OK, initial thoughts.
Need to game play test this before any real judgements are made
1). Wow. Lots of changes to the game: Tech system, Tech’s themselves, NOs, etc.
2). What about NO’s in AA50s? Are they now standard?
3). How about new Tech system, standard or optional?
4). Optional rules: Closing Dardenelles? Is this still optional?
I would think it needs to be open as the new rules seem to give the allies a better chance in the game.
5). Did you consider the detuning of HB’s (RE: best of two dice) in your tech costs?
6). While I do like the intent of the rule changes in AA50s, just not so sure they are 100% needed just yet. Allied play is improving in the area of learning how to control Godzilla (Japanese Monster). Also, if you don’t like the monsters that Germany and Japan can become in the game, try playing WITHOUT the NOs. Recall that the NO’s are OPTIONAL rules. This becomes a very different (albeit longer) game.
7). There’s a lot of changes (did I say that already?).
It is nice to see something started from the AARe creator. Perhaps my initial thoughts are premature. As we’ve always said when creating / tweaking AARe, game play testing is the only way to truely test any new rule ideas.
1. At an absolute minimum, I would love to just see the pre-placed IC in UK as per the parameters I mention
I think we as a community short-change ourselves by playing with the standard rules with the old, boring Allies to Berlin, Japan to Moscow playout
If we created a lot of support for just this one change, I would be happy as it would fix the playout and historical accuracy problems.
The 2nd thing I would like to see adopted is the Tech development rules. Tech in it’s current state is just not suitable for a competitive game. Too much is left to chance and strategy gets thrown out the window. Tech needs to be directed with more appropriate risk-benefit ratios.
Beyond that, the new techs are just gravy in the sense of increasing strategic options. I find games much more enjoyable when there are more strategic options available. Are they absolutely necessary? Probably not, but they would definitely make the game better.
2. Most popular game option would appear to be 1941 scenario, with NOs and so yes, I would see these as standard.
3. As per 1, I think the Tech Development rules suggested here make Tech playable (for competitve games) and as close to the OOTB rules as possible while doing so.
4. I totally dislike this rule to begin with
It would definitely NOT be part of A&A strategic.
5. Here’s my take on it
For AA50strategic, I would like to keep as many of the original rules the same as possible, including the base 12 Techs in the game and then just price them accordingly based on their as-written strength
-This maintains familiarity with the OOTB version
-Where I’m OK with things changing is any new techs we bring in. These can be whatever we like, but each needs to have a strategic/counter-strategic reason for bringing it in.
6. Again, I think the NOs do add a lot to the game and are one of defining characteristics of an Anniversary game. Their inclusion would be a MUST.
-I’m sure the Allies can incorporate some tactics to “control” the Japanese monster, but these are at the abandonment of other theaters (Africa/Russia). The game just feels like it was MEANT to be played with a 2nd UK IC. The problem is that the playtesters/developers made a MAJOR oversight in the game’s initial setup which almost completely removes this possibility
7. If you have the time axis_roll (or anyone else for that matter), I would like to playtest just core rule #1
**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #1
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada.
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC. Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)**
I’ve already playtested on my own potential openings and responses for both Axis and Allies but would certainly be willing to show you what this single rule can do.
I believe this rule would work best with Directed Tech (14 IPC to try and increase Ind or Aus production quickly) but would be willing to just have a No Tech game to keep it simple
I’d be perfectly fine with whatever turn rate you would like, and would also be fine with even just going a couple rounds to get a rough idea of potential playout (instead of whole game)
P.S. If you’re up for adding in just the Original 12 Techs but in directed form, that would make for an even better evaluation of the AA50strategic rules