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

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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.


  • @squirecam:

    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.

    @squirecam:

    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

    @squirecam:

    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  😄


  • Hello General Chang

    @General:

    The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO  😄

    No truer statement could ever be made

    Please report your results!

  • TripleA

    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.

  • TripleA

    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.

  • TripleA

    @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.

  • TripleA

    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.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @squirecam:

    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.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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?


  • @Zhukov44:

    @squirecam:

    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.”


  • @Zhukov44:

    @squirecam:

    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.


  • @axis_roll:

    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.”

    Not to derail this topic too much, but isnt 1941 without NO’s also better balanced for the pacific? After all, the Japan monster cant be ramped up quickly without that extra NO income (yes Japan can still get income, but not 70+).

    By this I mean, the extra NO income leads to faster/large builds, leading to faster gains, leading to bigger/faster builds, which leads to faster gains…. its a self-sustaining circle.

    If we eliminate NO’s, dont we have an “easier” time managing a pacific war without resorting to 1/2 IC ideas?

    And back to our last issue… my problem was that if Player x does not want the 1/2 IC, then he is forced to play allies without a bid. Essentially, only 1 side is happy with the bid, whereas a unit bid usually makes both sides happy. At some point, give anyone enough units and they will play both sides.

    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.

    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.

    Does that explain it better?


  • @squirecam:

    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.

    No it is not… :roll:   but ofc you might (as I did) need a few games to learn the basics, and a matter of fact is that allies is obviously favored in this setting, I guess the axis bid needed is somewhat near AAR.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @squirecam:

    @Zhukov44:

    @squirecam:

    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.

    I’m confused…does Axis get a bid or not?

    Axis_Roll…weren’t you claiming in another thread 42 is balanced WITH NOs?  I suspect you’ve gotten some more games in and have changed your mind but I think you are overestimating Axis strength if you feel they could win this without national objectives.  Japan can’t really threaten Moscow until J7-J8…that’s a long time for Western Axis to hold out.

    I’ve been under the impression that interceptors favor Allies since Axis has more incentive to buy bombers…but since Germs can’t afford bombers without NO money, the interceptors would help Axis in this scenario.

    If Squirecam or Axis_Roll care for a test game via TripleA I’d be down. I’m not sure what kind of bid Axis would need to even the odds but IMO Sub is probably on the right track…at least 8-9.


  • @Zhukov44:

    I’m confused…does Axis get a bid or not?

    Axis_Roll…weren’t you claiming in another thread 42 is balanced WITH NOs?  I suspect you’ve gotten some more games in and have changed your mind but I think you are overestimating Axis strength if you feel they could win this without national objectives.  Japan can’t really threaten Moscow until J7-J8…that’s a long time for Western Axis to hold out.

    I’ve been under the impression that interceptors favor Allies since Axis has more incentive to buy bombers…but since Germs can’t afford bombers without NO money, the interceptors would help Axis in this scenario.

    If Squirecam or Axis_Roll care for a test game via TripleA I’d be down. I’m not sure what kind of bid Axis would need to even the odds…  I think Sub is probably on the right track…at least 8-9.

    First, lets not equate “balanced” with exactly 50/50 odds. Just like in revised, a bid is found to “balance” the game, but due to skill/dice/whatever the game win was something like 53-47, IIRC. You will never get “exactly 50/50”.

    Second, you can play straight up in revised and still have a 60-40 win ratio, given dice varances, from a 0-5 bid. The bid lybia tank helped for the R1 attack, but given the variable hits per side, may not make a difference past that attack (i.e. the UK Egypt counter still succeeded).

    So again, basic balance doesnt equate to exactly even balance.

    Third, I think I know what AR meant. {I could be wrong though}

    AR is correct, in that in 42 the Germans get their NO income easily. This income offsets the Allied bombing raids. So that additional income is helpful to “balance” that scenario, given the punishment the axis takes.

    When you dont have that additional income (No objectives), you need something to somewhat deter the allied bombing campaign. That’s the escort rule.

    So I can see how both are “balanced”, given 1 has the NO and 1 has the escort rule. I would agree that 42 + NO + escorts is probably more of an axis advantage than it otherwise would be.

    Yes, you still have a bid unit. Usually it is 3-5 IPC. This free’s up one mainland Japan fighter or bomber (with a bid art or armor) to use that fighter/bomber in another attack to improve odds.

    Once again, though, given dice variances this really may not have an effect past R1. This is why I said the game is basically balanced.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Ok fair enough but I think you need some testing to verify these statements (I volunteer to play Allies :8)  The only time I tried a no-bid 42 game on TripleA it was a rout, with Allies having a dominant economic advantage the entire game.  Axis’ best shot would probably be bidding some units to the Eastern front to try to take and hold a major base like Cauc.

    Also, in AA50 with NOs, SBR and 12$ bombers favor Axis, not Allies.  But I concede the situation would be different in a 42 game played without NOs.  That doesn’t mean Allies should buy bombers….instead I’d focus on transports and land units to quickly choke a Germany that cannot afford to buy air.


  • @Zhukov44:

    Ok fair enough but I think you need some testing to verify these statements (I volunteer to play Allies :8)  The only time I tried a no-bid 42 game on TripleA it was a rout, with Allies having a dominant economic advantage the entire game.  Axis’ best shot would probably be bidding some units to the Eastern front to try to take and hold a major base like Cauc.

    Also, in AA50 with NOs, SBR and 12$ bombers favor Axis, not Allies.  But I concede the situation would be different in a 42 game played without NOs.  That doesn’t mean Allies should buy bombers….instead I’d focus on transports and land units to quickly choke a Germany that cannot afford to buy air.

    1. I’ve played in tournaments this way for well over a year. You should visit Gencon/Origins/Spring Gathering for some stellar FTF play.

    2. I agreed that 42+NO+escorts would be more of an axis advantage.

    3. If you didnt have to worry about escorts, the bombers UK/USA already have is enough to cripple Italy. Or be a PITA to Germany.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    It is really impossible to make the same house rule apply to at least four versions of the game. First concentrate on 41 without NO’s and Tech, then 42, then finally with NO’s and tech on 41 and 42.

    Obviously, the balance is different on each, but your making the same blanket assumptions as to the solution for all four.

    That could be possible only if everybody got the SAME THING. at start like the idea of each nation starting with 13-15 IPC with the bid reflected by sides and players are able to change out their starting forces.

    For example 1941: Germany gets 13 IPC: she buys 1 fighter, and upgrades one artillery to a tank, and 2 more infantry to artillery.

    Soviets get 15 IPC: they upgrade 5 infantry to tanks ( 10 spent) and buy another tank for 5 IPC=15.

    The Germans do well but didn’t prepare for the counter of so many soviet tanks and now are pushed back.

    THIS OPENS ALOT OF STRATEGY AND OPTIONS MORE THAN A FIXED IC JUST FOR UK.

    What is wrong with this idea?


  • @squirecam:

    I have more than enough experience with the game to form my own opinions. Your opinion as to bid balance is just that, an opinion. Dont act as if its fact.

    Actually I had to play a couple of AA50-41 games w/o NOs until I figured out the most optimal strat(s), but after that it would be very very difficult to beat me as allies w/o a bid. I never lost in 42 w/o NOs and w/o bids as allies.
    Several years ago, before I started playing online, I also had not yet learned that AAR needs a bid to balance the game…

    But for decent/experienced players, my opinions are a matter of fact, as regards to the different setups of AA50, meaning +/-NOs, 41/42 scenarios. I don’t claim to know the exact amount of $bid that is needed, but you need a bid for axis in both 41 and 42 w/o NOs, and you need a bid for allies in both 41 and 42 with NOs.


  • @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


  • @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


  • @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.

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
  • 10
  • 1
  • 72
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

26
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts