What would you change?

[General_D.Fox]

:-D  We, in exchange, burned down your White House.  8-)  But all is good and well now (somewhat, of course.)

[Botider]

Fellas,

Back to the topic at hand … “what would you change”… some good ideas re: subs. A couple of others we’ve play tested for a while now …

• Subs can submerge immediately against fighters unless a destroyer present, then the ftrs get one shot.
• Subs can submerge after one shot from fleets if a destroyer is present.
  The German “navy” (such as it is) lasts a little longer.

A few others we really like …

• SBR rules from Europe/Pacific apply, e.g., fighter escorts and defenders involved.
• Up to 2 AA guns in a territory can fire at attacking planes… but only one fires against SBR.
• Damaged battleship repairs aren’t automatic … cost $5.
• Replaced “Rockets” with “Heavy Transports” … those rockets are lethal and there is no defense. Heavy transports can carry units up to 10 IPCs in cost (3 inf or 2 tanks!).

You guys have some good ideas here. Keep ‘em comin’. Always interesting to read what other gamers are finding fun.

Bo

[Acebob]

@General_D.Fox:

:-D  We, in exchange, burned down your White House.  8-)  But all is good and well now (somewhat, of course.)

Pleh, that was the Brits. Though the Canadians did defend very well when we led an incrusion into Canada. They stopped us and thats nothing to scoff at.

Anyway…
I do like the rules as they exist now(for the most part). I would like to see either new or changed rules for research. It seems that alot of the researches (except Superbombers and Rockets) are not worth the risk and the 5 IPCs you spend for a chance.

[mateooo]

I really like the idea of the national advantages.  While a lot of them are unfair (kaitan subs? great, just when you though subs REALLY sucked, now they automatically die), they do completely change the dynamic of the game, requiring strategy adjustments and getting away from the "I am playing a tournament game against player X so I have to open with Russia buys X INF and then GER has to buy X INF 1 AC…

I have a lot of fun playing with my friends with the NA, when we just say, “you got faster carriers? you get to reroll, but then when i get kamikaze planes, I get to reroll”

Playing as Germany with Uboat interdiction or wolfpack and you might actually buy a sub.

Changes i would make would be

1. Kaitan subs, attack at 2 still, but get to choose their naval target
2. same with kamikaze planes
3. fast carriers? make that fast carriers and battleships
4. Jap inf defending on Islands at 3? make that 3 and immune to bombard
5. lighting attack for jap? can make up to two separate drops in one turn, one inf here, one arm there…
6. german wolfpacks? make that 2 subs attack at 3… when was the last time you saw three german subs together?
7. jesus, someone needs the Abomb! US gets 1 time attack, bomb kills d6 units in one territory, or perhaps 3d6 IPC SBR… whichever
8. someone needs to fix what happens when a capital falls… perhaps the conquored nation still gets to collect income for its remaining territories, but cant purchase until they get their capital back.  This stops the lame "i cant get money from conquored allied territory until my enemy takes it, and then i take it back.  It also prevents possible abuse by purposely losing territory so that allies can grab all your territories.  I also dont like the idea of one nation taking out a nation, getting all their money, and then the next nation takes that first country out, collecting everyones money… doesnt make sense.  perhaps if a nation takes out one nation, then they are still able to purchase and collect money if they are subsequently taken out (basically, all you need is ANY capital to keep going on).

No one should ever have ANY reason to try to stall before taking out a capital… it just doesnt make sense. Of course, the Soviets camped outside of Warsaw during the warsaw uprising and watched the Germans crush the polish resistance movement when they could have intervened… but that’s completely different! And the US did the same and let the Soviets take out Berlin in order to avoid US casualties… hmm… maybe i need to rethink this.

of course, sending transports with your battleships and aircraft carriers in order to take hits also doesnt make sense in a real world sense… but we all do it anyways. I dont seem to remember battleships hiding behind transports…

oooh, quite the rant… gonna have to catch my breath
mateooo

[Axel Allie]

before I ever heard the exact rules of A&AR, I thought that a part of the combat sequence was like this:

1. the attacker attacks with his attacking dice
2. the defender defends with his defending dice
3. the defender attacks with his defending dice
4. the attacker defends with his attacking dice
5. casualties are taken from the board
   (…step 1 till 5 again…)

maybe a little feedback is needed?
say 4 fighters attack 3 infantry and 2 fighters?

1. the attacker rolls 4 dice. he rolls (as an example: 1,2,3,4) so 3 hits
2. the defender rolls his defense: infantry 2,5,6 and fighter 4,5 so he has defended 2 of his units good, but will lose one unit (the third hit he could not prevent by defending rolls)
3. the defender makes a counterattack with his defending dice (he is in his own territory, so he has an advantage…): he rolls 2,3,4 for inf and 4,6 for figs. so, 1 hit for the inf and 1 hit for the figs.
4. the attacker rolls for this counterattack and rolls a 3,4,5,6 so only one die (the ‘3’) is good for the attacker to prevent the damage sustained. another unit has to die…

you can see this is a whole other way of playing, and would make the game look more like “warhammer”
I just thought the game would be played this way, but since I know the rules, I know it’s not  :lol:
I’m not suggesting you should play this way…
you can always say every casualty has a “save” of a “1 on 6” or a “2 on 6” to prevent being lost and still stay in battle…
I know this rule would prolong battle, but sometimes people want this…
:-P