Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)

Use dukes info on the units. but usa gets cheap bombers not cheap carriers.

What is the historical basis for this cheap bomber idea? Did you see that US built like 141 CVs vs. the other nations’ approx. 10 each? Should we ignore this huge difference when trying to simulate mass production? The difference with bomber aircraft is not that great compared to difference for CVs.

How about we put in writing our line of reasoning for choosing a national unit so we are not all over the place. Once we agree on the method for choosing the unit, actually choosing the unit will just be looking up facts (easy).
Here is my proposed logic for how we should pick the unit. Your opinions on this are needed.

1. Only 1 unit per nation (for perceived balance).
2. A different type of unit for each nation (for perceived differences among nations as well as for enjoyment for players).
3. If a nation made 1 type of unit disproportionately more than either their economy would allow or more than other nations produced them, then that should be its national unit.
4. If a nation made more than 1 type of unit disproportionately more, then choose the unit based on how much more and also to not contradict number 2 above.
5. If a nation didn’t produce 1 type of unit disproportionately more (significantly more), then choose the unit based on a unique flare or fame (like kamikaze planes).

Here is an idea that is very different from the topic at hand, but what if we have all air units that don’t move in combat phase in a given turn can move up to their max in non-combat, land temporarily, then move up to their max again? Would that be realistic? I think a fighter should be able to move 4, refuel, and move 4 again in the time of whatever a turn represents. This would be realistic and more fun. Opinions?

No, this is all in the non-combat move phase only.

Combat with air units is the same.

If an air unit doesn’t move in combat move phase then in non-combat it can move it’s max (like 4 for fighter) land for literally 1 second (in game time) and more it’s max again.

It basically moves double in non-combat than in combat (but it has to land in middle of total movement so it doesn’t get unrealistic range if the enemy owns half the world)

This idea is same as Mideast Oil in OOB rules except doesn’t just apply to the mideast.

I don’t think a fighter should conduct combat AND go anywhere it wants to. 1 or the other. The problem with saying that if it doesn’t do combat, then it can go anywhere in the world is that you could have a fighter move 10 spaces even if no territory it flies over is friendly. Is it realistic to have a fighter fly over 10 hostile territories in a row? No. It needs to refuel somehow. That’s why I think we need the 4 and 4 thing.

attacking and going anywhere is too good. not good for game balance. you need non-combat restriction after combat.

i think german fighter should be able to take off from s. europe and attack trans-jordan only if they can land 1 away, like in egypt. how do you restrict the attack only if you occupy egypt if there is unlimited non-combat move after combat?

Germany:
They were able to make alot of subs ( not because they were cheaper) but because it was an important function of their strategy against UK… so allow those 6 IPC subs… or use the Xeno rule of one free sub per turn?

We need some extra incentive so they can be a national unit advantage. What should the advantage be?
cheap (what we have now)?
attack at 3 (too powerful perhaps, also not relaistic)?
can be placed on board not just adjacent to IC but up to 3 spaces away from IC? (interesting, but we’d have to justify the realism)
other advantage?

Japan:

naval fighters or carrier based fighters would be something that could be done…

battleships could also be done… they loved their battlewagens or destroyers… transports i dont see this. sorry

transports has been off the design board for some time. i’ll look into destroyers and battleships. that could be interesting.

USA:

Liberty ships ( transports) 2 for 14 IPC?

second choice is carriers or bombers   they churned out many more carriers (escort class) than anybody else, but liberty ships were by far the easy choice for them…

liberty ships are convoy ships. didn’t we say that transport units are only for military units and not commerce?

i don’t get what you are saying. that is too powerful to attack with a fighter and land anywhere.

Liberty ships transport the supplies to fight the war. The transport is a needed piece and USA made them better than anybody why cant they be used as the cheaper unit? Bombers are fine too but they are not as needed as cheaper trannys. Liberty ships can transport tanks and men too.

I’m sure they are capable of carrying military units like that, but I didn’t think they brought them into battle. The transport units are amphibious assaulting ships and craft, right? So liberty ships wouldn’t qualify. Can you bring a liberty ship into an amphibious assualt, like in D-day? I don’t think you can.

New Idea!

Every nation gets 1 free IPC per turn to spend on ground units (inf excluded), 2 free IPCs per turn to spend on air units, and 3 free IPCs per turn to spend on naval units.

This is to promote a more diverse purchasing strategy.

I think the rule in the last post will have to be reworded so that it incorporates easier into the game but i think the basic idea is still good. maybe we could make it simpler by saying the first 2 IPCs used for ground troops built in an IC, air units and naval units each turn are free. if you don’t buy a unit in any of the categories, then you lose the 2 free IPCs.

Here’s another idea I just came up with that could compliment this rule… infantry cost depends where they are placed.

infantry placed in capital cost 2 each.
infantry placed in VC contiguously connected to capital cost 3 each.
infantry placed in VC not contiguously connected to capital cost 4 each.

infantry max still equals the number of VCPs (5 for Russian German and Japanese capitals, 3 for US and UK capitals and all major VCs, etc…).

Unlimited non-combat air move
No I don’t think we should have that. Unlimited is bad.
Just give them LRA ranges but in non-combat move only.
Weaken LRA slightly but LRA has been given fighter escort anyway. Of course LRA has longer range in combat move also.

@Imperious:

If a turn is 3-6 months and it takes one day to fly over germany from uk
and drop bombs, then i dont see how a plane could not “get” to any other controlled territory during the
time of ONE turn.

I don’t like that arguement. 3-6 months…the same can be said for tanks really. But letting them travel
from China to Europe would be a huge change.
By the way I don’t think its 3-6months per turn but round?

National Unit

I feel each nation should have two things that are cheaper not just one.

For Russia it seems necessary now.

Russia: Roll d6 for number of 2 IPC infantries. Roll d6 for number of 4 IPC tanks.

Germany: 6 IPC submarines

Japan: Cheap fighters sounds good. Those paper thin Zeros that are so agile.

UK: Cheap fighters also realistic here. Don’t mind the old destroyers rule either.

US: Lets do the Essex CV then, 13 IPC, one hit. Otherwise for the expensive (I think 10 better not 14 IPC) Liberty Transport let them “1 land unit + 2 infantry” instead of “1 land unit +  1 infantry”?

We kept getting sidetracked into new ideas…
Lets focus on finalising phase1.

Is this correct?

Our Plan:
Phase1: Income, Production, National Units, Team Victory Condition, Non-combat Game Sequence
Phase2: Technology, National Advantage, Units, National Victory Condition
Phase3: Land combat, Naval combat