Alpha +4

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
jwingram
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Alpha +4

Post by jwingram » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:18 pm

Craig A Yope wrote:Now I have fought for keeping the two economies separate but allowing them to do all other actions at the same time. I always thought it a bit screwy that they couldn't cooperate.
I agree with this, but the issue then is that it really doesn't speed up play, which was the intent of my suggestion. One fewer player definitely would lead to faster turn intervals.

Uncrustable
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:27 pm

Re: Alpha +4

Post by Uncrustable » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:40 pm

I have been play testing a 4 player variant that speeds up gameplay dramatically.
European Axis (German + Italy)
Russia
Japan
Allies (USA, UK, China, France, ANZAC)

Along with these cost adjustments:
Tactical bomber 10
Transport 6
Submarine 7
Destroyer 8
Cruiser 10
Carrier 15
Battleship 18

Those are much better relative prices, and you will see more cruiser, battleship and tacbomber purchases, and less submarine spam.

I also would advocate 12 IPC naval/airbases.
Opens up more viable strategies and is simpler (bases + minor ICs cost 12)

I also prefer old school AA guns. So much simpler.

Adding rail movement from friendly home territory VCs would also speed up the game a tad.
Friendly 'home territory' victory cities give +1 movement to all land units during noncombat move only.

I wish we could do away with national objectives altogether.
Would be a faster, simpler game without them.

Anniversary style tech tokens, giving free tech tokens based on your income.

Neutral blocks, again to add more viable strategies to the game.

jwingram
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Alpha +4

Post by jwingram » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:56 pm

Uncrustable wrote:I have been play testing a 4 player variant that speeds up gameplay dramatically.
European Axis (German + Italy)
Russia
Japan
Allies (USA, UK, China, France, ANZAC)
I think this would work well.
Uncrustable wrote:Along with these cost adjustments:
Tactical bomber 10
Transport 6
Submarine 7
Destroyer 8
Cruiser 10
Carrier 15
Battleship 18

Those are much better relative prices, and you will see more cruiser, battleship and tacbomber purchases, and less submarine spam.
I agree that costs need to be looked at, but I'm not sure I agree with your prices. I do think cruisers are far too expensive within the current price structure and either need a price reduction to 11 or an extra point of movement or a special ability (allows one paired destroyer to defend at a 3? Can "scramble" to assist in a combat in an adjacent sea zone? Has antiaircraft capability?).
Uncrustable wrote:I also would advocate 12 IPC naval/airbases.
Opens up more viable strategies and is simpler (bases + minor ICs cost 12)
I agree for airbases. I disagree for naval bases, which I think are already far too powerful with unlimited, instantaneous, and free repairs. Without revising how naval bases work, I think they should cost double what they cost now...

On the other hand, fix naval bases so that you have to pay for repairs and that the ship being repaired is not available for offensive combat operations until the beginning of your next turn and I would happily agree with all bases costing 12.
Uncrustable wrote:I also prefer old school AA guns. So much simpler.
Agree.
Uncrustable wrote:Adding rail movement from friendly home territory VCs would also speed up the game a tad.
Friendly 'home territory' victory cities give +1 movement to all land units during noncombat move only.
Mixed feelings. It would benefit the European Axis powers most (although Russia would also benefit). Eastern Europe would get very, very interesting. Since consensus is that the Allies already need a bid, I think this would further break the Axis side.
Uncrustable wrote:I wish we could do away with national objectives altogether.
Would be a faster, simpler game without them.
I'm actually okay with the objective system, but frankly the objectives need to be somewhat fewer in number, clearer, and to actually make strategic or economic sense. When was the last time you saw Japan take the Solomons for a strategic or even tactical reason? Heck, when was the last time you saw Japan achieve more than two objectives (holding all the Dutch East Indies and 5 IPCs each for specific victory cities)?
Uncrustable wrote:Anniversary style tech tokens, giving free tech tokens based on your income.
We always play without tech rolls, at least so far.

Jonathan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests