I quote you, just in case you'll delete your post as usuall.timerover51 wrote:It would be more interesting to add Italy using only the existing units and board. More of a challenge that way.
No sir, I think the main A&A games, like semi-global A&A Europe and Pacific, and global Anniversary edition, must use the same rules and units. To use different rules for the same type of games are only confusing. And Ann. ed have fixed what was wrong with the A&A line. 50 Anniversary ed is the greatest of all the A&A games, and WOTC must implement this new rules and units in the future prints of A&A Europe and Pacific. That should not be very difficult.
I love the A&A Europe map and its sea zones and territories. But it is one problem. Belorussia should not be adjacent to Stalingrad. For reality reasons, its a far long distance from Belo to Stalingrad, just look at a real map. For playability reasons, this very stratecical Belorussian territory, who are adjacent to every other russian space, do favour stacking. So the russians stack big in Belo, and the Germans stack big in East Poland, and when one side have the stacking advantage, there come this big battle, and the game then are pretty much decided.
But on the other hand, I dont like the big time splittin in derPanzinators map, or the advanced map from Greg, where they split tiny UK island into 5 or 8 territories, and USSR into like 100 territories. That is a bit TOO much.
My suggestion is to keep most of the map as is. But with this chances:
1) Split Belorussia so its NOT adjacent to Stalingrad.
2) Split Ukraine.
3) Split Libya.
4) Make Iraq adjacent to Turkey, so Syria is not adjacent to Iran.
I would also love to see neutrals in play.
I have worked up a fairly straightforward expansion of Europe adding Italy, but need to do more playtesting of it. Still working on the right mix of supply rules for the Axis in Africa. The UK reinforcements turned out to be pretty easy. The Italian player can elect to change sides if the Axis looses North Africa.
You Americans all look the same to me.Craig A Yope wrote:It is Craig, not Greg.adlertag wrote:...or the advanced map from Greg,.....
Anyway, splittin Uk into 8 territories are useless, because the only landing spot for Sealion was in southern UK. Not in Scotland. Not in Wales. Not in northern UK. Not in Eire. Etc. And if they landet, then the island is so small that every british unit would be in the battle very fast. UK is NOT Russia.
It was supposed to be a 1939 setup. We used japanese for italians. Italy got Northern Italy, Southern Italy and Libya with the forces there from the 1941 start date. Then Germany started out with just countroling Germany, austria, and chezkoslovakia, with Finland, Hungry, rumania, and bulgaria joining when they attacked russia . We gave it like 15 inf, 4 artilery, 5 tanks, 3 fighter, 3 bombers, 2 subs, 1 destroyer, one BB, and one transport. France and poland got some units while Russia, the UK and the US basically got what they had in 1941.
everyother uncontroled territory was neutral and got inf equal to its IPC, except yugoslavia which had like seven. The game start with France, UK, and poland at war with Germany. USA and Italy eventually enter the war after certain point. Russia was neutral until attacked or after britian fell, although they could still build units while neutral. The object was to take London and moscow. The game ended in stalemate as the axis controled Europe and Asia, while the allies controlled the US, UK and Africa.
Aslong as you dont give Italy a lot of IPCs and instead maybe just a ton of infantry in Libya and an ok navy at the start, they play pretty historically.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest