Ok, here’s a brief summary of my thoughts on the rules after reading through them again.
For this post I’ll refrain from commenting on the map, except to ask why Eire has a Union flag printed on it?
PLUS POINTS
Italy added as new player. Good selection of colour, no nasty yellowy-greeny-tanny rubbish. I prefer Italy to have it’s own turn, but I suppose this might handicap the Axis in Europe.
Japanese & Soviet Xenophobia implemented.
Collect income first. As mentioned above this makes much more sense.
Artillery support shot. I’ve long advocated this, although for a heavy artillery piece.
Battleship rules, i.e. damaged fight at 1/2, repair at IC/Naval base. I’d dump the roll a dice for damage bit, though.
Pass-through rule. Makes sense, but not sure it needs to be quite this complex.
Staggered arrival in battle, i.e. amphibious invaders held up by naval battles arriving late. I use rules like this for Napoleonics and stuff, that is units in territory adjacent to a battle can attempt to march there to engage, and might arrive very late in the battle. Not really applicable in WWII.
MINUS POINTS
(Note that these are not all criticisms, just a comparison with how I’d do things.)
China added as independent power. Can’t buy the idea of China building battleships. Even if we use the fiction of a United China, it was far from an industrial power. I much prefer the idea of rival Chinese factions controlled by the USSR and USA respectively.
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.
Major and minor factories. Don’t see the need for this, just limit production to IPC income of the territory.
Building factories; using captured complexes. Just both completely wrong. When France was liberated the new French army went back to war using American uniforms, vehicles and equipment. It was more efficient to ship them across the Atlantic from established production lines than re-establish French production.
Lend-Lease. This seems too powerful, I prefer a more risky transport-IPC-via-convoy system which the Axis can actively intercept.
As I’ve stated many times before I don’t like the non-combat-movement phase. In war ALL movement of war material is a combat move. I would limit this purely to aircraft landing, and train movement.
Different unit costs per nation. I prefer to reflect this in base IPC income levels.
Artillery/AA gun hybrid. No, sir. The principle role of artillery was to soften up land defences, not shoot down aircraft.
Tank blitz. Can’t believe Jeff couldn’t come up with something better than the obsolete blitz move from official A&A. As I’ve detailed elsewhere something along the lines of a pass-through move for tanks simulates blitzkreig warfare nicely.
Stop-drop transports. Another hangover from ye ancient A&A manual that makes no sense. WHY can’t a transport unload into two territories if able?
Why can’t amphibious assaulting units (or defenders) retreat to sea if they have available transports?
Order of battle. Can’t find this in the rules, but why not just let the defender choose the order in which combats are resolved? OK, after a few plays most people will dump the battleboard, but simultaneously fighting all adjacent battles must get hard to track, especially when considering pass-throughs. Defender decides first eliminates the flanking attack menace much more simply.
Infantry placement seems very powerful; I severely limit this ability with only a few designated depots to be used.
It occurs to me that building ships at sea is absurd. Ships should be built at an IC same as any other unit. The NEXT turn you can “launch” the ship into a neighbouring sea zone, together with cargo if applicable, thus simulating the longer build time of warships.
I agree with Dezrtfish, the pay-money-for-invading-neutrals rule seems like another vestigial leftover from classic. We want neutral armed forces.
The idea of tanks being wiped out by viscious sand dunes and angry mountain ranges is hilarious. Prefer defensive bonuses in combat.