Lets fix up these rules once and for all

[series]

I think the only way to make the ultimate rule set is if we find problems, sit down, and fix them all together, then get someone to type it up, and possibly even present it to Avalon Hill and say "This is what the rules need to have!" Let me begin listing the problems...
1. Pearl Harbor 2
2. JTDTM
3. Islands lack importance
4. KGF/IJ (ignore Japan) is too easy for the allies.
5. Most major changes affect historical accuracy.
6. We want A&A to be simple.
7. The Axis were at their height in 1942, so giving the allies more VCs then them would be extremely ahistorical (a side note for anyone suggesting to make the game start at a 9-6 condition)

If anyone else has any problems, lets list them. Then, lets fix them. Let us all pool together to create a final rule set to eliminate all of these problems. Together, we have the strength to do this!

[Vollick1979]

I have a problem, not everyone agrees with you (or me for that matter) on the problems with the game. Everyone is going to have their own *ultimate* ruleset. So consensus (even a mild one) is going to be next to impossible.

series as much as I disagree with almost (note i said almost) everything you post, you post so much material that eventually a good idea comes along.

But the one point I would like to explain to you series is your number 7 in your list of problems. Simply because one side starts with more VC than the other does not mean it's *extremely ahistorical* it does not mean the game is not fair. I equate it to a game of chess where both players have exchanged several pieces. One player may be in a better position even though they have fewer pieces. So simply because the Axis start with only 6 VC's they are in a far better position to capture the Allied VC's. Hope this gets you off your *ahistorical* rant.

[pagan]

1. Pearl Harbor 2
--> VictoryCity Honolulu ; VC Australia ; (VC Stalingrad)

2. JTDTM
--> Do NOT inhibit this strategy. Just don't allow it to be the only viable strategy. Inhibiting this strategy makes it an Unviable strategy. We should not try to control the paths of the countries industrial machines.

3. Islands lack importance
--> yes they do. More value for islands. Not necessarily Japanese Islands, but USA/UK pacific islands. Increase their values + add VCs then you have a reason for Japan to go for a sea war. This does wonders for the german partner if USA spends even a small amount trying to stem the pacific japan. IPC gains should be close to the Asia IPC gains (excluding India) as a top of my head idea.

4. KGF/IJ (ignore Japan) is too easy for the allies.
--> ignoring japan allows the JapaneseTankDashToMoscow. Again, making it worth the japan effort to be able to get VCs in the pacific + IPC economy would allow Japan to spread two-fold. In fact, it would be utter suicide for the allies to allow japan to leisurely take islands and build the JTDTM by ignoring them.

5. Most major changes affect historical accuracy.
--> i like strategic play. the games will have multiple fronts with sparse IPC stacks fighting out the gameplan of the Country's owner. If japan wants to go for HBs all game then so be it. Controlling the play of a country is counter-productive. (I.E... russia can't build 3 BBs! we should make it so they can't do that ; japan didn't own africa, we should disallow them in some way..)

6. We want A&A to be simple.
--> the game design is simple. the standing rules are simple. SOME modification (aka HouseRules) are simplistic. Some simply do not apply.

7. The Axis were at their height in WWII, so giving the allies more VCs then them would be extremely ahistorical (a side note for anyone suggesting to make the game start at a 9-6 condition)
--> all I care about is gameplay. Making germany stronger equtes to Doom for the USSR. Forcing to allies to take on 2 axis countries and not 1 is the key I think.

[series]

I have a problem, not everyone agrees with you (or me for that matter) on the problems with the game. Everyone is going to have their own *ultimate* ruleset. So consensus (even a mild one) is going to be next to impossible.That's the point though. If we all decide what ticks us off and fix them so that almost everyone is happy, it will work. Sure sometimes people have contradicting opinions, but theres always compromises. And even though you claim axis start in a better position, that doesn't matter. That position will last for maybe 3 or 4 rounds when the allies income catches up to them and pummels them. So if the allies start with more vcs, the axis will get some, but by the time they can reach a win, the allied income will make this impossible.

[series]

1. Pearl Harbor 2
--> VictoryCity Honolulu ; VC Australia ; (VC Stalingrad)

2. JTDTM
--> Do NOT inhibit this strategy. Just don't allow it to be the only viable strategy. Inhibiting this strategy makes it an Unviable strategy. We should not try to control the paths of the countries industrial machines.

3. Islands lack importance
--> yes they do. More value for islands. Not necessarily Japanese Islands, but USA/UK pacific islands. Increase their values + add VCs then you have a reason for Japan to go for a sea war. This does wonders for the german partner if USA spends even a small amount trying to stem the pacific japan. IPC gains should be close to the Asia IPC gains (excluding India) as a top of my head idea.

4. KGF/IJ (ignore Japan) is too easy for the allies.
--> ignoring japan allows the JapaneseTankDashToMoscow. Again, making it worth the japan effort to be able to get VCs in the pacific + IPC economy would allow Japan to spread two-fold. In fact, it would be utter suicide for the allies to allow japan to leisurely take islands and build the JTDTM by ignoring them.

5. Most major changes affect historical accuracy.
--> i like strategic play. the games will have multiple fronts with sparse IPC stacks fighting out the gameplan of the Country's owner. If japan wants to go for HBs all game then so be it. Controlling the play of a country is counter-productive. (I.E... russia can't build 3 BBs! we should make it so they can't do that ; japan didn't own africa, we should disallow them in some way..)

6. We want A&A to be simple.
--> the game design is simple. the standing rules are simple. SOME modification (aka HouseRules) are simplistic. Some simply do not apply.

7. The Axis were at their height in WWII, so giving the allies more VCs then them would be extremely ahistorical (a side note for anyone suggesting to make the game start at a 9-6 condition)
--> all I care about is gameplay. Making germany stronger equtes to Doom for the USSR. Forcing to allies to take on 2 axis countries and not 1 is the key I think.
I agree with what you have to say about #7 (they should have to take on 2 countries) and I completely agree with #2: This strategy should still exist, but you have to admit, the Japanese have no reason to invade in almost all the games. And its the japanese islands i feel should be important btw, after all, what nation was the lead island hopper? the usa.

[pagan]

If you put VCs in the Pcific for Japan to 'go-get', then you are allowing the chance for an AXIS team effort to win the game. Yes there is a reason then to go into the pacific.

Without the VCs the only reason for Japan to go East (into pacific) is to force an IPC delay in the USA. However paltry that may sound, it still helps germany a bit.

I do admit to your premise though, that the pacific is unimportant to win the game for either the Axis or the Allies in the basic AAR ruleset.

[TrimChris]

I really think that Cousin Joe's rule set fixes virtually all of these issues. I haven't seen any major complaints about it so far.

[series]

If you put VCs in the Pcific for Japan to 'go-get', then you are allowing the chance for an AXIS team effort to win the game. Yes there is a reason then to go into the pacific.

Without the VCs the only reason for Japan to go East (into pacific) is to force an IPC delay in the USA. However paltry that may sound, it still helps germany a bit.

I do admit to your premise though, that the pacific is unimportant to win the game for either the Axis or the Allies in the basic AAR ruleset.
What I did was give the Axis and Allies 10 VCs each, with an equal amount in both europe/africa and the pacific/asia. It worked well, because you needed success in both theatres to win, and it really incorporated teamwork. However, some people think 20 is too big a number and get afraid of it.

[series]

I really think that Cousin Joe's rule set fixes virtually all of these issues. I haven't seen any major complaints about it so far.
You haven't seen many of my posts I guess. "Enhanced" is way too restricting for me. Tell me, is a standard rule allowing the british and americans to assault only western europe at the same time very restricting or very very restricting? I'm not quite sure myself. The point is, "Enhanced" takes away something I loved in A&A- the options. So lets keep enhanced out of this thread shall we? After all, I think LHTR takes away from the game. An enhanced version of LHTR just enhances what is taken away.

[Attila the Wolf]

The simplest and smallest rule changes are the best. If revised VCs does it, then that's all that's needed. I'm deadset against all the revision (crap, IMO) that I see on the board. That isn't tweaking; it's writing a whole new rulebook and it isn't A&A.

The only real problems I consistently see are the *** tanks on Moscow and the KGF from the Allies. What we need is a very simple way to alleviate this problem and make the game more balanced (in truth, I'm not convinced the game is broken but for the sake of argument I'll go along with it).

What we don't need are entire sets of "revised" rule books that fundamentally change the game. I know when I play the last thing I want is to do is to have to figure out which set of rules we're playing by.

The law of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) should rule.

[Scott_WAR]

KGF and JTDTM is solvable by making the pacific a must fight area for both the americans and the japanese. If the US has to fight in the pacific, then it isnt able to commit nearly as much to europe (A navy costs a lot), thus KGF isnt as attractive. If the USA has to be in the pacific this will force the japanese to respond with more in the pacific, thus the I.C.'s and tanks wont come nearly as soon and fast, making JTDTM less effective as well.

The problem is, how to force the US and Japanese to fight in the pacific? Especially if you want minimal changes in the rules/board.

[Attila the Wolf]

That sounds like one of the best encapsulations of the problem I've seen to date.

[Doctor Strategy]

Maybe Port Moresby should become a VC.

Battle of the Coral Sea
Conflict World War II - Pacific War
Date May 4 -- May 8, 1942
Place Coral Sea, between Australia, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands
Result Tactical Japanese victory, strategic Allied victory

Combatants: Japan had 2 large carriers,1 small carrier, 4 cruisers United States, Australia had 2 large carriers, 3 cruisers


Casualties: Japan lost 1 small carrier 1 destroyer and 3,500 men US,Australia lost 1 large carrier 1 destroyer 1 oil tanker and 540 men

Significance: In tactical terms, the Japanese had had a narrow victory: one small carrier lost and a large carrier damaged, against the loss of a large carrier and equivalent damage to another. But from the Allied point of view, after five months of continuous defeat, a battle that came out almost even was close enough to a victory as not to matter.

The seabourne invasion of Port Moresby was averted. Moresby was vital to Allied strategy, and could not have been defended by the ground forces then stationed there. The loss of Port Moresby may well have meant the loss of Australia, and would certainly have been a dreadful blow to the Allied cause. Without a toehold in New Guinea, the subsequent Allied advance, difficult though it was, would have been much harder still. As a result of the Coral Sea battle, the Japanese were forced to attempt taking Moresby overland. The consequent delay was just long enough to permit the arrival of veteran AIF soldiers to fight the Kokoda Track campaign, which in turn relieved pressure on Guadalcanal.

[Drax Kramer]

Why New Guinea and not Australia?


Drax

[Attila the Wolf]

I dunno how many new VCs are needed, but I think Australia is almost a given. Probably Hawaiian Islands too. While Port Moresby might have been a major battle, I don't think it was a strategic target in the way that those other two islands were.

[Scott_WAR]

Well, the problem I see with hawaii and australia as VC's is that unless Japan makes an effort to take them, the allies dont have to defend them, meaning they can go on with their usual strat (KGF) which naturally leaves Japan with its usual strat (JTDTM). If australia is a VC, will Japan see it as being valuable enough to even bother spending IPC's to take, instead of using them to build up the IC's and tanks. Unless losing australia is a REAL loss for the allies, Japan will probably not bother with it.
This brings us to the next step, which would be altering the map and IPC values for australia to make it really worth fighting over. But, as stated before, we dont want to make drastic changes.
So now what? I am beginning to think to make a game like we are all looking for here is going to take a different change than we are used to. Instead of changing the map, or the setup, or any of the rules, how about the addition of one rule. The U.S. must place units equal to at least half, IPC wise, of what it purchases each round in the Pacific. Naturally, the amount, half, is adjustable since I just pulled it out of.......well...thin air.
My immediate concern is whether the US player will actually use these units in the Pacific, or will he just use the canal to bring them east.

[Doctor Strategy]

Well, the problem I see with hawaii and australia as VC's is that unless Japan makes an effort to take them, the allies dont have to defend them, meaning they can go on with their usual strat (KGF) which naturally leaves Japan with its usual strat (JTDTM). If australia is a VC, will Japan see it as being valuable enough to even bother spending IPC's to take, instead of using them to build up the IC's and tanks. Unless losing australia is a REAL loss for the allies, Japan will probably not bother with it.
This brings us to the next step, which would be altering the map and IPC values for australia to make it really worth fighting over. But, as stated before, we dont want to make drastic changes.
So now what? I am beginning to think to make a game like we are all looking for here is going to take a different change than we are used to. Instead of changing the map, or the setup, or any of the rules, how about the addition of one rule. The U.S. must place units equal to at least half, IPC wise, of what it purchases each round in the Pacific. Naturally, the amount, half, is adjustable since I just pulled it out of.......well...thin air.
My immediate concern is whether the US player will actually use these units in the Pacific, or will he just use the canal to bring them east.

You are so right Scott. There is not an easy way to change the fact that no one wants to go after the Pacific. You try and come up with something and they say that it isn't historical. There are lots of other things on the board that are also not historical, they rarely complain about this. Adding VCs will not help toward this end entirely by themselves. Most people have the cash mentality and some people myself included never play unless it is a total victory by taking out the capitals. So VCs don't impress me much. However I would support moving some victory cities but not just creating more. Hawaii could be a victory city instead of Los Angeles. Japan actually attempted to attack Hawaii twice. The first attempt was to slow the US naval response as they were wise in realizing the US industrialization far surpassed their own. The second time was: The Battle of Midway, fought in World War II, took place on June 5, 1942 (June 4 in US time zones). The United States Navy defeated a Japanese attack against Midway Atoll, marking a turning point in the war in the Pacific theatre.
Fought just a month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway was the turning point of the Pacific Campaign. Skill, daring, and luck all played a part. The attack on the island of Midway, which also included a feint to Alaska by a smaller fleet, was a ploy by the Japanese to draw the American carrier fleet into a trap. With the remaining American ships destroyed, the Japanese hoped to avenge the bombing of the Japanese home islands during Tokyo Air Raid, finish off the US Pacific Fleet, and perhaps even invade and take Hawaii.
In addition, considerable academic debate has centered on whether Japan could or would have threatened attack against the US West Coast. Had the Japanese achieved their objective at Midway of a quick knock-out of the US Pacific Fleet, the US West Coast would have been substantially defenseless against the Japanese Navy. The remaining US naval ships were fully deployed halfway around the world in the North Atlantic. One academic camp stresses that regional conquest, and not conquest of North America, was the Japanese objective; another argues that is irrelevant, and that threatened or actual attacks on the US West Coast would have caused the US either to sue for peace, or divert military assets away from Europe, thereby at best lengthening the war in the European theater, and at worst allowing Germany to prevail.

I still think the US will steam through the Panama Canal and pass go. Go for Germany that is.

[DocD]

I really think that Cousin Joe's rule set fixes virtually all of these issues. I haven't seen any major complaints about it so far.
I have to agree wholehardedly here Trim.
As a matter of fact, The Japanese may even be endangering their chances if they go after Russia first! I guess it would hinge on Britian getting enough reinforcements to India before the Russian assualt payed off for the Japanese....interesting to say the least. I can't wait to play another game and maybe test that theory.

[DocD]

You haven't seen many of my posts I guess. "Enhanced" is way too restricting for me. Tell me, is a standard rule allowing the british and americans to assault only western europe at the same time very restricting or very very restricting? I'm not quite sure myself. The point is, "Enhanced" takes away something I loved in A&A- the options. So lets keep enhanced out of this thread shall we? After all, I think LHTR takes away from the game. An enhanced version of LHTR just enhances what is taken away.
Well series, the Dday assault in the enhanced version just reflects history and it is optional. As early as 1942, the UK and US knew in order to win the war they were going to have to land troops on Hitler's Europe. The question was when and where and other details. I like the Dday assault being a standard
option. It reflects the cooperation the Allies had to have to win the game.
And besides, the Germans get the Atlantic wall as a standard rule as a counter.

[DocD]

The simplest and smallest rule changes are the best. If revised VCs does it, then that's all that's needed. I'm deadset against all the revision (crap, IMO) that I see on the board. That isn't tweaking; it's writing a whole new rulebook and it isn't A&A.

The only real problems I consistently see are the *** tanks on Moscow and the KGF from the Allies. What we need is a very simple way to alleviate this problem and make the game more balanced (in truth, I'm not convinced the game is broken but for the sake of argument I'll go along with it).

What we don't need are entire sets of "revised" rule books that fundamentally change the game. I know when I play the last thing I want is to do is to have to figure out which set of rules we're playing by.

The law of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) should rule.
I couldn't have said that better myself!

[DocD]

Maybe Port Moresby should become a VC.

Battle of the Coral Sea
Conflict World War II - Pacific War
Date May 4 -- May 8, 1942
Place Coral Sea, between Australia, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands
Result Tactical Japanese victory, strategic Allied victory

Combatants: Japan had 2 large carriers,1 small carrier, 4 cruisers United States, Australia had 2 large carriers, 3 cruisers


Casualties: Japan lost 1 small carrier 1 destroyer and 3,500 men US,Australia lost 1 large carrier 1 destroyer 1 oil tanker and 540 men

Significance: In tactical terms, the Japanese had had a narrow victory: one small carrier lost and a large carrier damaged, against the loss of a large carrier and equivalent damage to another. But from the Allied point of view, after five months of continuous defeat, a battle that came out almost even was close enough to a victory as not to matter.

The seabourne invasion of Port Moresby was averted. Moresby was vital to Allied strategy, and could not have been defended by the ground forces then stationed there. The loss of Port Moresby may well have meant the loss of Australia, and would certainly have been a dreadful blow to the Allied cause. Without a toehold in New Guinea, the subsequent Allied advance, difficult though it was, would have been much harder still. As a result of the Coral Sea battle, the Japanese were forced to attempt taking Moresby overland. The consequent delay was just long enough to permit the arrival of veteran AIF soldiers to fight the Kokoda Track campaign, which in turn relieved pressure on Guadalcanal.
seems like plunkering down a Vc in Sydney would do the same thing?

[DocD]

Well, the problem I see with hawaii and australia as VC's is that unless Japan makes an effort to take them, the allies dont have to defend them, meaning they can go on with their usual strat (KGF) which naturally leaves Japan with its usual strat (JTDTM). If australia is a VC, will Japan see it as being valuable enough to even bother spending IPC's to take, instead of using them to build up the IC's and tanks. Unless losing australia is a REAL loss for the allies, Japan will probably not bother with it.
This brings us to the next step, which would be altering the map and IPC values for australia to make it really worth fighting over. But, as stated before, we dont want to make drastic changes.
So now what? I am beginning to think to make a game like we are all looking for here is going to take a different change than we are used to. Instead of changing the map, or the setup, or any of the rules, how about the addition of one rule. The U.S. must place units equal to at least half, IPC wise, of what it purchases each round in the Pacific. Naturally, the amount, half, is adjustable since I just pulled it out of.......well...thin air.
My immediate concern is whether the US player will actually use these units in the Pacific, or will he just use the canal to bring them east.
Actually scott, the KGF early game strategy is up to the Japanese and not the Allies. By US turn 2, the Allies should have a good idea of what Japan is going to do. If they have wasted two turns trying to fake the Allies out, then it will likely be their lost.
The only thing the extra VCs in the Pacific theater does is gives the Japanese the option of invading Russia or going elsewhere. The Allies have to respond likewise.
We shouldn't start limiting the US as to what it can do or where it can spend its IPCs; let that be the players option.
Joe's 15VC variant seems the most easiest way to get the US to concentrate on the Pacific with out mapboard or other major changes.

[DocD]

You are so right Scott. There is not an easy way to change the fact that no one wants to go after the Pacific. You try and come up with something and they say that it isn't historical. There are lots of other things on the board that are also not historical, they rarely complain about this. Adding VCs will not help toward this end entirely by themselves. Most people have the cash mentality and some people myself included never play unless it is a total victory by taking out the capitals. So VCs don't impress me much. However I would support moving some victory cities but not just creating more. Hawaii could be a victory city instead of Los Angeles.
No one is arguring the historical inaccuracies present in the game Dr. S. I for one know them and have vented my opinion in past threads.
Without a complete overhaul of the board and setup places, these are not going to ever be fixed. Many of us just want to move the game in the direction that all historical theaters see some action as they did historically.

VC's don't fix the main problem, but it does give options that move in that direction.
(To be honest though, even if Australia and Hawaii were worth 8 Ipc's a piece, if there were no VCs there, the Japanese would still be better off attacking Russia the way the board is divided up now.)

[cousin_joe]

You haven't seen many of my posts I guess. "Enhanced" is way too restricting for me. Tell me, is a standard rule allowing the british and americans to assault only western europe at the same time very restricting or very very restricting? I'm not quite sure myself. The point is, "Enhanced" takes away something I loved in A&A- the options. So lets keep enhanced out of this thread shall we? After all, I think LHTR takes away from the game. An enhanced version of LHTR just enhances what is taken away.
The rule is designed from a balance standpoint and is definitely not as overpowered as the LHTR version of Joint Strike.

And talk about being a hypocrite. You come out here soliciting ideas for what needs to be done to improve the game, and then you say, let's keep Enhanced out of this? What's up with that? It solves 1-6 of your list (7 is just bogus) without any board or set-up changes and you're saying not to talk about it. I look at your so-called A&A:Advanced variant and just laugh :rolleyes: ... Monopoly houses and hotels, pennies, nickels, quarters, a whole new army and set-up. Come on, how do you expect us to take you seriously? :rolleyes:

I think the only way to make the ultimate rule set is if we find problems, sit down, and fix them all together, then get someone to type it up, and possibly even present it to Avalon Hill and say "This is what the rules need to have!" Let me begin listing the problems...

Oh, man... are you serious :rolleyes: And just who did you have in mind to present this, you??? A. I think the whole idea is silly B. If your wanting to push your own rules (as the bogus #7 on your list makes obvious), then send them to Avalon Hill yourself instead of going on the false pretense that you've gathered ideas from the posters on this thread and what you're presenting is the community consensus C. If anyone is going to post anything, I would hope that they've actually played a few games of revised and know what they're talking about (which is obviously not the case with you)

[TrimChris]

You haven't seen many of my posts I guess. "Enhanced" is way too restricting for me. Tell me, is a standard rule allowing the british and americans to assault only western europe at the same time very restricting or very very restricting? I'm not quite sure myself. The point is, "Enhanced" takes away something I loved in A&A- the options. So lets keep enhanced out of this thread shall we? After all, I think LHTR takes away from the game. An enhanced version of LHTR just enhances what is taken away.

You've got to be kidding! How is "allowing" something a restriction. D-day of Western Europe is actually an incentive instead of a restriction. Just like the IPC value of a territory is an incentive to take it instead of pounding the most enemy troops or taking a VC.

[series]

The rule is designed from a balance standpoint and is definitely not as overpowered as the LHTR version of Joint Strike.

And talk about being a hypocrite. You come out here soliciting ideas for what needs to be done to improve the game, and then you say, let's keep Enhanced out of this? What's up with that? It solves 1-6 of your list (7 is just bogus) without any board or set-up changes and you're saying not to talk about it. I look at your so-called A&A:Advanced variant and just laugh :rolleyes: ... Monopoly houses and hotels, pennies, nickels, quarters, a whole new army and set-up. Come on, how do you expect us to take you seriously? :rolleyes:


Oh, man... are you serious :rolleyes: And just who did you have in mind to present this, you??? A. I think the whole idea is silly B. If your wanting to push your own rules (as the bogus #7 on your list makes obvious), then send them to Avalon Hill yourself instead of going on the false pretense that you've gathered ideas from the posters on this thread and what you're presenting is the community consensus C. If anyone is going to post anything, I would hope that they've actually played a few games of revised and know what they're talking about (which is obviously not the case with you)
Cousin_Joe, Enhanced solves a few of the problems, but not nearly all of them, or sufficiently at least. I was hoping that your fanboys would stay out of this thread, but I see that was not possible, unfortunately. The point is, I want people in this forum to put input on how to fix common problems of the game. Hey, I'm in this forum, so why can't I put input (#7)? The point is, it's sort of like a Democracy (what we have down here in America): A government by the people, for the people, only with rules of Axis and allies. I think the only way to make a rule set completely accepted is if not one or two or three people design it with no help, but if everyone works to improve the rules together.

The reason why D-Day as standard is restricting is because it is only that territory. I hate anything which leaves me bound to a certain number (such as commerce raids in enhanced), or in this case territory.

Advanced was made for a completely new gaming experience, not to change the current rules but to create it's own.

And I have played quite a bit games of revised, not including several variants, which include enhanced.

[cousin_joe]

Cousin_Joe, Enhanced solves a few of the problems, but not nearly all of them, or sufficiently at least. I was hoping that your fanboys would stay out of this thread, but I see that was not possible, unfortunately. The point is, I want people in this forum to put input on how to fix common problems of the game. Hey, I'm in this forum, so why can't I put input (#7)? The point is, it's sort of like a Democracy (what we have down here in America): A government by the people, for the people, only with rules of Axis and allies. I think the only way to make a rule set completely accepted is if not one or two or three people design it with no help, but if everyone works to improve the rules together.

The reason why D-Day as standard is restricting is because it is only that territory. I hate anything which leaves me bound to a certain number (such as commerce raids in enhanced), or in this case territory.

Advanced was made for a completely new gaming experience, not to change the current rules but to create it's own.

And I have played quite a bit games of revised, not including several variants, which include enhanced.
If you're going to have a thread looking for people's ideas on how to fix the game, then leave it at that. Don't tell people what they can and cannot post. :rolleyes:

Historically, Strategically (from Allied perspective) and Game Mechanics wise, a Western Europe invasion is the only thing that makes sense.

From your posts, I doubt you are any good at A&A: Revised and would be willing to back that up with a PBEM against you any time. :p

[series]

From your posts, I doubt you are any good at A&A: Revised and would be willing to back that up with a PBEM against you any time. :p
Well lil joey, do you have Triple-A (the axis and allies real time program)? If you do, I accept your offer. If you do not, try to acquire it. It really rocks.

[cousin_joe]

I've been meaning to get a Triple A game under my belt but a couple questions first... Do you have to play all in one sitting (If so this might be a problem)? What rules shall we play by? - AH rules are a definite No, as they are completely broken, not to mention ambiguous. I'll look into getting it set up and I'd be able to schedule you in to get your a$$-kicked as early as this weekend :D

[series]

I've been meaning to get a Triple A game under my belt but a couple questions first... Do you have to play all in one sitting (If so this might be a problem)? What rules shall we play by? - AH rules are a definite No, as they are completely broken, not to mention ambiguous. I'll look into getting it set up and I'd be able to schedule you in to get your a$$-kicked as early as this weekend :DThe "server" player or "host" is able to save a game and reload it whenever he wants another day. Now, you have to play by AH rules to a certain degree, except when it comes to victory conditions and bidding I'd say. The AH rules aren't as broken as you say they are I have to say though.

And I'm fine with you kicking my "a$$", after all, many people are sore losers :p

[cousin_joe]

The "server" player or "host" is able to save a game and reload it whenever he wants another day. Now, you have to play by AH rules to a certain degree, except when it comes to victory conditions and bidding I'd say. The AH rules aren't as broken as you say they are I have to say though.

And I'm fine with you kicking my "a$$", after all, many people are sore losers :p
Well, the only major difference between LHTR and AH is Tech. If your'e up for a No Tech game of AH that's fine with me (otherwise just plain LHTR if that's possible). Basically just wanting to keep Sealion and US HB out of the picture and minimize the luck factor. 9VC would be the only other condition.

[Scott_WAR]

I rarely see ANYONE use tech in a triplea game. Most of us realize tech is broken, and just dont use it. Also, every game I have played has been VC-less. We just play till someone concedes.

[Clausewitz]

I remind you of the changes I proposed in Rising Sun Redux, which involved radical changes to incomes to end up with:

Germany and Japan: 42 IPCs each
Allied Powers: 36 IPCs each


What will be the consequences of these changes? Well, hopefully:

The greater Soviet income will repel/deter the JTDTM, and thus force the Japanese into a different approach, which should be:

A more aggressive policy in the Pacific, since it is now considerably stronger vis-à-vis the USA, which must, in view of the above shifts in policy:

Allocate more resources to the Pacific theatre, thus precipitating the major war in this ocean that is painfully absent in most AAR games. This in turn will ease the pressure on Germany’s western front producing an even contest with the now stronger USSR for control of Eastern Europe.

[DXfoxman]

Well put, atilla. I agree 101%

[Desert Rat]

Well, the problem I see with hawaii and australia as VC's is that unless Japan makes an effort to take them, the allies dont have to defend them, meaning they can go on with their usual strat (KGF) which naturally leaves Japan with its usual strat (JTDTM). If australia is a VC, will Japan see it as being valuable enough to even bother spending IPC's to take, instead of using them to build up the IC's and tanks. Unless losing australia is a REAL loss for the allies, Japan will probably not bother with it.
This brings us to the next step, which would be altering the map and IPC values for australia to make it really worth fighting over. But, as stated before, we dont want to make drastic changes.
So now what? I am beginning to think to make a game like we are all looking for here is going to take a different change than we are used to. Instead of changing the map, or the setup, or any of the rules, how about the addition of one rule. The U.S. must place units equal to at least half, IPC wise, of what it purchases each round in the Pacific. Naturally, the amount, half, is adjustable since I just pulled it out of.......well...thin air.
My immediate concern is whether the US player will actually use these units in the Pacific, or will he just use the canal to bring them east.

You are totally correct Scott that with 15 VC's, Japan could still ignore the Pacific going for Moscow leaving the U.S. to go totally for Germany. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that. We don't want the 15 VC's to restrict players to fight it out in the Pacific every game either, what we want is to at least give players options and different strategies that they can play out. Every game can be different now. But what we don't want, is Japan to be forced to go for Moscow every game which must happen in the current 12 VC set up for the Axis to win in a 9 or more victory game.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

well said desert rat

[TrimChris]

You are totally correct Scott that with 15 VC's, Japan could still ignore the Pacific going for Moscow leaving the U.S. to go totally for Germany. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that. We don't want the 15 VC's to restrict players to fight it out in the Pacific every game either, what we want is to at least give players options and different strategies that they can play out. Every game can be different now. But what we don't want, is Japan to be forced to go for Moscow every game which must happen in the current 12 VC set up for the Axis to win in a 9 or more victory game.

Hear hear! Or is it here here!? Yay I say!