What would you change...

Naval strategy and wise economic moves are both critical in waging this far-flung war across an entire hemisphere. To the familiar elements from Axis & Allies, Axis & Allies: Pacific adds convoys, island air and naval bases, kamikazes, destroyers, and the Chinese army.
User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: What would you change...

Post by Larry » Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

All comments ignored.

As for the "REPORT" Wow... I didn't even know I had that service. Hey IL I received a report about you. Two more and ... well you're see. ((I want to time how long it takes to get 2 more "reports" about you)) 8)

Hey ... let's get back on subject.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Re: What would you change...

Post by Craig A Yope » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:09 am

Imperious leader wrote:
nothing in your posts is ever worth commenting on.
Then make this your pledge rather than look like an idiot by saying one thing and doing another. But being a troll such as yourself offers no promise of integrity. Now that your done hijacking threads with retarded remarks perhaps the rest of us can move on here.

Thanks for making a promise to not comment further. :roll: :roll:
I'm not commenting on your posts, I am commenting on you being an ass! :roll:

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: What would you change...

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:16 pm

I propose that considering that you insist on all units maintaining the same movement allowance and YET the map for say AAE40 or AAP40 will undoubtedly contain many more territories than in AAR or all the other games.... you might look at this:

Infantry and artillery moving at one on these maps (Mostly AAE40) will be painful in terms of getting into combat and a decisive result. Second, its obvious that you don't want any rail movement in the game though i understand you really like such an idea but claim that it will add another layer of rules you may not be comfortable with.

I propose that players now have a new decision to make:

Infantry and Artillery can move one space in combat to attack

OR

They can move up to two spaces in NCM.

This idea is kinda in a way now allowing these two units to have some greater impact on the game. I understand that tanks are now at 6 IPC, but this may not be enough to stop the all tank buys that happened in AAE the original.'

The other idea i have is slightly more chrome:

Each player can now buy rail points by expending X IPC per point. You maintain these tokens in your capital and these can be bombed by SBR and reduced. So you spend X IPC and for each point you can move land units a second time in NCM ( even if they moved in combat). These territories must be connected to your home territory ( at sea they may be connected by transports in each sea zone in a chain).
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: What would you change...

Post by Larry » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:58 pm

Thanks IL... comments noted.

frog
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:58 pm

Re: What would you change...

Post by frog » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:33 am

Craig A Yope wrote:
"Yeah you were the good looking one."
Well,....aaaahhhhhh........I guess he is. Once you get past the nose. And the gut. And the............ ;)
quote]


Hurtful words. In think I may have to join IL on the Craig is just plain mean list......Nah, we already know this.

As for shore bombardment.

My point was if there are 4 cruisers and 2 infantry attacking in an amphibious assault then let all Cruisers fire. Not just equal to the amount of troops.

What's the difference between that and the one destroyer attacking a mountain of subs with all the aircraft to help? The subs can only hit one ship, but all those planes can hit every sub????? What gives. If you stay consistent in your thoughts, then each plane can only attack if there are an equal number of destroyers.

Especially when casualties from Shore bombardment can return fire. Let all Shore bombardments fire. It worked for many a years.

Or at the very least stop the rule that allows one destroyer attack 10 subs with aircraft.


I will not make any "personal" references about you, Your picture says volumes all on its own.

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: What would you change...

Post by WILD BILL » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:51 am

I no this tread has been inactive for about 6 weeks, but it had some interesting points in it.
The bombardment in AA50 is much better, maybe add the DD to the list or let DD transport 1 inf or both. I really did not like when you could send over 1 inf and bombard with like 6 or 7 ships. You should have to have troops go in matching those shots. I would think if you matched ground units from an adjacent tt (instead of by transport) it would mess with game play for coastal territories. Although I'm sure coastal bmb was used even w/o action on the beaches to soften up enemy positions.

The rail is also very intriguing. I have seen where Flash gives unlimited movement in non combat like station to station, and allowing tanks a 2nd move (blitz)in combat. Very cool I will have to try that. Will play havoc on game mechanics though.
IL-allow inf (art & AA) to move 2 spaces in non combat or 1 in combat (I like this too). IL-Allow you to buy additional movement points. I don't think I would want to pay for extra movement, maybe special forces (paratrooper).

I use a rail system that is determined by the ipc value of that territory. I figure that the ipc value reflects the infrastructure of that tt to some degree. If the value is 2 ipc then you can move 2 units (inf, art & AA) through it. You can only use rail in non combat, and all 3 tt need to be friendly at the start of your turn. (1 started in,2 railed through,3 moved into). A unit can only rail through one country per turn, and only if it did not participate in combat.
AA50 Example: Your 10 inf in France can rail through Germany (10 ipc) to Poland. Your 2 art in Moscow can rail through Archangel(2 ipc) and into Karelia. Units don't have to start in the same tt and you can also split the units into different ending tt. Damage markers also limit the units that can rail through it. If Germany has 4 dam markers it can only rail 6 units. We also allow you to SBR tt w/o IC to disrupt rail movement (like the Balkins to piss off Italy) just put damage markers up to ipc level (don't double it). Rail helps both sides. Ger/It will be at Moscow's door faster, but you can get your Siberians home quicker, and it helps to consolidate your UK troops in Africa/Middle east.

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: What would you change...

Post by pellulo » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:19 pm

Perhaps in some future revised A&A Pacific a revised or modified landing craft/transport unit can be introduce, makes the Invasion of e.g. Japan more interesting, thanks, Pellulo

Yes some sort of truck/RR piece for Asia.
Pellulo

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Re: What would you change...

Post by elbowmaster » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:40 pm

Please play nice people, everyone needs to express in a way that is not attacking.

if you have an issue with someone, please take it off line and let the rest of us enjoy this special place we have here. the rules are pretty relaxed here, do not let the few wreck it for the many.

ELBOW has spoken.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest