Play By Forum
Game 1 initial post
Hehe I know how it goes. I go in bouts where I'm fairly active a few times a year, for a few weeks, then back on the grind.
I was thinking just now about the Air-bases. I think instead of ditching the +1 to movement you could just relocate them.
Irkutsk for Russia could be cool, since it'd be an incentive to guard the far east and could represent the Alaska-Siberia air route.
USA South Atlantic could also work, since it would still give you a way to transit into North Africa or Gibraltar without dropping onto Normandy. It could represent the Mid Atlantic route, from the lower US to Azores and North/West Africa.
The Halifax one I'd just keep as is, since it makes sense for the North Atlantic air route. The British base is not as powerful as the American airbase because Britain has less oil and fewer hitpoints to drop in a given round. If the Allied player uses the occasional air transport out of Canada to Normandy late in the game, I'd just think of it as like an entertaining quirk hehe. But I think those locations might be interesting, since it would encourage Russia to invest in some ground or maybe fighters for the far east for the range and air-transport bonus, and they could help paratroop into the far east backfield (where Japan's transport threat is currently pretty potent.) I think the gameplay for the western Allies would be much the same, US could still reach Greenland on the second turn or Gibraltar, but would also have some more reach into West Africa.
In this case the Airbases could kind of be thought of as the major air routes out of North America, into Europe/Asia.
The only one that I think to add would maybe be a base for the Australians, for overall Pacific/World balance. Might be a way to fire up the Australians a bit? hehe Could at least serve as a more significant secondary target for Japan as an incentive to take Australia. You'd have air transports occurring in the four corners basically. One for the North Atlantic (Britain), another for the South Atlantic (USA, and same deal on the Pacific North (USSR) and Pacific South (ANZAC.)
I think USA aid to Anzac could be fun, they have more oil to throw around. And Australia is always thirsty
I am following everything here. But I am fully occupied with real life work for the next couple of days. So my responses will be a bit delayed. Se you around!
My feeling is that their main purpose for existing in the first place is just kinda historical flair and as fall guys. Basically smaller targets on the warpath, in there to distinguish the game from a more typical 6-7 nation map aesthetically. Esp. since their original conception was as AI contolled, though they've since been tweaked. To me though the stuff that makes Iron war interesting is really the production spread and the unit roster (like the cheap destroyable factory, the way naval units interact, how infantry are relatively expensive compared to other units, and of course the resource thing) and not so much the 20 playable nations. I think it would probably function just as well without minor powers, but if they're in there I think they'd be interesting as more a feature of the international aid exchange phase, rather than as can-openers or joining in big multinational stacks which is how they tend to function otherwise. I think as you say, the minors should be thought of more as map features (ie spots that can generate money or resources for the major competitors but taking certain locations out of commission as overpowered production hubs for the friendly team, but which can still serve as production hubs for the opposing team if captured by the enemy.
Under such a scheme the way a nation is used (whether for aid or direct unit placement) would depend on whether they can maintain enough land or resources to be self sustaining. Or if they get pushed so far from a useful production hub that it only makes sense to use them as a feature of the aid exchange then you can start using them like that instead.