Change for Tech Rolls

@Gargantua:

I agree with LB.

Infantry spam would be the way to go.

I used to be able to buy 6 inf, OR a battleship.  now I can buy 16 inf…  Same for tanks as LB mentioned… 4 inf to 1 tank, instead of 2.

This was enough of a probably in classic, that some people said “Infantry breaks the game”.

The other concept you could try… divide all current costs by 1/2, and make it mandatory to buy 2 infantry for $3.  You could also pick an arbitrary number for tac’s.  (honestly they should cost the same as fighters, they are no better or worse).  Make transports cost 4.

Theoretically, the dice effect on the game would diminish, because you’d have so many units on the board… but then managing units, or the “potential” of units - like when trying to calculate if you can defend your capital, become burdensome.

Yeah I know how much inf they will be, Russia buys 36 Infantry every turn.

@Variable:

I may try this for AA41.

Yeah, this would be great for aa41, cause the units will be so little, like germany attacking with 7 Infantry, 3 tanks, 2 fighters.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22164.0

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.

We have a new Tech  for AA 1942  The USAF has a new MOAB  ( mother of all bombs  )  It is a 21,000 pound MOAB  whish is replacing the 15,000 pound ( Daisy cutter ) which was used in Iraq and afghanistan.  I feel sorry for any that gets hit by this.  But remember  WAR IS UGLY

This can be a great asset to any world power that gets its hands on this baby.  this is truely a game ender

I have included a pic of the MOAB

Good luck all
MOAB.jpg

Anyone tinker with the setup, in order to make the game less linear?

We’re finding  that G1 and J1 pretty much open the exact same every game, decimating allied navies then G going heavy armor.

My buddy has come up with an interesting house rule which we are going to try out next time.  Its a bit complex, but in a nutshell the setup is kinda “Risklike,” in that you alternate unit placement.  Each county has so many IPC’s to spend and you can purchase and place what/where you want; with limitations of course.  You cant just place crap randomly all over the place.  You’ll need to start in countries controlled a the start and adjacent sea zones.  This gives players the option to go heaveir navy or air, or whatever.

I know, it pretty much takes away from historical accuracies, but thats alright.  The idea was to change the opening setup, allow for new strategies and make the game a bit less linear for us.

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)

@dezrtfish:

Canned Factories allows factories to be moved 1 territory per turn. On the turn the factory is moved it may not produce units. Cost of new factories is reduced to 12Ipcs.

So do the moved factories still count as originals?

Otherwise, excellent!

the game never was realistic, i was just saying those prices would change the strategies and mix it up…