You could also go for simultaneous movement.
1. All Axis move
2. All All Allies Move
Japanese may not conduct combat together with Germany and Italy and Russia not with the Western Allies.
Regarding the railroad/convoy roads:  could you make them usable only by the power that controls them at the start? ie-Siberian railway only for Russia, and if Japan takes those territories you would consider that the railway has been destroyed on the Russian pullout. That could be a simple way to handle them, if they were included.
  Regarding rebuilding of them then would have to either not occur at all or occur once all the territories involved were captured for a complete turn. This could be all the territories that are involved, similar to the naval port rules in AAP.
Regarding pushing total timeline back I don’t think it would be a horrible idea to take the US out of play for the first turn. If layout would seem to bring about a potential Pearl Harbor too early.Â
I thought that the Restricted Russia rule from classic accomplished the goal of Germany breaking the non-aggression treaty in a similar way.Â
The more i think about it and look at the map, I am in favor of pushing Germany back towards the Fatherland to start.
You could also go for simultaneous movement.
1. All Axis move
2. All All Allies MoveJapanese may not conduct combat together with Germany and Italy and Russia not with the Western Allies.
yea this really cuts down on time.
Hmm… maybe you could move the play back to 1937… No one is at war until someone attacks someone else. Like England attacks America thru Canada.
Would at least make for a really differnt game.
-jim lee
After my first pass I would have to choose:
1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy
No matter what order is chosen I think Germany and Russia should stay together and Japan should go before the US probably back to back.
If UK goes before Italy that would allow Italy to control East Africa, allowing Mogadishu to be Italy’s fifth victory city. Per Larry’s List
Thought;
If this is set before Pearl Harbor, maybe the setup should place Japanese units in the same square as American at Hawaii. I know after talking with some members of my gaming group they suggested that if they played Japan that they would not attack the Americans to by time. I really don’t like the sound of that. Just putting that out there.
Again, I would skip all those troubles of who goes first, and just use the proposed simultaneous movement per side. And Mogadishu should really be replaced by Addis Ababa. See IL’s list, same point system but better historical cities…
After my first pass I would have to choose:
1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. ItalyNo matter what order is chosen I think Germany and Russia should stay together and Japan should go before the US probably back to back.
If UK goes before Italy that would allow Italy to control East Africa, allowing Mogadishu to be Italy’s fifth victory city. Per Larry’s List
I think that turn order would work fine, however it does raise one issue. By going with a turn order that has Russia moving before Germany, I don’t think the starting setup would end up being compatible with people who want to play an “All-axis move together, then all-allies move together” style game. Granted, no matter what turn order you put together, if you setup the game with 6 seperate turns in mind and then try to switch to a 2 turn game, you’re going to have some issues, however the Russian/German front would be the most glaring. If we went with say…
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States
If you did that it would probably be easier to come up with a starting setup that would be compatible with both styles of the play. The only major spot of concern really would be areas of conflict between UK and Japan, since in a 2-turn system, Japan would get to move before the UK instead of after. Conflict between Russia and Japan would be a potential issue, too, but hopefully the starting setup would be put together in such a manner that neither side would have much ability to go offensive on each other.
If this is set before Pearl Harbor, maybe the setup should place Japanese units in the same square as American at Hawaii. I know after talking with some members of my gaming group they suggested that if they played Japan that they would not attack the Americans to by time. I really don’t like the sound of that. Just putting that out there.
I struggled with the same issue when I put together my map originally. In Axis & Allies: Pacific, there is a special rule that on its first turn, everything that Japan attacks only gets to defend at a 1. This makes Pearl Harbor a very tempting target since all the expensive ships there are easy kills with a defense of only 1. In my map I didn’t use those rules, and instead I tried to compensate by putting less american units at Pearl Harbor, so that the Japanese player would still have an easy time killing everything there. Ideally, I’d like to use as few special rules and non-standard setup procedures as we have to. With the right play testing, I think we can make Hawaii a tempting target with the following…
1. Make sure that Honolulu is an important VC for Japan to go after.
2. With its IC in Hawaii, the USA can add two more units there each turn. If their starting fleet is of the appropriate size, and the Japan player then decides to not attack it, then the US player adding two more ships to the fleet on turn one should make that fleet strong enough to be a major thorn in Japan’s side starting turn 2.
3. Give Japan enough other forces at the start so that they don’t feel as if they really need to bring the Pearl Harbor attack fighters back towards Japan right away.
4. Don’t give the US more than 1 fighter in mainland Hawaii. (I gave them a bomber there, too, in my original setup, but now I think we should maybe take that away.) If Japan feels like the only way to do serious damage at Pearl Harbor is to attack Hawaii itself instead of just the Sea Zone around it, then it becomes less tempting of a target, since attacking the mainland drastically cuts down the range their fighters have when moving away after the battle. (A fighter that only attacks the Sea Zone can make it all the way back to Bonin Island afterwards. A fighter that attacks the Hawaii mainland can only land if one of the Japanese carriers stays close enough to Hawaii to put itself at risk of being sunk on USA turn 1.)
Also, even if Japan were to choose to skip attacking Pearl Harbor, it would be pretty rare for them to skip attacking the Philippines. An attack there, while not as big of deal to most Americans as an attack on Hawaii was, would still probably have been enough for FDR to get America into the war.
Mogadishu
Italian Somaliland was not the focal point of the italian african empire.That was only part of it. The main effort to present legitimacy to the new Italian empire was Abyssinia because it brought the world attention to italy as a new rising power and secondly it came as a result of a major military effort to control. Mogadishu represents nothing to any military involvement until 1991. I think your varient takes the cities where major battles were fought over and uses then to become again the focal point of future battles. However, no military conflict centered around Mogadishu in the second world war. Addis Ababa represents the jewel ( well probably a better word could serve here) of what the invasion of abyssinia became… namely the final statement of saying the “italians have arrived on the world scene as a world power”
Positronica,
Trying to have one setup to accommodate two methods of playing is a lost cause. I think it would be best to decide on a play style and make a setup for it. Then if it is not too much trouble have a setup for the other style. My preference would be to make a turn based system with a setup. Then list the modifications to that setup to allow for simultaneous movement.
I like the idea of simultaneous movement, but I know a few of the older guys in my game group would not like it and would probably turn down an opportunity to try this new version due to it. They like slow and steady, gives them time to think, I guess.
Micoom,
I like the idea of simultaneous movement as an option, but would also like to discuss/decide on a turn based system to allow a more traditional A&A play style as well.
If we go with Italy in Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa instead of Mogadishu is fine by me.
1. Germany/ Italy
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom/ United States
How bout something unique?
This simulates a number of things at the same time. Items 1 and 4 play together, while 2 and 3 are seperate. Also youll note the Japanese play before UK and this should be true because they are the aggressors, while UK was in no position to begin the game attacking Japan in any way.
If you think about this youll see some value in this approach.
How bout this:
1.Germany should go first. they are THE aggressor
2 Which ever ally gets attacked first goes next. Between UK and Russia
3. Japan The other Major aggressor
4. Russia or UK depending on who went 2nd
5. Italy
6. USA Should go last in whatever turn order you are using. If the Americans are not aggressed during first turn, they may not make any moves for the first turn only. China may however act normally as they would, and purchase Inf. with US $. The US Spends and Collects for the first turn only, Half of their IPC production, only If they have not been aggressed. This is FIRST TURN ONLY.
If Germany decides not to attack either Russia or UK it’s first turn, Russia cannot perform combat moves against the Axis Powers ( first turn only ) Also England cannot Attack Japan on first turn even If Germany Attacks UK. UK is not at war with JPN yet. UK is however at war with Germany 1st turn. But during first turn if japan attacks UK and UK goes 4th then UK may attack Imperial JPN.
When turn two comes about every nation may act normally in all turn phases.
I figure if you are a leader of a nation and you were not attacked directly, why would you jump right into the frey. You would sit back a moment and plan and watch what every one else is doing.
This turn sequence is based on a pre barbarossa, post Blitzkrieg of France. Lets assume Dunkirk just happened and England is Recovering for a moment licking her wounds. And no other nation other then Italy, Germany and UK are officially at war in the West and JPN and China in the East.
I like IL’s turn order better! The UK and US really planned their actions together for most part of the War, as did the German and Italians. And DH 420, what happens if Germany attacks both the UK and Russia? Which one will go first then? And BTW I think UK should not move before Japan anyway…
Yea UK should not move before Japan… Uk was on the ropes in 42. Germany attacking Russia saved the Brits. I cant see how UK is able to mount an offensive against the axis on turn one.They should be reacting to the axis. And they should play with USA
The country that gets Physically attacked or rolled against first will then be the second country to go. And if UK does go before JPN, UK is restricted in the fact they are not at war with JPN and can’t attack the Japs. until turn 2 when every nation no matter what happens in the first round may act normally.
Technically at the starting point i Mentioned above, JPN is only at war with China, and Germany, Italy are at war with UK due to various treaties with Poland and France.
Yes UK was on the ropes in 42 and being restricted as I have them, it will represent this.
Imp,
I like your turn sequence. My only concern is combined movement/combat may lead to balance issues.
Deaths Head 420,
Your turn sequence is way too complicated. The turn sequence should not have an If statement in it.
Another thing,
If we can bend space/time for the map, we can do the same for the turn sequence. Don’t get too hung up on who was the aggressor or what state the UK was in for turn 1. It’s only one turn of many. I think game mechanics/balance should be the driving force when determining the turn order.
Welll try my idea on your next playtest. Uk attacking or rather ‘crashing’ her fleet and exchange with japanese is also an imbalance because the axis are supposed to start as the aggressors.
Hey its been 2 days, where’d everyone go?
-jim lee
Im here as allways… not sure what happened… perhaps hes making a few more changes.
Dont worry this thing happened to AARHE a few times.
So I have this new game idea…
-jim lee
