I like the optional rules since they can be added to affect the balance of the game without bids which are too random for my taste (yes, I’m a bit obsessive-compulsive…).
The Dardenelles rule of course really helps the Allies, and could go some way to counteract the economic advantages of the easy-to-get Axis NOs. It’s also in line with Larry Harris ambition to lessen the attractiveness of JTDTM strats, since Caucasus will be easier to defend for the Russkies.
The interceptor rule helps the Axis, since Germany and Italy are the worst hit by SBR usually. Especially Italy needs SBR defence, they are really sitting ducks to SBR now. So, if we get the Allied strats right we might arrive at the fact that the interceptor rule is needed together with the Dardanelles rule.
Since I also like historicality, I love both rules and will be arguing for both to be included I think! Thanks Krieghund! :-)
I’d almost go far as to say SBR is “broken” in no tech games.
I all my games as the Axis, the Allies are constantly throwing cheap $12 bombers into Rome and Berlin and there is nothing I can do about it (other than get lucky and roll heaps of “1’s”).
Tech addresses this as 2 techs help counter the economic benefit of SBR, while only 1 tech directly aids it.
Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???
This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.
I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!
Or was this always Larry’s intention and it was omitted from OOB rules?
There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.
One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).
Rather than make complicated rules for the effect of IFP on low-IPC territories, Larry just set a lower limit on the IPC value of the affected territories. All factories still get the reduced cost of SBR damage removal, though.
Well, TBH I personally don’t think Aus makes a good IC locations anyway.
I’ve seen Saf in plenty of non-tech games anyway, so it shouldn’t affect that decision massively, plus it’s generally built on UK1, at which time you generally can’t rely on achieving that tech anytime soon.
Building 4 in Kar as Germany would be kinda cool though! :mrgreen:
Wow, the errata on increased factory production is huge.
There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.
True, but how is this really a “problem”? :?
One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).
Ok, this makes some sense, but then why not make the minimum 2 IPC territories? You can still apply 4 damage, thereby shutting it down. What’s special about 3 IPC territories?
Having 3 as the minimum detracts from factories in Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Karelia, Burma, FIC, and Kiangsu, all of which are fairly common sites for ICs and will now be less attractive. On the other hand, it’s not like anyone really builds ICs in 1 IPC territories unless they already have the tech. It just seems like having 3 IPC territories as the minimum is a kinda arbitrary and affects gameplay more than have a minimum of 2 would (maybe this was the goal?).
I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!
I’m not sure this is true, the errata hurts Japan also.
@Unknown:
Wow, the errata on increased factory production is huge.
There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.True, but how is this really a “problem”? :?
The problem is that Germany’s (a major industrial center) production is increased by 20%, while Algeria’s is increased by 200%. That math just doesn’t work.
@Unknown:
One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).
Ok, this makes some sense, but then why not make the minimum 2 IPC territories? You can still apply 4 damage, thereby shutting it down. What’s special about 3 IPC territories?
There were two possible approaches here; either create a system of graduated increases or establish a minimum IPC value to get the benefit. Establishing a minimum was cleaner and easier. Three IPCs was chosen as the dividing line between “major” and “minor” economic territories.
@Unknown:
Having 3 as the minimum detracts from factories in Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Karelia, Burma, FIC, and Kiangsu, all of which are fairly common sites for ICs and will now be less attractive. On the other hand, it’s not like anyone really builds ICs in 1 IPC territories unless they already have the tech.
These sites will be less lucrative, but that doesn’t necessarily make them less attractive. True, they won’t get the increased production, but they will still benefit from the reduced repair cost. If they are “fairly common sites”, why should they depend on success with a particular tech to make them so?
@Unknown:
It just seems like having 3 IPC territories as the minimum is a kinda arbitrary and affects gameplay more than have a minimum of 2 would (maybe this was the goal?).
It’s not really arbitrary. There’s a big difference between 2- and 3-IPC territories in the percentage increase achieved when adding two to the production cap. 2-IPC territories increase by 100%, while 3-IPC ones only increase by 67%. Each one IPC of value from there reduces the percentage increase even further. Also, there are a lot of 1- and 2-IPC territories, so 3 seems a good cut-off point from a perspective of empowering the more resource-rich and/or developed territories. Four IPCs may have been an even better choice, but I think Larry didn’t want to exclude places like India and Manchuria.
4 would have made the tech useless (except to reduce SBR)
3 is probably a nice compromise, but time will tell.
The good thing about Larry is that he embraces community feedback and uses the web as an information resource. I’m sure if in six months he sees this as a mistake, then he will address it.
Thanks for the reply Krieg. :)
Just to clarify a few of my points:
The problem is that Germany’s (a major industrial center) production is increased by 20%, while Algeria’s is increased by 200%. That math just doesn’t work.
Yeah I mean obviously this is unrealistic (like many things in A&A), but I meant that I don’t see it as a problem from a game balance perspective. I guess I just don’t get why this is unrealistic enough to warrant errata, while something like transports passing freely through sub-infested waters is not.
These sites will be less lucrative, but that doesn’t necessarily make them less attractive. True, they won’t get the increased production, but they will still benefit from the reduced repair cost. If they are “fairly common sites”, why should they depend on success with a particular tech to make them so?
I don’t think it will stop players from building on those sites. But for nations like Japan, Increased Production was a very good tech specifically because of those 2 IPC build sites. Making 3 the minimum really reduces the value of the tech for them, by a big margin. Its just one less trick in Japan’s bag is all, and I don’t see how that is a good thing.
There’s a big difference between 2- and 3-IPC territories in the percentage increase achieved when adding two to the production cap. 2-IPC territories increase by 100%, while 3-IPC ones only increase by 67%. Each one IPC of value from there reduces the percentage increase even further.
Yeah, I get this. The problem is arises from adding a constant amount to different production levels. I said the choice of 3 IPCs as the minimum was somewhat arbitrary because, well, where do you draw the line? 67% is acceptable while 100% is not? Why not 50%? You guys settled on 3 as the minimum, and that’s fine. I’m just curious if you guys considered whether 2 may have been better since it’s less “disruptive” to gameplay.
@Unknown:
I guess I just don’t get why this is unrealistic enough to warrant errata, while something like transports passing freely through sub-infested waters is not.
The point of diminishing returns is always a consideration in rules design. With rules as complicated as those for subs and transports are, you have to draw the line with exceptions somewhere. How often does this really happen?
@Unknown:
But for nations like Japan, Increased Production was a very good tech specifically because of those 2 IPC build sites. Making 3 the minimum really reduces the value of the tech for them, by a big margin. Its just one less trick in Japan’s bag is all, and I don’t see how that is a good thing.
This is still a very powerful tech for Japan. Manchuria, and potentially India, can still be vastly more effective production centers.
@Unknown:
I said the choice of 3 IPCs as the minimum was somewhat arbitrary because, well, where do you draw the line? 67% is acceptable while 100% is not? Why not 50%? You guys settled on 3 as the minimum, and that’s fine. I’m just curious if you guys considered whether 2 may have been better since it’s less “disruptive” to gameplay.
You’ve got a point. However, as I mentioned, there were other considerations in choosing that particular “breaking point”. Two IPCs was never really in the running, both because of the 100% increase (deemed too much) and because such territories are far more common than those of higher value. The natural breaking point seemed to be either three or four IPCs.
Even with this limit, this is still a very powerful tech. Japan cranking out five tanks in Manchuria or the UK building 5 units in India or 10 in the UK is a pretty significant boost. The idea of a German IC in Poland also comes to mind.
Even though it is historical, I don’t like closing off the Black Sea. Unless you make some corresponding change that helps the Axis, this rule is almost a complete give to the Allies by taking away one of the more relevant uses for the Italian Navy. Maybe a middle ground would be to apply a penalty to entering the strait (loss of IPCs, minefield that rolls on “1” like AA fire, etc) instead of closing it completely.
On the improved IC production, I think this is another change that hurts the Axis (particularly Japan) more than the Allies. Another option might be to limit, but not eliminate, the use of improved factories in low IPC territories. For example, allow factories in territories of 2 IPC value or less to increase production by one but don’t let them have the benefit of lower repair costs.
On a more general note, I think the whole tech structure needs to be re-worked. I like the concept of tech, but under the OOB rules, one lucky tech roll can effectively throw the game (i.e. Heavy Bomber to the U.S. on round 1). No tech should be that powerful. There are a number of different ways the tech rules could be modified, but I think it starts with an acknowledgment that the OOB rules don’t work very well if the object is to keep the game balanced and not dependent on a luck tech roll.
@DY:
Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???
This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.
There are 2 ways to apply this strategy:
Now look at the benefits for J:
So is it more balanced with OOB rules or with the changes in the FAQ? My money goes to the FAQ.
Interesting. I have a hard time seeing how IFP was so broken that you felt the need to weaken it, but Heavy Bombers are still unscathed and devastating, increasing the strongest attack on the board by 100%. They really are meant to represent the A-bomb, aren’t they?
I used to think that heavy bombers = A bomb, and maybe it was true for A&A Classic, but in AAR & AA50 heavy bombers represent B-29 Superfortress.
In a TV documentary the said that the US almost dried up for bombs, much thanks to the capacity of the B-29, during the bombing campaigns against Japan during the end of WW2.
Nerfing IFP REALLY screws the UK. Their normal location for an IC is S. Africa. Sometimes, Australian can be an option if things go right.
India?
LOL what a joke. Japan takes India way too easily.
And as far as repairing damage I don’t think I have ever seen damage to S. Africa. Kiangsu and Manchuria may have been damaged in one extremely funky game but so were the US ICs in Algeria and Libya that would be worthless with the new rules.
I think the best solution is to just ignore this change I know I will be.
I’m glad for the errata on this, no tech should be insanely strong. Two US factories in Algeria and Libya pumping out 6 units into the Med/Nth Africa spells game over for the western axis. Just park a couple of CVs in sz13, building more DDs as you need them and you can get 6 troops attacking France or Italy every round.
Equally, Japanese factories in Sik and Nin = goodbye Russia, who just can’t afford to fend off 6 new tanks on Moscow’s doorstep each turn (not to mention the 5 tanks aimed on Caucasus from India, that Japan can easily afford too - total purchase = 45, with cash to spare for the pacific.
Well done on this rule I say.
Advanced artillery is such a weak tech, and IFP such a strong tech that personally I’d be happy to see IFP broken down further into two techs: damage repair on one hand and increased production on the other. H bombers are still way too good…
I agree the techs need to be redone. As of now we just don’t play with research… because if you do research something a tech. should give you a bit of an advantage but not game changing, and of now its game ending in alot of cases.But when you guys do redo the tech trees if you do, plz give boats the same advantages as you do with planes. thats all i ask. :-D
Good change to the Improved Factory production tech. Certainly isn’t an Allied-biased change, Japan is the one power who could really abuse the tech as it was before with popping ICs all over the mainland of Asia!
Heavy Bombers are less powerful if you play with interceptor rules, but it doesn’t affect the super-boost in normal combat. I think making Heavy bombers attack on a ‘5’ and still having two dice in SBR would be a good fix to the H BMB tech, in combination with the interceptor rule.
I can see the argument of the tech being extremely powerful in the hands of japan or the US, particularly because of the 1 ipc territories, but this seems to be mitigated by the fact that (in my admittedly small sample set of AA50 experience) I have yet to see either roll on chart 1. I think a better solution would have been to say that the improvement from IFP has a max of 2 units, but can not be greater than 50% of the base production capacity of the territory. I.e. = 1 ipc territory = no additional units; 2 and 3 ipc territories = +1 unit; 4 ipc and up territories = +2 units, but I obviously haven’t tested this type of rule compared to the new one.
The most likely recipient of this tech are the 3 continental European powers (really 2 since it seems italy rarely can afford tech) as they are more likely to roll on chart 1, although there are cases where UK might roll on that chart as well. But it basically means in most games the increased production will only helps in the capitals, poland and caucasus, which now seems to help the axis (specifically germany) more than anyone. It gives Russia some breathing room, but it is still a potentially killer tech for Germany.
Oh well, rules is rules and I’m sure we’ll all adapt.
