AA50: Strategic - A New Way to Play A&A: Anniversary Edition

[axis_roll]

@squirecam:

And back to our last issue…. my problem was that if Player x does not want the 1/2 IC,

If you think that being ‘FORCED’ a 1/2 IC is a problem for the allies, perhaps you should game play test this as I just did.  We bid for the axis, and the allies got the IC at a cost of $8 (Just as C_J priced it).

Granted the axis played safe in our game (did not attack Egypt, took sub, 2 ftr on sz12, sub,ftr, bb on SZ2)

But…Wow.  Japan was not able to expand as they usually might.  Russia threw 7 inf into manchuria R2, forcing Japan to take that out and pulling them far away from the UK india prize.  Even though Japan was all over China, UK was owning south east asia.

As a result of our game play testing, we even discussed if the $8 IC was too much of an advantage for the allies.  In other words, should the bid start at 10, or even 12 for the limited IC cost?

@squirecam:

For the 1/2 IC, I may be forced to take a free 1/2 IC, but you will be much happier taking it at 6. So we never get to that point. You will always “win” the bid and get the IC, while I must take the IC at 7 (which I wont build) and thus I lose out on what would otherwise be a 2 unit bid.

Seems to me you are talking more about the bid SYSTEM instead of the limited IC Idea.
I mean if two players have a varying concept of a fair bid, of cource there will wide discrepancies in preferred bid amounts.  Not sure what that has to do with the limited IC idea.

@squirecam:

To be fair (for bid purposes), there has got to be a way where I get my choice of units rather than getting an “opportunity” to build an IC that I wont ever build.

Said it before, and I will say it again.  If you want units, go back to your bid system… and your KGF, and the tank dash to moscow, and… (insert old repeated strategies here…)

---

I think we’re going in circles.

Do me a favor, please.  Try it out in a game or two.  THEN tell me what you think.

thank you

[cousin_joe]

@axis_roll:

@cousin_joe:

-If you’re wanting to decide who plays who, you can simply bid for the starting cost of the IC (anywhere from 0-15).  If you felt you were a strong Allied player, you would be willing to pay more, whereas if you felt stronger with Axis, you would be willing to give/take the IC for less.

We’re going to play this in a FTF game this weekend.  I think we’ll just flip a coin for sides although your bid the IC cost idea is novel.

Maybe the bidding should be for the perceived stronger side (axis), making the I limited IC progressively cheaper.

For example:
Player A:  I will be the axis and will allow the UK to buy a limited IC at a cost of $9
Player B:  No, I want the axis and will allow the limited IC to cost $8
Player A:  $7
Player B:  OK, you can be the axis.  I can buy a limited IC for UK for $7 on UK1.

Yes, this would work as well .  It makes it a little more straight forward

[cousin_joe]

@squirecam:

@cousin_joe:

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 Edition

I 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?

As stated previously, all of these rules are up for debate
Canada’s inclusion as a possibility was maybe more for historical reasons than strategic
After a recent test game, I am wondering about the possibility of South Africa as a potential placement location
Unfortunately, I don’t think this would do a whole lot to slow down monster Japan (and you’re right, neither would the one in Canada)

Perhaps it’s best to leave the locations as either India or Australia only.

[cousin_joe]

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

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?

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

Excellent post

I couldn’t have said it better myself  :-D

Squirecam: The idea of the AA50 Strategic ruleset is to encourage UK to be active in the Pacific/SE Asian theatres and to prevent Japan from becoming such a MONSTER
To do this, the 1/2 IC rule is introduced so UK can actually have a viable IC in one of those theatres

If you are fine with the boring, old KGF/monster Japan playout, then by all means, keep playing with your standard bid rules, and we can just agree to say that maybe AA50: Strategic is not the ruleset for you.

[cousin_joe]

@General:

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

Thanks General Chang… A General and a Diplomat  :-D
That’s all I’m asking for… just to try it out and see how it goes  :-)

[cousin_joe]

@General:

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.

If you mean AA50 Strategic, it’s still undergoing some modifications

If you mean AAR: Enhanced, I know there’s a PDF floating around somewhere on the internet as well as several .txt, .html and .doc files.

[cousin_joe]

@allweneedislove:

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.

AWNIL,

Hey there, long time, no see  :-D

I agree, the 1/2 price IC is not THE solution, but I do think it’s part of it
Once we get UK participating in the Pacific/SE Asia, then it opens up several more strategic possibilities.
For example, because UK is just so dominant in the Atlantic currently,  German SUBs are a waste of time
This will eventually be addressed

What we really need to increase strategy is a Directed Tech system (please see other post).  That’s when strategic options will really start coming into play instead of just the randomness that exists now.

[Wilson2]

Hi.
I am a huge fan of AARe and I like the ideas you are working with to create AA50: strategic

I agree that for a start at least we should work with 1941 and NOs.

I also agree that there is the problem with the KGF and the KRF strategies, but I think that you are missing a side of it.

From my somewhat limited experience in AA50, I have seen some other flaws:

1. Due to the AA50 rules subs seem to be ignored except as punch in attacking with fleets, and as such Germany building subs is out of the question.
2. Germany building any fleet seems pointless, especially since subs get ignored. Also because of Russia’s NO, Russia is reluctant to call for allied help. This makes it all the more important for Germany to forget UK and surge Russia.
3. China is weak, and moreover, the flying tigers almost always get killed J1
4. Techs are too random and unbalanced.
5. Victory city victory for axis seems revolved around Germany taking key Russian places.

Here are some of my proposed solutions for these:

1. Convoy raids as per AARe - The reason for this idea is that it makes the nations not be able to ignore subs anymore. I especially like this solution because it solves the problem without making subs too good for their price–It doesn’t increase their fighting power at all. This combined with improved techs would allow Germany to actually build a fleet.
Also, increasing the ability of Germany to build a fleet would help solve #5 since he has the chance to take East Canada.

2. Give subs a 1 shot roll @2 against unescorted transports trying to move into or through their seazone (as per AAP40). A transport shouldn’t be able to pass up a sub with impunity–that was the main use for subs in the war. Also perhaps make Super subs give subs the ability to strike and submerge (as per AARe)

3. Give Russia lend-lease in archangel–12 IPCs (number borrowed) of units per turn from allies. In addition slightly modify Russian 5-IPC NO to allow allied units in archangle only. This change would solve the problem of Russia getting quickly overrun by Germany and would allow the allies to give limited aid to Russia.

4. Change tank price to 6–This one I am mainly going on the word of others who insist that a 5 point tank is overpowered especially for Germany. Also common sense says that in a map with more territories (AA50 as opposed to AAR) units with more movement are worth more.

5. Give tank a blitz ability–If all of the opposing units are wiped out in one turn of combat, any attacking tanks in the territory may make a 1 move Combat move. The intent to do so and the target location must be given during the combat move phase. This move cannot be aborted (units may still retreat after 1 cycle of combat). Tanks can still only move 2 spaces per turn: This move cannot be done if the tank moved two spaces to participate in the combat.–I am kind of wary of this suggestion as it may be too powerful, but with the increased price of 6 for tanks I think it might deserve some looking into.
Note that the blitz does not allow a tank to do a non-combat move (as per panzerblitz in AARe)-- that would be too powerful.

6. China (as posted in other thread)
   a. China plays as a separate power directly after Russia. This would save China fighter and increases the strength of China since Russia can take territories to give China more units
   b. Create a Burma Road rule: If China controls the Burma road on his mobilize units phase, he may place 1 artillery unit as per China’s placement rules. This represents China’s dependence on
    outsiders for artillery.
   c. Instead of rounding up, make China count for his units in mobilize units phase. All the other nations get their resources at the end of their turn why not China.
All of these would increase the power of China and make it have a greater presence. Also a greater presence in China should bring down the pressure on India, helping to solve the problem of the unkeepable India.
   d. I think China should have a VC in its farthest west territory to give Japan the incentive to take the more-powerful China.

7. I think a couple VC’s should be added to indicate the importance of certain areas. I suggest a VC in Cairo and one in Iwo Jima. The Cairo one makes it possible for the Axis to win without forcing Germany to take most of the VCs from Russia. The Iwo Jima one Counter the Cairo one as it is and axis one for an allied one and it is relatively easy for US to take compared to Cairo being relatively easy for Italy to take.

8. Give Germany and IC in Northwestern Europe–This would allow Germany to replenish his fleet once it has left the Baltic. The reason France was avoided was to stop Germany from building in the Mediterranean; that is Italy’s territory. Alternatively, decrease the price of industries.

Obviously after implementing any ideas, the game will have to be tested for fairness, but I think these ideas would improve the game.
Tell me what you think and hopefully some of these will make it into AA50: Strategic

BTW: Your link for AA50: Strategic in your signature is broken.

Do I also get a long time no see?  :-)

[axis_roll]

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

There are so many possible tweaks to AA50, getting a concensus on house rules will be difficult (unfortunately).

RE: The russian NO.  I think people give this $5 NO too much attention.  There is way more strategic importance to being in russia for many of the allied units that I will sacrifice this NO often as needed.  Perhaps I am incorrect in my opinion of this NO?

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor.

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

[Wilson2]

@axis_roll:

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

I would have to disagree. Even if you take the AARe sub without convoy raids and compare it to the AA50 sub, they are very close. Here’s why:

1. Although the AA50 sub costs 1/4 less than the AARe sub, it has 1/4 less total punch. Obviously this is not totally even but this is not all that is different.
2. AARe sub can strike and submerge; AA50 one cannot.
3. AARe sub needed a detection roll from a 10 point destroyer; AA50 sub needs no roll from an 8 point destroyer.
4. The owner of the AARe sub could choose to take it as a hit in a battle vs aircraft; the AA50 sub cannot be hit by aircraft. (without destroyers)
5. AA50 transports can run right over subs, even alone; AARe transports cannot.
This list I would say is fairly even. AARe has convoy raids. Why not give them to AA50?

@axis_roll:

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

Are you saying that my ideas were a lot of good ideas or that there are a whole bunch out there?
The reason I put the change in order of play is because I see it as the simplest way to save the flying tigers and giver China a little boost. It doesn’t seem too unprecedented since in OOB AA50 the Order of play changes from 1941 to 1942. There may be a better way though. Any other ideas?

I agree that getting people to agree on house rules will be hard, but I am glad it has made it this far.

[Wilson2]

@axis_roll:

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor

But you must admit that with the increased territories of AA50, a faster moving unit (tank) becomes more valuable. And compared to the artillery it has 1 more defense, 1 more move, and it doesn’t need to pair with infantry to have an effective 3 point attack power. Is all this only worth 1 point? I am not sure. But I think a 6 point tank should at least be tried.

[axis_roll]

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor

But you must admit that with the increased territories of AA50, a faster moving unit (tank) becomes more valuable. And compared to the artillery it has 1 more defense, 1 more move, and it doesn’t need to pair with infantry to have an effective 3 point attack power. Is all this only worth 1 point? I am not sure. But I think a 6 point tank should at least be tried.

bombers are now $12, where’s the complaint about them?

please try to keep with the minimalistic approach:  less changes are better.

Tanks are priced fine at $5

[axis_roll]

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

I would have to disagree. Even if you take the AARe sub without convoy raids and compare it to the AA50 sub, they are very close. Here’s why:

1. Although the AA50 sub costs 1/4 less than the AARe sub, it has 1/4 less total punch. Obviously this is not totally even but this is not all that is different.
2. AARe sub can strike and submerge; AA50 one cannot.
3. AARe sub needed a detection roll from a 10 point destroyer; AA50 sub needs no roll from an 8 point destroyer.
4. The owner of the AARe sub could choose to take it as a hit in a battle vs aircraft; the AA50 sub cannot be hit by aircraft. (without destroyers)
5. AA50 transports can run right over subs, even alone; AARe transports cannot.
This list I would say is fairly even. AARe has convoy raids. Why not give them to AA50?

How will you implement convoy raids?  Like AARe?  Are you adding detection rolls into the game?
Are you enabling subs to have zones of control?

My point was that you simply can not just add convoy raid capability to AA50 subs.  There are many changes to how subs work in the AA50 game.  Of course, the new proposed convoy rules would need to be typed up for us to discuss them.

When that happens, the specific issues can be identified.

[axis_roll]

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

Are you saying that my ideas were a lot of good ideas or that there are a whole bunch out there?
The reason I put the change in order of play is because I see it as the simplest way to save the flying tigers and giver China a little boost. It doesn’t seem too unprecedented since in OOB AA50 the Order of play changes from 1941 to 1942. There may be a better way though. Any other ideas?

There’s a lot of China Mods out there.  I don’t have a preference for one over the other.  The mods need to work in harmony with any other rule changes implemented.

It seems to me that AA50 balance is much more difficult, especially with NOs in play.  Once one side gets an advantage, there seems to be a snow ball effect, where the advantage grows and grows.  This can be a good thing as games are much faster (usually determined by round 6-8).

[Wilson2]

Sorry, I guess I am just a bit impatient. I really would like to know what your ideas are. Otherwise I am stuck with my ideas and having them shot down and thinking now what. That last thing I want is for this to die.

As to my idea for convoy raiding:
What I meant was that destroyers automatically detect (detection roll could be added) other convoy rules stay the same–zones of influence submerge etc.

[axis_roll]

@Wilson2:

Sorry, I guess I am just a bit impatient. I really would like to know what your ideas are. Otherwise I am stuck with my ideas and having them shot down and thinking now what. That last thing I want is for this to die.

As to my idea for convoy raiding:
What I meant was that destroyers automatically detect (detection roll could be added) other convoy rules stay the same–zones of influence submerge etc.

Type up some official rules so we can discuss the pros/cons.
Please be as complete as possible.

[Wilson2]

here it is. All typed up and official - my ideas for AA50 strategic.
Blue = new clarifications
Red = new/beta stuff

Paul’s AA50 Strategic

All rules are AA50 OOB 1941 + NOs unless stated here.

BETA: The Dardanelles strait is closed to sea movement: ships in SZ 16 may only unload/bombard in Bulgaria/romania. Caucasus and Ukraine ICs may not build ships in SZ 16.  Planes may fly over the strait unrestricted.

Changes to unit costs
Destroyers now cost 7
Cruisers now cost 11

Changes to unit attributes

All battleships are equipped with AA guns (radar does not increase this)

Each Unit with ASW capabilities can only detect 1 submarine the first round of combat. Every subsequent round this number goes up one. (In other words 2 destroyers would detect 2 subs first round, 4 next etc.)  Undetected subs are treated as if there were no destroyer in the territory (for submerging, surprise strike, and plane possible targets.) Example: 3 subs attack a cruiser and a destroyer. One sub is detected the first round. The two undetected subs get surprise strike and the detected one does not. Say all of the units miss. The second round a second sub is detected. Now, only one sub gets surprise strike.

-Due to their heavier dependence on convoys for shipping, UK,US, Italy, and Japan are subject to Convoy Raids (CR). These are economic attacks, conducted by SUBs, close to enemy shipping lanes (ie. near an IC). Russian and German ICs are not subject to such attacks.
-On the UK, US, Italian, and Japan Collect Income Phases, for every Enemy SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country, subtract 1IPC from their collected income. For every 2 subs raiding the same IC, subtract 1 additional IPC from the player’s income (up to territory max). If a SUB became submerged during this TURN’s Conduct Combat Phase, it does not do ANY economic damage.
-Multiple SUBs may affect a single IC, with damage capped at the Territory’s IPC value. Any individual SUB, can only affect one IC/TURN, but may affect multiple ICs/ROUND. (i.e. A sub could affect a UK IC on UK’s turn and then a US IC on US’s turn)
Subs can only be forced to submerge by combat. Note that fighters alone cannot force a sub to submerge, since if fighters and subs are the last in a seazone, the battle simply ends.

BETA: UK starts with minor factories in India. Germany starts with a minor factory in France. Minor factories may only build Infantry units and may be upgraded to factories for 8 IPCs. Upgraded minor factories may be used at full capacity the turn they are upgraded.

The tech system is reworked. Here is the new tech process

Step 1: Buy Researcher Tokens

-Each Research Token costs 7 (Minor), 10 (Moderate), 15 (Major) IPCs.
-You must declare which specific technology you are rolling for
-You must buy a minimum of 2 (but no more than 4) researchers for that specific technology
-Once you have purchased a set number of researchers for a specific technology, you cannot purchase any more.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice

-If this is the first time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll one die for each researcher you have
-Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have achieved that technology.  Discard your remaining research tokens for that technology.
-Failure: If you do not roll a “6”, your research has failed.  Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

Double-Double Rule
-If you have TWO researchers, and this is the second time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll TWO dice for each researcher you have (ie. 4 dice total, this increases to 8 dice next turn, then 16, etc.)
-If you have 3 researchers, the sequence would be 3, 9, 27…
-If you have 4 researchers, the sequence would be 4, 16, 64…

Step 3: Mark Developments

-If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers over the appropriate advancement box.  Your development becomes effective immediately.
-You can initiate research on only one new technology each turn.  You can however, be rolling for more than one technology in a turn (roll newest one first), and more than one technology can come into play on a single turn.

MINOR TECHS (7IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 14IPC)
-Increased Factory Production – Errata is ignored – all factories gain 2+ production
-Super Submarines
-Improved Shipyards
-Enhanced cruisers – Your cruisers are equipped with ASW capabilities
– Your cruisers are equipped with an AA gun. This AA may be stacked with the battleship AA gun. If defending battleship and cruiser are present, roll 1 dice @2 per attacking plane instead of 2@1.

MODERATE TECHS (10IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 20IPC)
-Rockets
-Paratroopers
-Jet Fighters
-Radar
-Mechanized Infantry
-Long range mortars (Advanced Artillery) – Your artillery attack and defend @3 first cycle of combat.
                                – Your artillery have a surprise strike first cycle of combat

MAJOR TECHS (15IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 30IPC)
-Long Range Aircraft
-Heavy Bombers

China changes
China now has IPCs, It collects IPCs as other nations and starts with 7 IPCs.
China’s turn is still with US. (not combat move and combat though)
Changed: China may purchase infantry at the cost of 2 IPC each. All other units are normal price.
Changed: China NO: If the Burma Road (Yunnan, Burma) is owned by the allies, China receives 2 extra IPCs
Flying Tigers start in Sikang instead of Yunnan.

[Imperious Leader]

Its nice to see you made the improvements regarding China we talked about.

Also, your convoy disruption procedure is a bit like mine except i allow thew sub to soak only 1 IPC for each sub up to the limit of any enemy controlled land territory up to the IPC limit. Otherwise you make it too easy to protect areas adjacent to factories. For example, Germany can post a sub off south Africa and with 2 subs can soak off it’s two ipc. A factory should not be a prerequisite because goods flow into and from all controlled areas, even if a factory does not exist.  i also allow German BB, and CA to act as surface raiders.

I hope you can look into my tiered approach to tech researchers, rather than start charging different prices. To reflect the ability to obtain tech, i feel it is a mistake to model it by making it more expensive, rather with my tiered approach you need a framework of lower techs achieved in order to get more major ones. It models the progression of invention from comparable ideas to more complex ones. Under my proposal all the techs are the same, but you must have successfully researched the lower tiers first. Under your system from not having any technology, it may be possible to get Atomic Bombs ( for example) from nothing or from not even have successfully gotten any techs if you paid the price.

[Wilson2]

@Imperious:

Also, your convoy disruption procedure is a bit like mine except i allow thew sub to soak only 1 IPC for each sub up to the limit of any enemy controlled land territory up to the IPC limit. Otherwise you make it too easy to protect areas adjacent to factories. For example, Germany can post a sub off south Africa and with 2 subs can soak off it’s two ipc. A factory should not be a prerequisite because goods flow into and from all controlled areas, even if a factory does not exist.  i also allow German BB, and CA to act as surface raiders.

I considered and am still considering making subs do only 1 IPC dmg and to non factories. (BTW, what I posted was not MY idea for convoy disruption. It is copy and paste from AARe) As to surface ships, I figured that convoys can avoid surface ships since they can detect them. plus I thought that it might get out of hand with all those types of ships convoying every territory on the map.
@Imperious:

I hope you can look into my tiered approach to tech researchers, rather than start charging different prices. To reflect the ability to obtain tech, i feel it is a mistake to model it by making it more expensive, rather with my tiered approach you need a framework of lower techs achieved in order to get more major ones. It models the progression of invention from comparable ideas to more complex ones. Under my proposal all the techs are the same, but you must have successfully researched the lower tiers first. Under your system from not having any technology, it may be possible to get Atomic Bombs ( for example) from nothing or from not even have successfully gotten any techs if you paid the price.

I don’t really like the tiered approach, since I wanted techs to be something that you research pretty much the tech you want for your strategy and not spend money on others, but I will look at yours and see its quality. As to atomic bomb, all I can say is that if it is at all my decision, it wont be in there. I know you think it is a great idea, but I think it is a horrible idea.

[Imperious Leader]

Subs should soak off not more than 1 IPC because they cost 6 and to soak two would get into a situation of something where it becomes a glitch to bankrupt nations entirely in quick fashion.

Also making surface ships like battleships and cruiser soak off two IPC is justifiable because these units cost 12 and 20 and too give them a one like subs would preclude them as surface raiders. I have played these rules for a long time and you will find it works.

I considered having a bomber or fighter being used to attack empty sea zones in the same manner as these ships, but it proved too much under playtest.