agree the ability to not really build up minor axis does more harm then good.
Unless I am reading the rules wrong (and that could of course be the case) minor axis keep there own money but only collect money for the territory they start with. So my understanding is if Finland takes over Karelia the 2 collected gets added to Germany.
If Hungary should take over Greece the 2 collected goes to Germany.The way the rules are (unless I am wrong on this) there really is no point in even taking the minor nations outside their home country because they would not gain anything. They would expend troops taking over the new territory but not gain extra money to help rebuild the lost troops.
As for convoy. We never use them, because I have to admit I liked the way convoys where done on the Global map with the convey in the middle of a single sea zone makes it easier to figure out.
-
americancyco, there are a ton of house rules you could come up with for this game. I like how you bring neutrals over through rolling dice (maybe add to game length), or conquests in their region.
As for the minor axis powers I disagree. Germany does get paid for the captured territories even if the minor powers take them, but I think that is easier to track and there isn’t any question of who to assign the territory to if it is taken with a combined effort by a couple axis minors, and Germany. Plus the minor powers basically get free income each turn to spend on units to reinforce/replace because Germany gets the income generated from the axis minor original territories (they are basically double dipping).
-
Maybe I’m not expressing my concern clearly (or you just disagree which is cool :-D )
Minor allies are limited to producing 3 units (max) per turn. Ok but since they don’t really collect much money (only the value of their home territory) they really wouldn’t have the money to produce anything more then INF. Unless they wanted to just save their income for many turns to buy say a plane or something.
Finland, Hungary and Argentina get $3 per turn that is one soldier per turn
Bulgaria and Romania get $4 per turn income, not much better, thats what a soldier with $1 left over?Sure Germany can build factories in the minor territories but those factories produce German units, in addition to the minor units that can be produced.
If the minor was allowed to collect for it’s captured terriroies then they would collect more money and be able to buy better equipment, faster.
I understand your point of multi-minor nations attacking and taking a territory but since they are all controled by the Germany player it would be pretty easy to just assign the captured territory to any one of the attacking nations, German players choice.
-
I get your point of how the minor axis powers can’t grow to buy more units, but it also keeps them from getting to big IMO. I also see that these powers are contributing mostly inf, unless you purchase some art for them, and allow mech built further back (like Bulgaria) to pair up keeping those combo’s together heading towards Russia. I think that is what the designers had in mind though when they put this mechanic together. This gives the Germans a steady flow of inf/art needed at the front to continue the assault, and it also keeps those captured Russian territories occupied so they don’t sprout up partisans as the slower moving inf move up. I also think that the steady flow of units these minor powers add to the game basically for free is a very powerful tool for the Germans, I wouldn’t want them to add more resources to them closest to the front as the game goes on, plus it would also weaken the German econ (just MO).
Another thing is that if you allowed them to capture territories for themselves for income I think you would run into placement problems as the game goes on. They can only drop 3 units at their capital. Take Romania for example, they would be the most logical choice to capture territories because they are closest to the front and have the largest starting income (6 IPCs). Theoretically Romania could claim nearly every Russian territory that the axis take going deep into Russia. Why do you need them to buy air units when Germany could do it, and they all fight together. I think the idea was to have the minor powers supply the man power, and the Germans to do the heavy lifting. You want to build tanks (for 5 IPCs for Pete’s sake) at the front, then have Germany build a minor IC.
One more thing is that when we play (I believe others do too) we have all the minor axis powers use the same color (light gray Germans from Revised I think), so we don’t track them individually once they are all at war. At times we may even swap them out for Germans (chips) because they are essentially the same to stack easier once they get to Russian lands. I know there are some that keep them all separated (probably use some house rules), but I simply don’t have the units for it, but feel free to do what you want, this game screams house rules.
Edit, no need to answer here, I will re-post this blue part to the proper thread to continue Thanks WB (see link to follow up)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28924.0
I do have a quick question for the creators: If the Germans build a naval base on Romania (or Bulgaria) can the Romanians (or Bulgarians) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units? Are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.
This leads me to a 2nd question (similar to one asked before, still under review), say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?
Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements of shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Could an Italian NB that services a sz next to a German IC fill the requirements of a NB to allow Germany to build ships in said sz?
-
I also use the original gray German pieces for my minor axis
Except for Finnland which gets it’s own color because of the funky rules where it can fight w/ Russia, while still being a minor axis and Russia is not at war with Germany.
You know where I think a lot of my views on this come from. The rules for Canada and Union of South Africa being played as their own nations. They are allowed to take over territory and such just like any other major nation. I guess personally I see that as an unfair advantage for the allies and that is probally why I am such a supporter of minor axis being allowed to capture territories.
MY personal opinion to your question about minors building ships (I always ruled they could, because of their lack of needed a factory to build any other type of unit). I never really had it come up because they would never save up that much money.
As for your question about them building fighters on a Germany carrier, I never even thlought of that.
-
I see what your talking about with the Commonwealth, it could be viewed as a bit of a double standard I guess. I will say that each Commonwealth power has its own IC to produce units (axis minors just mobilize free units), and playing them as separate powers can be a bit restricting to the UK. I like the option of incorporating Canada & S Africa into the UKs econ and not play them as separate powers (which is what we normally do). So in that case it would be the same, all income goes to UK. We play FEC & Anz as individual powers though.
-
I could have missed it but where does it say minor axis build there units for free? We have never played that way.
page 25 says they are limited to producing 3 units per turn.
if they produce for free then there is no reason for them to collect their own income.
-
Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power.
Yes. The rules are quite clear on that point.
-
I could have missed it but where does it say minor axis build there units for free? We have never played that way.
page 25 says they are limited to producing 3 units per turn.
if they produce for free then there is no reason for them to collect their own income.
When I say for free what I meant is that Germany gets paid the income value printed on the map for the minor axis powers original territories, and each of them also gets a set income as well (they basically double dip). The later part is pretty much free income for the minor powers to build units IMO.
-
Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power.
Yes. The rules are quite clear on that point.
The rules on page 31 that describes what a NB does could lead you to believe it is ok to have the NB in one territory, and the IC (adjacent) in another as long as the sz is adjacent to both.
“Newly built naval units may only be placed in sz’s containing a NB and an IC in the adjacent territory”.
Rules on page 12 for place new units goes the other way. It clearly say the IC & NB both need to be in the same territory.
“New sea units are placed in sz’s adjacent to a territory that contains both an IC and NB”
I have asked for clarification before, and they are looking at the function of both AB & NB. For now we will allow ships to be built as long as the sz has a NB servicing it, even if it isn’t on the same territory as the IC. It would strike me funny if after review they don’t allow it. Wouldn’t make sense to have to buy a second NB for the same sz for ship building, but you never know?
I also wanted to know if an ally’s NB servicing a sz next to your IC would allow you to build ships. You can use your partners NB for everything else (movement, repairs) why not his shipyard for builds, but that might be a stretch. I would be fine w/a ruling that the same power needs to own both the IC & NB servicing the adjacent sz (even if the NB is linked to another territory).
-
We played a good long game of Axis and Allies Global over the weekend. I played the Germany and Italy. The Axis lost on turn 9. While the game was great fun, I experienced a number of frustrations and disappointments. Do the game creators have any comments regarding the following?
I was barred from conducting amphibious assaults on Russian occupied Finnish territories while Russia was still neutral. My opponents were adamant that this would be a declaration of war against Russia (I was out-voted). My inability to conduct amphibious assaults into Finland with German troops was instrumental in my permanent loss of Scandinavia. My understanding of the rules is that Germany and Russia may fight it out in Finland without declaring war on one another. This includes being able to conduct amphibious assaults onto Finnish territories. Since the Russian destroyer is neutral to Germany, the seazone occupied by the destroyer is considered neutral allowing any German ships to move freely within. Thoughts please?
By turn 9, the allies had control of the Atlantic. The Axis was in control of the Pacific and Mediteranean. The Allies had bunkered up in Sidney, Calcutta, and Cairo, with significant armies of infantry, rendering capture of these key cities virtually impossible. Likewise, Germany had effectively created Fortress Europe with huge armies easily able to repel any large scale amphibious assaults along any coast. Russia was very close to being overrun as it was losing the war of attrition with Germany and was fighting Japan to a standstill in Western China (and had lost all Russian territories East of Novosibirsk). Italy had a production of 51 and was transporting troops to Gibraltar to keep the American fleet out of the Meditteranean, and to conduct amphibious assaults on Russian territories around the Black Sea (Turkey was under Axis control). With one strategic bomber and a commando (both flying from the Cairo airbase) the allies dropped a paratrooper on Rome, and landed in the only non axis-controlled island in the Meditteranean - Corsica. I capitulated at that point as up to that point, the game was in the balance. No Allied fleet was present in the Mediterranean. Five axis destroyers and two axis transports were in the sea zone adjacent to Rome. Over one dozen Italian troops were in Turin as the Axis preferentially built in Turin every round. Were the rules designed to allow paratroopers to drop into enemy territory and capture a capital? This does not seem reasonable, unless the drop is part of an amphibious or land assault on the capital.
Last question. We had another disagreement in a naval battle. Three destroyers and two strategic bombers attacked six axis submarines. In the first round of combat, the allies scored four hits. I argued that only three submarines could be hit as they were undetected prior to the first round of combat. The allies disagreed stating that three submarines were initially detected. When the first three submarines were hit, the allies argued that the destroyers could detect the remaining three submarines to allow further hits. The allies also argued that the undetected submarines were unable to retreat from combat stating that only the attacker may retreat. I believe the rules allow all undetected submarines the ability to retreat from a naval battle, regardless of whether they are defending or not. Please clarify.
I still love this game!!!
-
I believe your friends are correct. Germany may help defend Finnland against Russia while not at war.
Paratroopers must be dropped in the first enemy territory they fly over. I’m sorry but I dont remember does Rome touch the sea so that the plane could fly over Rome without flying over an enemy territory. Your discription doesn’t really explain where the bomber came from or flew over.
I dont think it actually counts destroyer to submarine on one for one bases. But I could just be thinking of normal A&A rules on this one. But that is how we play we use the normal A&A rules for destroyers.
-
Bah! Those evil allies eh Moose!? ;)
It was 5AM when we landed in ROME… I agree, not how I wanted to finish a great game. But had the tables been turned, I think moose would have taken the same oppurtunity on Moscow, or London.
That said, the writing was on the wall for the Axis. Allied had a 30 IPC income edge. And we had just removed Italy from the middle east, africa, north africa, south america, and thier Med NO (uk ships built off Cairo) and the germans weren’t even 1 deep into Russian territory on G9!!
If only we saw how the battle of burma was going to go… we would have known… ;)
-
Hey guys,
Thanks for being patient. We are working on the 6.0 rules as we speak and hope to have them out in the next 4 weeks. I am reading all your questions so please don’t think I am ignoring you. I will also have a list of all the changes made from 5.1-6.0 when we make the revision official.
Suggested Topics
