You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.
OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos :-P )
And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”
They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
That ship got a lucky hit in the wrong place, besides the hood was one of a kind.
A true Heavy Cruiser can take more punishment, its supposed to fight anything up to battleships and if it faded with one salvo, it would have no use relative to its cost/value.
The hood was a battle cruiser and this means a fast moving hybrid battleship class guns but with light armor plating to get the high speeds.
You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.
OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos :-P )
And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”
Im almost positive that there will have to be an at least slight change to the map to accommodate for Italy as a power. Splitting them up on the current map would make Germany too weak and make Italy almost useless.
I am sure that at least 5-12 new territories.
More than one in france
More than one in Balkans
More than one in Italy
Something in Russia should be changed
More in South East Asia
More in China ( like 4 new ones total 6 like AARHE 1939)
@Imperious:
They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
That ship got a lucky hit in the wrong place, besides the hood was one of a kind.
A true Heavy Cruiser can take more punishment, its supposed to fight anything up to battleships and if it faded with one salvo, it would have no use relative to its cost/value.
The hood was a battle cruiser and this means a fast moving hybrid battleship class guns but with light armor plating to get the high speeds.
Then should there be perhaps two cruiser classes, a battlecruiser at 3/3/12, one hit, bombard, and heavy cruiser at 3/3/18, two hits, bombard?
Well you know these are going to show up right after Deluxe shows up.
But id place all these units on D12 at that point so that each nation has different values for its ships anyway.
Also light and heavy cruisers are more accurate, because only really Uk and Germany had Battlecruisers, while the Alaska class battleship was a battlecruiser, and most of the British design japanese battleships were in fact battlecruisers. However this class is far less in numbers than either light or heavy cruisers.
Id give the battlecruisers a 3 attack and 2 defence, but moves 3 and takes 2 hits cost 15-16
Heavy cruisers at 3/3/2 take 2 hits cost 12-14
Light cruisers 2/3/2/ take one hit cost 10-12
Destroyers 2/2/2 one hit cost 8-10
No naval unit except the carrier should defend better than it attacks.
yes admittedly, problem with overload on D6 system. Thats why its only good for few pieces
Why should the carrier defend better than it attacks?
carrier should be a 1/1/$14/1 hit. they sucked in battle, there strenght was and is not in it’s guns (how few it has) but in it’s air power.
Cruser should be better then a destroyer, but i don’t think it warants 2 hits, i think it should be more like 3/3/$15/1 hit/ Bambard on a 2/ move 3.
DD 3/3/$12/1 hit/ negate subs. no extra stuff.
BB all the same as normal just $20.
subs stay the same.
it’s not big changes but makes the navy work better IMHO. now short of play testing no idea can be said to work best. i realy need that job, play tester for games :-)
this is a picture of the front cover of the game
Nice finding…but is this for real?
I have to say this cover looks a little strange to me…looks more like the Milton Bradley cover than the recent Axis & Allies covers… Would like to read Larry’s comments on this one…
The cover is a lot of fun and covers quite an extensive array of people. However, I agree with Dagon81 and that it looks out of place with all of the current box covers for A&A. It does harken back to the MB edition and maybe they are trying to capture some anniversary nostalgia.
carrier should be a 1/1/$14/1 hit. they sucked in battle, there strenght was and is not in it’s guns (how few it has) but in it’s air power.
This.
I believe that cover could be real, I would think that for an anniversary edition they would try to make it look more like the old game.
Cobert i think your quoting the wrong person as my statment had nothing to do with the cover (it was before he posted the link :wink:)
No, I was agreeing with your 1/1 carrier and the other statement was in response to something different, I was just too lazy to quote the person talking about the cover.
ok i see, it just looked to me as you were on one thought.
Carriers should be revised to 0/1/12. They are basically transports for airplanes, after all.
Thread is moving off topic.
Continuation of the matter of changing AC values should be moved to House Rules area.
Not really, since the new version would provide for the changing of such values.
