Magic and tactics Unlimited middle east, anyone used it?

It sounds like you might enjoy Risk: Europe! It’s available for only about $30, and it features free-for-all battles across the old world of europe with a more complicated economy and army structure than classic Risk.

I don’t think the A&A 1914 board is well-suited to a random objective deck…you’d be investing a lot of time in fiddly setup, beancounting, etc. only to have someone win all of a sudden because they had an easier-than-expected objective card that they drew at random, or because you guessed wrong about what their objective card was and blocked them out of the wrong territory.

Yes the Negotiations Chart and Research chart are both included in the 7.0 production chart here about halfway down the page:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34496.30

1. Yes
2. No

Here is where I got this idea above:
@Baron:

@aequitas:

I would not play around with the cost and the abillity of the Bmbrs.
I would rather consider a change of Naval surface ships abilities like:

Cruiser’s and BB’s have the ability of AA guns for one round.
After that regular combat.

What do you think?

I play with 1 preemptive AA shots per Cruiser and Battleship.
It is not enough IMO.

I like this new idea from Wittmann of a basic A2 boost to A4 if paired 1:1 with 1 Fg or 1 TcB.
Better reflect some limitations of Bomber, specially against Naval.

In my mind this gives:
StB A2-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg or TcB gives +2 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.

I forgot, but I also suggested these straighter ones, no combined arms:
STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A3 D2 M6 +1M with AB
SBR Damage 1D6+2

TACTICAL BOMBER
11 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1M with AB
TBR damage 1D6

@Baron:

@theROCmonster:

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

In that case, I would live with a more strategic target oriented bomber:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 2D6
Attack 1

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

Such Strategic bomber should combined arms with Fighter to give an increase range to re-enact long range escorting mission. Just suppose that pairing with StBs is like adding drop tanks to Fighter to get an increased range for such mission. When starting from Air Base, this can simulate special long range aircraft such as P-51 Mustang.

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2 or 3, if paired 1:1 with Fg
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6 +2
Attack 1
**StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus when attacking the same TTy, in NCM Fighter can reach  another TTy than escorted StB.

Strategic bomber gets +1A bonus from a matching Fighter.**

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4-6, +1 with Air Base and +1M paired 1:1 with Strat Bomber
Fighter gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

This last idea coming from this post:

@Baron:

Thinking about a way to make StBs and Fgs complementary units, here is a special combined arms:
StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus during SBR phase only.
Fg gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
That way, Fg starting from AB would do long range escorting mission.

And tactical bomber can have high attack value and a special Blitzkrieg attack with Tank:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4 * first strike, paired 1:1 with Tank
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1
*Blitzkrieg : if paired 1:1 with Tank, gets a single first strike attack on first combat round.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

What about the old AA guns as light AA, 1 die roll, and the new ones as heavies, 2 die rolls?

@CWO:

@knp7765:

My only complaint would be that your air bases have a jet plane symbol, but I could still live with that.

From what I can see, it’s not actually a jet but rather a picture of a bomber showing the fuselage and wings but not the engines.

Thanks for the support, but who are we kiding? they’re comercial jets.

How about making it, if you don’t controll an oil rich territory, all unit movemt, except INF and ART (they could use horses for that) have only half their movement, and may not blitz.

MECH, ARM, BB, DD,TP and SS move only 1
CV,CA and fig move 2
BOMBERS move 3

Could also be used in AAR and if defined also AARHE…  Just define oil rich territories first.