I was referring to sun tzu’s comments and land battles, sorry for any confusion

@Sun_Tzu:

I dont really like the no return fire rule but I like the others

By allowing the defender to shoot back and then retreat there is no downside to retreating so no tactical decision necessary. This also reduces decions making for the attacker, they either sweep in for a one round wipe out or they don’t attack.

I can potentially see allowing the casualties to shoot back and the survivors running without shooting, but I see the same limitations as above

My retreat house rule allows the defender to retreat to an adjacent territory after the inital attack but without returning fire. This represents the attacker sweeping into the TT and the defender regrouping and retreating to avoid further casualties from a protracted battle. It encouraged larger holding forces than the traditional “picket line” of infantry along the front lines and required tactical decisions. I have not tried it withmy new group (moved) but I am going to suggest it next game.

You could also go by unit type so my 7 infantry get one hit and 1 roll @1 etc.

Australia worth 4, money islands each reduced to three.
India not part of Japan’s NO (already a strategic target, no incentive needed).
Pacific NO’s built around zero value islands.
All Chinese TT’s worth zero (necessary money sink for Japan to get rid of thorn, but no real economic benefit).
China go before Japan

The risk that is run with more resistance in Asia is people might just use that extra time to KGF more aggressively so perhaps a minimum Pacific theatre purchase by USA (TT values and any NO’s gained in theatre) to go along with it.

Another way to reflect their speed and relative firepower would be to give them first strike. Every round might be a bit much, but initial round would still be nasty!

I still think my original post of one die per cruiser @1 against air would be my vote. It is simple to implement and remember while maintaining the cruiser role.

Additional movement tends to not really be that wonderful because your fast ships end up without support. (remember the wonderful fast carriers NA from revised?)

Great point about deterring an air attack on your small task forces. +1
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.

mediocre tech would have to be amazingly cheaper to warrant any $ spent on them. Why would I research war bonds over HB? Even at half the price it simply would not make sense. that is the inherrent problem with targeted tech. Now the post about round number available might have some potential because I might want war bonds round 2-3 to help fund my round 5+ big research. As far as round ten, are many of your games gong that long? things tend to be fairly well decided around 4 in our group with perhaps two more rounds to try and stem the tide but either the axis are rolling over russia/asia or the allies have stopped nazi momentum and begun to push back.

The trouble I see with a point system and targeted tech is if there are agreed upon game winning techs, who would bother researching the others? Perhaps more charts?
production (air, land, sea)
improvement (air, land, sea)
That is six possible area to research where each chart could have techs that help different strategies or even ones that counter powerful techs more effectively

To imply that A&A is either a game of luck (w/tech) or a game of stategy (w/o tech) is ridiculous. A&A is a game with both elements and there is also a strategy when playing tech, just different. I (almost) never use chart 2 w/ Germany, more useful techs in chart one, conversly USA is a chart two power usually, you can call this simplistic and non-strategic if you like, but it is a quick and basic example non the less