AA50: Strategic - Core Rule #2 –> German NO for Battle of the Atlantic


  • Any competent German player knows to try and destroy as much of the UK fleet as possible on G1.  Unfortunately, Germany’s navy then likely faces extinction on UK1 and then that’s pretty much the end of the Battle of the Atlantic as far as AA50 OOTB is concerned  :roll:

    Now, there are a few different ways to address this game defect, but I think the most simple is simply the following National Objective for Germany:

    **AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #2

    -Gain 5IPCs if Axis Powers have at  least 1 sub in any of the following territories: SZ 1-4, 6-9, and 12.**

    -The easy way to think of this is any SZ within 2 spaces of UK except for the Baltic SZ
    -This wording is consistent with the other NOs, and is restricted to just Germany for simplicity sake.
    -The idea here is to encourage some German sub production.  The next obvious question is that why would Germany produce subs if they are still so vulnerable.  This will be adressed later with some of the tech rules.  For now, I’d appreciate some feedback on the rule in general and the SZ restrictions.  Thanks.  🙂


  • This is just silly
    Germany does not get increased Industrial Production within germany for putting subs in the water

    National objectives cant work like this, they arent doggie treats to incentivise a power into playing historicly, that is a side effect.

    A national objective is what that power wanted to accomplish, the IPC bonus reflects both the addition of territory and resources, as well as national pride when it is acomplished

    Putting subs in the water just doesnt do this.

    If you want it to do something similar, and fair……

    Axis subs may attack allied national objectives. An axis sub, ajacent to an allied territory that is part of an allied national objective, or contains an allied capital may negate either the national objective in question, or one of its choosing in the case of seazones adjacent to a capital. If the sub ends its turn in an eligeble seazone, the National Objective is reduced by D6 on that powers collect income phase (place damage counters in the seazone in question) if that sub also remains in the seazone during that powers collect income phase then it may also attack the territory directly, reducing that players income by D6. This second roll may not exceed the value of the territory.

    To put it simply…you cant give germany IPCs for blowing up allied cargo, thats just silly.
    Instead, let the axis attack both IPCs like in pacific 40, and attack National Objectives, that represent shipping.

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

    This is just silly
    Germany does not get increased Industrial Production within germany for putting subs in the water

    exactly!

    German subs in specific sea zones should reduce UK/USA income and not generate income for Germany.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12316.0

    Procedure: place national tokens in the following seazones to indicate potential convoy zones. If the territory that is tied to the SZ is captured, the Convoy can then be subject to attacks to that new player.

    Convoy Zones: Each nation begins in control of specific sea zones that can be attacked by enemy naval forces or bombers. When the listed territory is occupied by the opposing side the convoy center is replaced with a new convoy token of the controlling player. Anytime the enemy enters this sea zone with a warship (not transport) they roll one D6:
    1-2= 1 IPC lost, 3-4= 2 IPC lost, 5-6= 3 IPC lost. The convoy zone can only be attacked up to the total value of 3 IPC per turn.

    The following convoy centers are in the game:

    Germany:
    Sea zone #5-Convoy removed if Germany loses two of the three: Sweden, Finland, or Norway.

    Italy:
    Sea Zone #14- Convoy removed if Italy loses Libya or Balkans.

    Japan:
    Sea Zone #62- Convoy removed if Japan loses Manchuria.
    Sea Zone #36- Convoy removed if Japan loses French-Indo China.

    Soviet Union:
    Sea Zone #4- Convoy removed if Soviets lose Karella S.S.R.

    United Kingdom:
    Sea Zone #8- Convoy removed if UK loses any part of Canada.
    Sea Zone #2- Convoy removed if UK loses England.
    Sea Zone #33-Convoy removed if UK controls less than 6 IPC in Africa.
    Sea Zone #35-Convoy removed if UK controls loses India.
    Sea Zone #12-Convoy removed if UK controls loses Gibraltar.
    Sea Zone #39-Convoy removed if UK controls loses Australia.
    Sea Zone #38-Convoy removed if UK controls loses East Indies or Borneo.

    United States:
    Sea Zone #10- Convoy removed if USA loses Eastern USA.
    Sea Zone #50- Convoy removed if USA loses Western United States.
    Sea Zone #54- Convoy removed if USA loses Alaska.
    Sea Zone #56- Convoy removed if USA loses Philippine Islands.
    Sea Zone #65- Convoy removed if USA loses Hawaii.

    Note: In each case when the sea zone is occupied a new convoy zone is established by the side that captures the listed territories and the new player can now be attacked in the same manner.

    if you want KISS, then:

    Any German or Italian Battleship or Cruiser outside Baltic or Medd. cost the British or American player 3 IPC, Each Sub, Carrier, Or Destroyer costs them 2 IPC each. The allies decide who pays and the cost can be shared between them. If the axis place a bomber in a sea zone, they can also soak off 2 IPC, or 1 IPC for a fighter as long as its outside Baltic and Medd.

    Also, Each American or British submarine adjacent to any original axis controlled territory costs them 1 IPC each.


  • @oztea:

    This is just silly
    Germany does not get increased Industrial Production within germany for putting subs in the water

    I suggested this method for simplicity’s sake
    The alternative would be a UK National Objective that would cost UK 5 IPCs if a German SUB was in one of those SZs

    The other reason I suggest this design, was I wanted Germany to get MORE IPCs than what they get in a standard game
    Currently, with good players playing, Germany doesn’t have enough material to threaten Russia
    This NO as written can give Germany some easy early IPCs (and potentially continued IPCs assuming they keep SUB production going) to become more of a threat to Russia

    With AA50s, the idea is for Germany to threaten Russia, not Japan
    To do this, Germany must get stronger

    National objectives cant work like this, they arent doggie treats to incentivise a power into playing historicly, that is a side effect.

    A national objective is what that power wanted to accomplish, the IPC bonus reflects both the addition of territory and resources, as well as national pride when it is acomplished

    Putting subs in the water just doesnt do this.

    These statements couldn’t be further from the truth
    A succesful sub program would be a huge motivator for Germany, and tremendously increase national pride
    There are other NOs that fall along these lines and if you examine them individually, you’ll see some which have nothing at all to do with monetary value of territories taken but rather more of the pride factor (no Allied units in Russia, Japan expansion NOs, no Allied units in Med for Italy)

    Re: historical play, I think this is EXACTLY what the NOs were meant to accomplish

    If you want it to do something similar, and fair……

    Axis subs may attack allied national objectives. An axis sub, ajacent to an allied territory that is part of an allied national objective, or contains an allied capital may negate either the national objective in question, or one of its choosing in the case of seazones adjacent to a capital. If the sub ends its turn in an eligeble seazone, the National Objective is reduced by D6 on that powers collect income phase (place damage counters in the seazone in question) if that sub also remains in the seazone during that powers collect income phase then it may also attack the territory directly, reducing that players income by D6. This second roll may not exceed the value of the territory.

    To put it simply…you cant give germany IPCs for blowing up allied cargo, thats just silly.
    Instead, let the axis attack both IPCs like in pacific 40, and attack National Objectives, that represent shipping.

    This is very inconsistent with how NOs work
    NOs are simply a +5 IPC income boost for achieving something, no dice rolls should be involved plus the way you have it designed is much more confusing than it needs to be


  • @Imperious:

    if you want KISS, then:

    Any German or Italian Battleship or Cruiser outside Baltic or Medd. cost the British or American player 3 IPC, Each Sub, Carrier, Or Destroyer costs them 2 IPC each. The allies decide who pays and the cost can be shared between them. If the axis place a bomber in a sea zone, they can also soak off 2 IPC, or 1 IPC for a fighter as long as its outside Baltic and Medd.

    Also, Each American or British submarine adjacent to any original axis controlled territory costs them 1 IPC each.

    I wouldn’t say this is KISS - it’s much more complex tham the original idea proposed
    I appreciate the suggestion Imperious but your angle is History first, with Strategy & Simplicity secondary
    I think your rules fit well with a game concerned more with Historical and Tactical Realism
    The problem is that these rules are neither simple or as strategic as they can be

    My angle is more Strategic Options and Simplicity over History
    I prefer to value these first 2 game features much more, with history being included but not at the cost of strategy or simplicity

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

    A successful sub program would be a huge motivator for Germany, and tremendously increase national pride

    Their are no studies that reflect increased GDP or production figures for any nation because that nation sank X shipping that month. Slave labor in German factories don’t all of a sudden start producing an extra tank per day because the newspaper reported the Kreigsmarine just sank another 100,000 tons of shipping. RATHER, the side that faced these loses had always suffered the consequences of these attacks.

    If your aware of a nations production figures increasing when they won battles, id like to see these figures.

    To argue this point and not make allowances for the very real and tangible effect of being the victim of massive shipping loses, then that is something that can be quantified.

    Under this kind of world ( if it were to exist):

    Germany would just defeat UK by building subs and ‘collecting’ increased IPC for sinking enemy shipping. They don’t need to capture any territory, for the national wealth is found as the product of of success on the high seas….

    The alternative would be a UK National Objective that would cost UK 5 IPCs if a German SUB was in one of those SZs

    Thats one alternative, really what seems more realistic is the subs just roll it out, because some attempts will have more success than others. adding yet another NO fixed at 5 IPC would only encourage Germany to keep ONE SUB in the effected SZ. Rather the rule should reward a new strategy of buying more subs and getting more reward as part of a new strategy.

    Otherwise they just do the bare minimum to knock off 5 IPC for uk. Also neglecting that Germany sank USA shipping, shipping bound for Russia, and USA basically took japan downtown and cost them as much shipping loses and crippled their economy. So now you need a whole bunch of NO’s to cover everybody when the whole mess could have been resolved by just rolling it out.


  • or EVEN SIMPLER

    Ammend some of the allied national objectives, to phrase them exactly as italy’s is “Control of Morocco Algeria, Lybia and Balkans and no allied warships in 13, 14, 15”

    Ammend soviet lend lease, to include “and no axis submarines in 1, 2, 3 and or 4”

    Ammend UK hold Candada, gib., etc. bonus to include “and no axis submarines in 8, 9, 10, and or 12”

    Ammend US hold all continental US to include “and no axis submarines in 8, 9, 10 and or 56”


  • Actually Oztea, I like this idea

    UK NO #1

    Gain 5IPCs if Allied powers control all of the following territories: ECa, WCa, Gib, Egy, Aus, SAfr and no Axis submarines in sea zones: 2,3,6,7,8

    US NO #1

    Gain 5IPCs if Allied powers control all of the following territories: WUS, CUS, EUS and no Axis submarines in sea zones: 9,10,53,56

    Jap NO #1

    Gain 5IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Man, Kia, FIC and no Allied submarines in sea zones: 59,60,61,62

    This is along the lines of what we had in AAR:Enhanced, but I like your suggestion of tying it into existing NOs (NOs which normally would be pretty safe)
    This rewite has the added benefits of letting Germany deny as much as 10IPCs from the Allies (5UK,5US)
    Also, it doesn’t make Germany too much stronger (as the extra 5IPCs would previously)
    UK has to fight to clear the Atlantic or they won’t get their 5 extra IPCs
    US will suffer some consequences if they go all out KGF


  • ammend the NO’s
    give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

    Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 39
  • 1
  • 7
  • 3
  • 10
  • 9
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

63
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts