ACME wall?
The fact that the Chinese cannot enter/leave certain territories. The reference to an ACME wall is to stress the unreal or cartoon nature of the rule, ie: Road Runner and Coyote used whimsical constructs produced by ACME (although I’m not bothered by the rule personally, mainly because my Chinese are usually retreating into their own lands… and I believe that during these periods the Chinese were more concerned with survival as a nation and not expansion/aiding others - imo).
Some of these changes look like changes just for the sake of making changes…
No airbase on Gibraltar I can understand, but the airbase on Malta was incredibly significant to the battle of the Mediterranean, almost all of the problems Germany faced in the Mediterranean can be laid at Malta’s feet.
The British units in France aren’t nearly enough to hinder Germany’s push, so what’s the rational behind moving them? Historically the UK lost almost all their heavy equipment and a lot of their general material when the BEF was pulled off the beach at Dunkirk. Frankly I think that England proper should have less to start with than it does, but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts. So I’m obviously crazy.
I get that Axis & Allies is a board game and isn’t supposed to be 100% historically accurate, but there’s something to be said for balance, and something to be said for realism and accuracy. I play Axis & Allies because World War II is fascinating, I enjoy the challenges both sides faced. If the game is based on World War II, then it should reflect what key aspects it can. Fundamental changes (IE: removing the airbase on Malta would have dramatically changed the campaign in the Med) to things that are incredibly important to this period in time take away from the games namesake. Too many more and you should change the name from “Axis & Allies” to “Global War in/around 1940”, people could make their own alliances and stab each other in the back, it’ll be a glorified game of Risk.
The point of my post isn’t to be rude or troll anyone, so I hope it isn’t taken that way, I just wanted to bring somethings to your attention that maybe you hadn’t thought of. I’m 100% sure that I’m not the only person that plays this game because I enjoy this part of our history, in fact I’m sure the vast majority of people playing the game do (otherwise why would you pick up the box in the first place). Don’t trade away the history, make changes that are NEEDED for balance or to work out a kink in game play, don’t try to please everyone by dumbing the game down. It should be complicated, it should be difficult and above all, it should be fun.
C
Some of these changes look like changes just for the sake of making changes…
No airbase on Gibraltar I can understand, but the airbase on Malta was incredibly significant to the battle of the Mediterranean, almost all of the problems Germany faced in the Mediterranean can be laid at Malta’s feet.
The British units in France aren’t nearly enough to hinder Germany’s push, so what’s the rational behind moving them? Historically the UK lost almost all their heavy equipment and a lot of their general material when the BEF was pulled off the beach at Dunkirk. Frankly I think that England proper should have less to start with than it does, but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts. So I’m obviously crazy.
I get that Axis & Allies is a board game and isn’t supposed to be 100% historically accurate, but there’s something to be said for balance, and something to be said for realism and accuracy. I play Axis & Allies because World War II is fascinating, I enjoy the challenges both sides faced. If the game is based on World War II, then it should reflect what key aspects it can. Fundamental changes (IE: removing the airbase on Malta would have dramatically changed the campaign in the Med) to things that are incredibly important to this period in time take away from the games namesake. Too many more and you should change the name from “Axis & Allies” to “Global War in/around 1940”, people could make their own alliances and stab each other in the back, it’ll be a glorified game of Risk.
The point of my post isn’t to be rude or troll anyone, so I hope it isn’t taken that way, I just wanted to bring somethings to your attention that maybe you hadn’t thought of. I’m 100% sure that I’m not the only person that plays this game because I enjoy this part of our history, in fact I’m sure the vast majority of people playing the game do (otherwise why would you pick up the box in the first place). Don’t trade away the history, make changes that are NEEDED for balance or to work out a kink in game play, don’t try to please everyone by dumbing the game down. It should be complicated, it should be difficult and above all, it should be fun.C
Some very good pponts on the airbase on Malta and Italy going before the UK.
but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts.
I don’t.
Seems much simpler to me to change the set up then the order of playing. If the UK is too strong in the Med in the opening turn, move a few units further away so their first attack is weaker.
Edit: although with the already changed rule that USA plays much sooner i suppose it is acceptable
Still waiting for an answer about convoy raiding.
The rules say that German subs cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding. Also, the tech Super Subs allow all other nations’ subs to cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding.
Then, further down in the same rules, it says that all subs have to roll 2 dice for convoy raiding.
So, which is it? Do subs cause a set level of convoy damage (2 IPCs, 3 for Germany) OR is it the roll of the dice?
@special:
but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts.
I don’t.
Seems much simpler to me to change the set up then the order of playing. If the UK is too strong in the Med in the opening turn, move a few units further away so their first attack is weaker.
Edit: although with the already changed rule that USA plays much sooner i suppose it is acceptable
I’m not sure which I would prefer. Italys navy was substancially larger in the Med than Britians, with the exception that Musolini (and thus the Admiralty) didn’t believe the era of the Battleship was over and didn’t think Carriers were worth investing in. Until late 1941 they held the initive, a combination of poor leadership, unwillingness to commit to battles and a lack of interest in the war itself saw them outclassed by their British counterparts.
Also Musolini thought land based fighters and bombers were enough to provide air cover to his naval forces. They also didn’t like to send their fleet out past the protection of that aircover, this should illustrate the importance of the airbases on Malta, Gibralter and Crete. Because the map isn’t actually to scale for the game you don’t need all of them but Malta or Crete should be represented.
Turn order could be Germany, Soviets, Italy, UK, Japan, US, ANZAC, China, France. I’m not sure what the rammifications of the UK going before Japan would be, would need to be tested. Changing the units Britian has in the Med would be simpler, placing them further away (around the west or east coast of Africa maybe) would be better maybe…
C
That’s an interesting turn order you came up with. I would be curious to see how much that affects the game. With the current set up, it sure would be much more beneficial to Italy. I might try that out in my next game.
Just curious, why split ANZAC from the UK?
Hey Jenn you missed a few things on your map as of last night:
You forgot to add the extra German inf to Norway
The UK infantry in Paris needs to be removed. No UK units in France according to Larrys post (unless he changed it from yesterday)
The Italian Fighter in N Italy needs to be moved to S Italy.
I think those are the only errors I saw so far.
Adjusted.
Still waiting for an answer about convoy raiding.
The rules say that German subs cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding. Also, the tech Super Subs allow all other nations’ subs to cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding.
Then, further down in the same rules, it says that all subs have to roll 2 dice for convoy raiding.So, which is it? Do subs cause a set level of convoy damage (2 IPCs, 3 for Germany) OR is it the roll of the dice?
When last I looked, the rule was changed from German Submarine Advantage (3 IPC Damage per round) to the new 2 Dice rule. Keep in mind, damage is cumulative so if you have 1 submarine in SZ 10 and you roll a 1 and a 3 you do 4 damage total, not 2 damage. So, in theory, to do 10 damage, you might only need 4 submarines. (Since any 4s, 5s or 6s are misses, then 10/3 = 4 “hits” minimum to do maximum damage.)
It is my personal feeling this is going to make Aircraft Carriers so ridiculously powerful that Larry is going to have to change the rule. Imagine 2 Aircraft Carriers with fighters in SZ 10. That’s 4 dice right there, not including any other warships in the area. More realistically, BB, AC, 2 Fig, 3 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA in SZ 109 is 13 dice for convoy damage, don’t even try to tell me that Germany cannot muster such a fleet in the first couple rounds of play.
That’s an interesting turn order you came up with. I would be curious to see how much that affects the game. With the current set up, it sure would be much more beneficial to Italy. I might try that out in my next game.
Just curious, why split ANZAC from the UK?
Larry split it up so it wasn’t virtually Axis go then Allies go. Personally, I pushed and lobbied hard to push Italy up to between China and England as it would break up the Allied turn significantly (thus being less boring for the axis player) and save the Italians from devastation in the Med. To save the British, I suggested moving the British fleet to their historical home (per Classic rules) of the Red Sea or SZ 81 in AAG40. That would both save the Italians and save the British and help the British move against Japan faster or give the British a stronger position in Africa. Larry has not said NO yet, but it does not look promising.
IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.
Altered National Objectives list to represent the change posted 23 October, 2011 (My brother’s 31st Birthday.)
What does this mean? I think it means Russia’s going to be INSANELY wealthy now…Finland, Bulgaria, etc? Yea, Siam, Korea? Maybe get an infantry on an American transport and take some no name islands like Pauline for 3 IPC each!?!
Not sure what Larry was smoking when he came up with this, but I see lots of potential to abuse it!
Jen, I’m pretty sure this NO re-write removes Japanese territories from applying - they are not in Europe.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, that it.
@Cmdr:
IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.
Altered National Objectives list to represent the change posted 23 October, 2011 (My brother’s 31st Birthday.)
What does this mean? I think it means Russia’s going to be INSANELY wealthy now…Finland, Bulgaria, etc? Yea, Siam, Korea? Maybe get an infantry on an American transport and take some no name islands like Pauline for 3 IPC each!?!
Not sure what Larry was smoking when he came up with this, but I see lots of potential to abuse it!
the way in understand this, you can forget about Paulin, Siam, Korea….
she might not be not wrong, but it appears pac territories don’t count. It’s currently ambiguously worded, and will probably be rewritten to clarify.
it could either be interpreted as:
[each original Axis] or [neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey)]
or
[each original Axis or neutral territory] in Europe (including Turkey)
But considering that the word “territory” fall after neutral and not “each original neutral axis territory or neutral territory in europe……” it sounds as though all pac territories are exempt
Jen, I’m pretty sure this NO re-write removes Japanese territories from applying - they are not in Europe.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, that it.
Discussion was to include them, re-reading it does look like they were not included. I have less an issue with Korea being a Russian NO than I do with, for instance, GREECE! Thing’s already pro-allies, so now Russia gets to walk in, get the infantry, get the territory AND get an NO!?!?
@Cmdr:
Jen, I’m pretty sure this NO re-write removes Japanese territories from applying - they are not in Europe.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, that it.Discussion was to include them, re-reading it does look like they were not included. I have less an issue with Korea being a Russian NO than I do with, for instance, GREECE! Thing’s already pro-allies, so now Russia gets to walk in, get the infantry, get the territory AND get an NO!?!?
yeah, personally I’ve never been a fan of this NO anyway. It compounds itself too much. If it’s going to be for any territory, it should be for a maximum of 3.
@Cmdr:
Discussion was to include them, re-reading it does look like they were not included. I have less an issue with Korea being a Russian NO than I do with, for instance, GREECE! Thing’s already pro-allies, so now Russia gets to walk in, get the infantry, get the territory AND get an NO!?!?
If Axis drops the ball so tremendously that this happens, then hell yes.
I’m loving most of the latest rule and setup modifications, and the ones I’m not crazy about, I’m not mentioning. Instead, I’m abandoning my remaining pet peeves in exchange for a emphatic “2 thumbs up” on Alpha +3.5, as both a vote of approval and a protest of mass change. Larry…… Its good enough, stop the madness and start the presses.
@Cmdr:
Still waiting for an answer about convoy raiding.
The rules say that German subs cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding. Also, the tech Super Subs allow all other nations’ subs to cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding.
Then, further down in the same rules, it says that all subs have to roll 2 dice for convoy raiding.So, which is it? Do subs cause a set level of convoy damage (2 IPCs, 3 for Germany) OR is it the roll of the dice?
When last I looked, the rule was changed from German Submarine Advantage (3 IPC Damage per round) to the new 2 Dice rule. Keep in mind, damage is cumulative so if you have 1 submarine in SZ 10 and you roll a 1 and a 3 you do 4 damage total, not 2 damage. So, in theory, to do 10 damage, you might only need 4 submarines. (Since any 4s, 5s or 6s are misses, then 10/3 = 4 “hits” minimum to do maximum damage.)
It is my personal feeling this is going to make Aircraft Carriers so ridiculously powerful that Larry is going to have to change the rule. Imagine 2 Aircraft Carriers with fighters in SZ 10. That’s 4 dice right there, not including any other warships in the area. More realistically, BB, AC, 2 Fig, 3 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA in SZ 109 is 13 dice for convoy damage, don’t even try to tell me that Germany cannot muster such a fleet in the first couple rounds of play.
Sorry, but what’s the relation between the aircraft carriers and submarines causing a certain amount of damage? Or can planes do that too?
If an aircraft carrier is stationed in a sea zone with a convoy symbol of an enemy country, the carrier itself can not disrupt the convoy but any planes onboard can. I think the new rules state that carrier based planes get to roll 2 dice each to cause convoy damage to your opponent. Submarines also roll 2 dice each and all other warships roll 1 dice each.
