Can ships move 1 space then attack or do they have to start their turn adjacent?

I love how WAR ROOM mechanics are already manifesting into A&A house rule ideas. Great job!

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

@Argothair

-Assigning 1ipc values to the Pacific Islands would certainly help and encourage Japan to invade them but I doubt USA will try to retake them. For balance purpose, Japan has to start with significantly bigger fleet than the Allies. It requires minimum 15 ipc (transport+destroyer) just to invade one of the island with a protection. Even if Japan lose some of them, she is still capable of compensating these loses with another conquests. While if USA just ignores Japan, the huge Japanese fleet lose its all combat value suddenly for a long time.

-Yes, the capital rule does not make sense. Nations should be able to collect income and mobilize units even if their capitals are fallen. Also no losing all of incomes when capital is lost.

-That’s why I think Germany is too weak and Japan is absurdly too strong in A&A games which should have been the other way around and it results Germany just spamming infantry and waiting Japan ro rescue. It makes no sense. Historically by far the strongest Axis country should not have badly needed Japan’s and Italy’s helps to just stay even alive. This aspects also encourage USA to go only one front since if Uk-Russia is strong enough to defeat Germany-Italy. USA could choose to go Pacific only to just secure the British colonies but still no two ocean going USA unfortunately.

-Ipc vaules are known very abstract but still it would look very weird if these Pacific islands worth more than 1 except Hawaii. For example Australia was obviously a lot more than twice valuable than Guinea yet having Australia just twice valuable than Guinea is somewhat justifiable for playability but Australia cannot be same with Guinea. It would totally negate all WWII feelings as much as the Japanese tanks storming Moscow.
If Guinea becomes 2 then Australia should be minimum 4, India 5 or 6, South Africa 3, Egypt 3, Hawaii 2 etc.

-Having both Indian and Australian factories can actually help Japan more then Allies since if Japan concantrated southwest Pacific with East Indies Factories, UK might find itself spending more money than Japan in this area to just defend these factories because the Japanese units will be in range in both factories simultaneously considering USA needs 2 rounds to reinforce Australia.That’s why I’am fine with Indian factory but not with Australian factory.

-A solid way preventing USA going Pacific only is making UK-Russia doomed to fall without strong US assist in Europe. Preventing USA going only Atlantic is uhm… well I do believe not possible in A&A maps with its rules and cost structures. Totally needs redrawings, revaluings, new rules and costings.

-Expensive ships discourage naval investments for both sides when fighters just do well better than them with similar costs. Destroyer is too expensive for even mimic infantry abilities on sea such as blocking, baiting, deadzoning etc. Of course reducing ship costs do not magically create two ocean going USA, it is just one of the indispensible condition to achieve that. The expensive ships also reason too why Germany and Russia don’t build navy either.

Other than the Russian bomber added to the setup, I highly doubt any of my group will want house rules for a game that we just started playing… especially with my history of changing the Global rules… LOL. Nice idea, but I probably won’t be able to introduce house rules until my group gets board of the game in a year or 2 (maybe even 3).

Here are couple rules
Ships at Port:
When moving to a friendly sea zone, ships can choose to enter a friendly territory.  While not at sea, the ships are not subject to combat nor do they interfere or add with any other ship movement, combat, or amphibious assaults.  Movement into the territory is free, but costs 1 MP to leave.  If the territory is captured while ships there, then they are lost (scuttled).  Land units may move to a territory and finish their move on a transport that is also in port.  At that point the transport can sail loaded to the adjacent sea zone.  Once a transport is in the sea zone it can unload as normal.  Ships must leave by the sea zone in which they entered the territory.
Mines vs. Transports: Mine hits on transports can be absorb by loss of a load.

Hmm.  Good point, knp.  I’m beginning to see why Larry chose the start point he did  :-P

Gargantua,  I’m beginning to like your idea of a double impulse for Germany.  It would probably be simpler.  I have a copy of the old Xeno rules, with the regular sized map and the giant blown-up version.  But I hadn’t looked at the rule book in years.

Actually, the more I think about it, there probably wouldn’t be much to gain (in the way of game-play fun) with a Sept. '39 start.  I was originally thinking it would give the Axis a couple of extra turns to shape the battlefield before the US and USSR got into it, in exchange for having to do some extra conquest.  It might also give the French player more options than just getting punched in the groin and being taken out before he can make a single decision.

I think Summer of '42 would be the simplest start point, but it seems so late in the war somehow.  At that point all the decisions that might have made a difference have already been made, and fate has locked everyone in to repeating the historical outcome.  I know the games don’t actually go that way.  It’s just a mental hang-up for me  :-)

Maybe I’ll rethink an idea I had for a Summer of '41 scenario starting with Germany massed on the Soviet border for Barbarossa.  Since a single turn could represent 6 months, Barbarossa could be early on turn 1, and Pearl Harbor could happen right at the end.  That would the need for US entry rules, and most of the neutrals who were historically dragged in would already be in play.

@Cmdr:

@JimmyHat:

Another facet I really liked from A3 was Russia/USA DOW on Germany if London falls.

Agreed.

It will more than likely be included as a part of the “government in exile” UK political situation.

@Imperious:

Yes yes quite right, but if you want people in the ocean you just lower the cost of naval units so they will buy them, and add rules regarding modeling submarine warfare where the subs can attack IPC of nations.

What i saw was one problem that was related to the “double income collection problem” and offered a solution that would seem less painful than the cure that proposed.

That is what I’m sugesting.  I think all naval cost would have to be lowered and new sub rules implemented.  No air only attacks sub detection etc. then subs would be able to target transports with raw materiels in them.  You are right about the double income and I started playing that way after I got my copy of The War Game.  I think a big aspect of the war was moving materiels and this would be a fun option.

another thing this does is eliminate the need for income tracking.  and I also would agree that the cash would have to be dispersed once per round.  I’m not sure if this is and advantage for any one player, I will have to think about it some more.