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.

@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

This is based on the assumption that if one nation gets an arms breakthrough, the odds are that it will be easier for other nations will get it too, by copying it. Â

We have done this before - at the start of the game pass out a “copy” card to each player.

Say your opponent gets something really good like heavy bombers, or the Atomic Bomb or some house rule thing that could wreck you. Roll for an arms breakthrough as normal. If you get a six, instead of rolling for which random breakthrough you get, you now have the option of playing your “copy” card and copying something that is already on the board.

This helps keep the game competitive and less luck driven. It also adds a bit of strategy. Do you want to use your card to copy those super subs now or hold onto it in case someone gets long range aircraft? Decisions, decisions…

For long lists of custom Arms Breakthroughs, pass out two cards each.   Â

The destroyers came with the Central Powers set which is sold out and as far as I know, Jack does not plan to make anymore right now. You may find some on Ebay or here, but there are none left on Fair Play Games…

I like the original idea.  However, I’d also raise the price of the Industrial Complex to 18 IPC. Maybe even as much as 20 IPC.  You’ll recoup that over the next few rounds from increased income from the territory, and you are, in effect, increasing the power of that Industrial Complex by a factorial.  Instead of 2 tanks, you can put out 3 tanks.  Instead of 3 infantry, you can put out 3 infantry and a fighter.  Etc.

And yes, this will most likely help Japan way more then any other nation.  Though, the S. African IC will be a lot more powerful now, if you go that route. mwuhahahaha

You forgot to mention the difference in sub mechanics. By the way, we still keep the house rule of not having planes strafe subs without the presence of destroyers in our game of AAR with my group.

@Cobert:

I like unlimited attacking (in Risk only), it adds an element of surprise since you can attack right into your opponents gut.

Im playing a free-for-all game later tonight.  Im probably going to be Russia, jus to add a challenge.

I sense an early treaty with Germany and a war with the UK in my future…Russia in africa/india might not be a bad idea.

ithink japan will be the most intresting to play. probably most likely to piss everyone off. it has no common enemy everyone except german yis in the grasp of japan. even then if japan want safrica they may start a war. you may have to give up ypu 2 eaxstern countries as appesment. but don’t forget to attack sinkiang first turn.  w.r russia should fall to you to so german should evacuvate it 1st turn.

Would there be any use for some sort of a “avoid detection” roll? For example…an enemy aircraft or vessel enters the same sea zone as your submarine with the intent of sinking it. As a first action, you roll 1 d6 for the “avoid detection” and perhaps on a 1 or a 6 you effectively do just that, you avoid being detected and submerge before getting attacked and sunk. sort of how AA guns get to try to kill planes before an attack, so to can subs avoid the attack all together?Weren’t most sub hunts a result of reports of submarine activity in the area, due to attacks on shipping etc? This was at a time when sub hunting was in it’s infancy, while even today submarines are probably the best nuclear detterent in the world soley because of the difficulty associated with locating them. Sub hunting is still more or less a cat and mouse game of “we know they are in this general region, but the exact location is questionable at best.”. So then the result is alot of activity involving (usually) several ships and aircraft and hundreds of people interperating alot of sonar ping information and visual observations. Alot of work to be, and alot of work can often take alot of time…Perhaps enough time for a good sub Captain to slip away. I am not a specialist at all when in it comes to subs, nor do I claim to be. I am speaking from what I see all the time where I live. I am located in Jacksonville Florida, home of Mayport Naval Base and one of the largest naval concentrations on the eastern seaboard, and just north is Kings Bay Georgia, a very large submarine port. My job keeps me close to the beach all the time and I see them conducting ASW (anti submarine warfare) all of the time. sometimes spending several days on one hunt. Anyway…I’ll stop now since this reply is way too explainatory already…lol… but that’s just my two cents.