@ampdrive Italy declared war on UK to try to get a strategic edge before UK made the first move. The reason for going into France is to take an advantage of the fact that France clearly was fighting like shite and wanted to gain easy land.
AA50: Strategic - A New Way to Play A&A: Anniversary Edition
-
The rules proposed are meant for the 1941 scenario with National Objectives in play
I bleieve this is the most popular option, especially since the NOs are the newly introduced item with the Anniversary EditionI should be testing the 1/2 IC rule soon in live play, and will look for some online players as well. I’ll probably look at No Tech to start. I agree with axis_roll that the 1/2 IC is clearly superior to a unit bid for India and a purchased IC UK1.
The additional benefit of the 1/2 IC is that Japan has no idea where UK will place the IC (unlike a bid). If you place a unit bid in India with plans for an IC later, Japan can move towards it on J1 and position for a strike on J2, knowing the IC is likely going there. With the 1/2 IC, UK can place on India or Aus, whichever is safer after J1.
If you are relying on “surprise” to make a 1/2 IC effective, you’ve already lost. The best strategies are ones an opponent can see coming, but still isnt easy to beat. After the first “surprise” the 1/2 IC wont be, and its usefulness reduced.
You must be able to place an IC in India and defned it, even if Japan knows its coming, in order for the “fix” to be useful.
And as for Australia, a 1/2 IC (where no planes or ships can be built) is only useful for defense. You need to spend $ to upgrade it (which basically ruins the whole point of the 1/2 IC, because if you want/need a full IC, just buy one).
Answer the following:
An IC in canada does nothing for historical accuracy or playout (it just makes KGF easier). True?
A bid of 8 + full IC is cheaper than a 1/2 IC + buying 8 IPC worth of units. True?
Having units that can move r1 is an advantage. True?
Having a full IC is more useful than a 1/2 IC. True?
An India 1/2 IC doesnt do anything a bid + India IC does better. True?
-
If you want more options for strategy do this:
Give everybody ( meaning each nation) X amount to spend before each players first turn. The total of each side would be different to reflect the bid for balancing issues based on the scenario and options played.
example:scenario 1941 with full options–- Allies get 45 IPC to spend ( 15 each) Axis get 39 IPC to spend (13 each)
now the maximum variation in options are secure because all these home study plans are simply useless and people have to start thinking on their feet because with say 15 IPC you can shore up your attacks or defenses. Germany would still have a nice first turn, but they can leave themselves open for attacks because Russia can start her turn with 3 tanks and take back alot too.
Second thing is you keep the non aggression pact with Soviets and Japan as discussed earlier, so japan can just fight USA and USA must focus on Pacific.
And German subs and American subs…
Total all of them and index on a chart the allied or Japanese shipping loses. You just have to invent a chart which replaces the need to roll for each sub or consider a -5 IPC penalty against UK or USA or Japan. The more subs you buy the greater potential for loses, so it can be a viable strategy.
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
I was discussing the situation where 1 INF is an “equal” bid, and how a 1/2 IC can be perceived as better than that bid. Thus, by allowing the 1/2 IC (depending on how much is paid for it within limits), you are not equaling the bid, but switching the advantage from axis to allies.
In your bid example, the allies are paying less and less for an IC. But what about if you believe the IC is too much of an advantage. Do you eventually give the axis a bid to compensate??
Also, lets say I DONT want an IC. I’m not going to put one in India anyway. But I certainly dont want to give you one.
You “win” the bid. And say I can have the IC at $8. This does NOTHING for me, as I wont be playing a pacific campaign, nor do I believe in putting one in Canada. basically, you’ve prevented me from having any bid units.
What are my choices? Play without a bid? (Even if I think 8 is a proper one)? Bid less and give you the IC you want anyway (when you will just keep lowering the cost yourself) ??
Basically, what is the reasonable “value” of this IC. It is certainly not = to a 1 INF bid. Which causes a different advantage in the game. Which is what I was getting at earlier…
Now does Axis get bid units to compensate?? Do Allies get their IC but Axis get 2 INF??
Now do you see the inherent problem???
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
I was discussing the situation where 1 INF is an “equal” bid, and how a 1/2 IC can be perceived as better than that bid. Thus, by allowing the 1/2 IC (depending on how much is paid for it within limits), you are not equaling the bid, but switching the advantage from axis to allies.
In your bid example, the allies are paying less and less for an IC. But what about if you believe the IC is too much of an advantage. Do you eventually give the axis a bid to compensate??
If I am the Bidding for the axis and I think the IC is too much of an advantage, I would bid to give the IC to the allies at $20! who would take the allies at that point?
Also, lets say I DONT want an IC. I’m not going to put one in India anyway. But I certainly dont want to give you one.
Again, you miss the whole idea of the limited IC idea. yes, it HAS to go to India or Australia (or east Canada, but that option only is viable with the entire AA50 Strategic rule set)…
BUT THAT’S THE POINT! It is not JUST ABOUT BALANCE, it’s about strongly encouraging UK to fight Japan.
Of course, you can always NOT buy the IC at all as well.But I will continue with your discussion.
You “win” the bid. And say I can have the IC at $8. This does NOTHING for me, as I wont be playing a pacific campaign, nor do I believe in putting one in Canada. basically, you’ve prevented me from having any bid units.
If you don’t want the allies with an $8 IC, bid for the axis lower.
What are my choices? Play without a bid? (Even if I think 8 is a proper one)? Bid less and give you the IC you want anyway (when you will just keep lowering the cost yourself) ??
Basically, what is the reasonable “value” of this IC. It is certainly not = to a 1 INF bid. Which causes a different advantage in the game. Which is what I was getting at earlier…
I don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.
Now does Axis get bid units to compensate?? Do Allies get their IC but Axis get 2 INF??
Now do you see the inherent problem???
I can see your thinking, but what you describe is merely a concept/theory. It doesn’t play out in the real game play situation. So I do not think a problem exists. Who would not take a free {limited} IC? Worse case is placing that in Australia, adding 2 inf for a turn or two there. Japan would probably never take it then. That alone is a $4 swing. Now is that OVER powered for the allies. I do not think so.
before you reply, I will again, continue your discussion and play along to give you another reason why the bid would never go ‘negative’. No player in their right mind would EVER give the axis a bid in 1941 with NOs. So, I guess, they would be ‘FORCED’ into taking a free IC in India/Australia.
I have a feeling the bid mechanism will determing the proper value of the limited IC, with a zero being a realistic limit.
-
I
don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.
No, you are missing the point.
The “standard” game favors the axis (of at least 3, to your 6-8 bid). Under your system, I give up that 1-2 units for an IC I do not want. So I am forced to allow the axis to keep its advantage.
Or, I let you have a cheap IC (you bid lower and lower until you are happy taking it).
That is the inherent problem.
-
I don’t think any of this matters. Nobody thinks a free UK factory is the solution to open up ‘new strategies’. The proof is 4 people are dealing with these threads and two of them don’t think they are good ideas. I would hope the focus would be rather to find solutions by committee, than to argue against or for just each idea.
Most of the ‘after action reports’ ( if you read them) really make if anything the need for China to be stronger , so that UK can buy time to fight Japan and Historically China was much stronger than represented in the game.
I am astonished that the conclusion of these house rules has not even addressed China at all, and just thinks its great how they are set up. In the first 3-5 minutes of playing or knowing the setup it was very clear that China setup was a mistake and needs to be corrected. That fighter has no chance, its nothing but an automatic target for Japan among others and wiping it out does not really take away from any other plan J1 might involve. Not to mention the thing can’t be replaced!
If anything Let China cash that plane in and get its value in units so it can actually defend itself.
ON the submarine campaign…
If anything alter the NO’s to include making some of the USA, UK and Japanese and perhaps one Soviet NO dependent on no axis or allied subs in a few select sea zones. That would KISS that problem as easily the most simple way to involve more German subs and more American subs patrolling the Pacific.
-
@Imperious:
I don’t think any of this matters. Nobody thinks a free UK factory is the solution to open up ‘new strategies’.
yes, sure, Cousin_Joe and I are Nobody.
Your arrogance in your matter-of-fact statements is sickening.
And you chastised me for personal attacks that YOU started (I wasn’t even going to respond to THAT silly accusation about taking things to a PERSONAL Level).
What do you call that statement?
Nice post for a mod who SHOULD know better.
-
I
don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.
No, you are missing the point.
No, I think you are. Really.
It’s not JUST about making the game balanced. I do not merely want to make each side have an even chance of winning the game. A bid does that.
I want battles in the pacific. Real ones that matter. Not delaying actions while I focus with the allies on Berlin.
The “standard” game favors the axis (of at least 3, to your 6-8 bid). Under your system, I give up that 1-2 units for an IC I do not want. So I am forced to allow the axis to keep its advantage.
Or, I let you have a cheap IC (you bid lower and lower until you are happy taking it).
yes, exactly. I am HAPPY to get a limited IC for NOTHING with the allies. Does that equate to a 3 bid? a 6 bid? 8? Hell, I don’t know because you can not compare Apples to Oranges. They are NOT the same thing, so you can not compare them. Once again, a limited IC <> a BID
That is the inherent problem.
I already pointed out that there is no prolem.
Look, if you don’t want to play a game where UK is has the ability to fight a real war against Japan, then DON’T PLAY WITH THIS IDEA!
I mean, why would you want to play with something you think doesn’t work? Just because you don’t buy into the UK IC as an avenue to opening a pacific war doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea for it’s main purpose:
MAINLY TO OPEN A PACIFIC WAR
You COULD play with the AA50 Strategic utilizing a bid instead of a limited IC.
-
Hi there,
I have just come to this thread from my other thread about using 13 VC.
I think that CJ has put forward an idea to bring about more variation in games and should be applauded.
Why dont we all test it out and see how it goes. I’m going to give it a go in my next game.
The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO :-D
-
Hello General Chang
The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO :-D
No truer statement could ever be made
Please report your results!
-
the main reason the half price industrial complex in india/australia is to force the allies to play in the pacific.
a more simple solution is to play to 11 victory cities.
this encourages the allies to play in the pacific.
unlike the non aggresion pact it does not outlaw history altering strategies like japan going after russia.
unlike the industrial complex in india/australia it is not a static unit/static location which means streamlined playouts = less variability and strategic options
-
Also I would like to ask CJ if he would mind consolodating all his AA enhanced rules into one thread. I would like to print them out and all the different threads makes that task difficult. Are you going to produce a PDF maybe? That would be great.
-
cousin joe, i really enjoyed your axis and allies revised enhanced rules.
i hope you create a ruleset for anniversary that is as enjoyable as aare was.
the reason that aare was so fun was there were many strategies and a wide variety of playouts.
i do not believe the half price industrial complex is the answer to more strategy.
-
@Imperious:
If you want more options for strategy do this:
Give everybody ( meaning each nation) X amount to spend before each players first turn. The total of each side would be different to reflect the bid for balancing issues based on the scenario and options played.
this is a great idea that creates more variability in game playout, for me this simple rule change would add alot more enjoyment to the game. however it does not change the grand strategy of race to berlin/moscow. infact it will just encourage it as the pregame units for each nation will go to areas that help in the race.
@Imperious:
Second thing is you keep the non aggression pact with Soviets and Japan as discussed earlier, so japan can just fight USA and USA must focus on Pacific.
this just reduces variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.
meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.
japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.
-
the only way to have an allied player focus on the pacific is to create an incentive to put units into it or a disincentive to keep units out of the pacific.
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany.
currently the disincentive is to stop japan from taking the pacific islands. after japan’s first turn in 1941 or 1942 scenario the allied islands are australia, new zealand, and hawaii. these islands total 4ipc out of the games 178ipc. if playing with national objectives it becomes 24ipc out of 268ipc.
to create an incentive you could play wih a rule wich forces bids to go into the pacific or surrounding area(china, india, pacific, or pacific islands). this will make it easier to capture japan in relation to capturing germany.
to create a disincentive you could play to 11vcs wereby the axis can win without taking, or being on the path to taking moscow. this forces the allies to defend india, australia, or hawaii.
-
While I have been playing 42 w/o NO, this was generally because its easier to learn the “balance” of the game by first playing the baisc game. And being an optional rule, NO’s shouldnt be used when determining the initial balance of the game. The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
-
I don’t think any of this matters. Nobody thinks a free UK factory is the solution to open up ‘new strategies’.
yes, sure, Cousin_Joe and I are Nobody.
Your arrogance in your matter-of-fact statements is sickening.
And you chastised me for personal attacks that YOU started (I wasn’t even going to respond to THAT silly accusation about taking things to a PERSONAL Level).
What do you call that statement?
Nice post for a mod who SHOULD know better.
Sorry but i think i didn’t make my point more clear. What i meant was that this ‘nobody’ represents the people outside of the two of you, who seem not to like the idea. I was speaking about not the two of you, but the people posting. It’s obvious that you both feel its a fantastic idea and thats fine. I do agree that it could be taken out of context so i am sorry for that. It was not meant to be “personal”. I was also making the observation that i don’t think this idea will take hold as a solution for AA50. ok?
-
While I have been playing 42 w/o NO, this was generally because its easier to learn the “balance” of the game by first playing the baisc game. And being an optional rule, NO’s shouldnt be used when determining the initial balance of the game. The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
Have to agree with Squirecam here. 1942 is much more playable without the NOs.
Why? Because the Axis have already grown to achieve all their NO’s quite easily the first round of the game (with the exception of Japan and the India/Australia NO). Give Germany +15 EVERY turn, and they are a monster. 50+ every round. The allies are very hard pressed to keep up with that.
so i agree with Squirecams statement of:
“The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.” -
While I have been playing 42 w/o NO, this was generally because its easier to learn the “balance” of the game by first playing the baisc game. And being an optional rule, NO’s shouldnt be used when determining the initial balance of the game. The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
I’ve played in a few tournaments last year, plus a number of “prep” games with some of those players. We always used 1942 and no objectives.
With the escort rule, its balanced. (you still bid for sides based upon # of rounds you expect to play and side preference). Without the escort rule, though, the allies have a clear advantage (due to allied bombing) with the lack of NO income really hurting Germany.
Suggested Topics
