National Advantage Cards for AA50

@gen-manstein great, I look forward to see it.

_Here’s a rule with two aims:

1. Safeguard Russian production (with some historical precedent) from relatively easy/early/immediate German poaching
2. More setup variety and more interesting potential play at the periphery of the map._
3. Enable/strengthen KJF and bilateral games.

The Rule:
During setup, do not automatically place any ICs in non-capital territories.  Instead, those ICs (and up to one AA unit/gun that accompanies it) may be placed in any territory controlled by their owner. The choice of where to place any starting ICs can be discussed openly, but should be made in secret and revealed simultaneously by all players.
Optional: If the UK does not start with at least one non-capital IC, allow it to place an IC+AA unit as well.

I think this works best with some of kind of mild incentive to encourage creative placements, so here are two versions of a bonus (pick one):

Bonus version A: Wherever a starting, non-capital IC is placed, permanently increase the IPC value of that territory by one (but not above 3).

Bonus version B: Whenever ANY non-capital IC is built or placed (for the duration of the game), permanently increase the IPC value of that territory by one (but not above 3).

With the political exile option for the UK, our group has decided to give Germany a 10 IPC NO for control of London.

This is based on the assumption that if one nation gets an arms breakthrough, the odds are that it will be easier for other nations will get it too, by copying it. Â

We have done this before - at the start of the game pass out a “copy” card to each player.

Say your opponent gets something really good like heavy bombers, or the Atomic Bomb or some house rule thing that could wreck you. Roll for an arms breakthrough as normal. If you get a six, instead of rolling for which random breakthrough you get, you now have the option of playing your “copy” card and copying something that is already on the board.

This helps keep the game competitive and less luck driven. It also adds a bit of strategy. Do you want to use your card to copy those super subs now or hold onto it in case someone gets long range aircraft? Decisions, decisions…

For long lists of custom Arms Breakthroughs, pass out two cards each.   Â

I think these would work for mounting the P40 airbase and naval base tokens so you can actually pick them up…
http://boardgamebits.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_44_50&products_id=436

For the record, this is NOT an ENDORSED version of AA50e.

Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50..  Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested.  You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!

Make up your own name for your Rules Set, do NOT used AA50e.

How about AA50HP  (HodgePodge)?

@bugoo:

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)

I think the Revised NA would be a better idea.  Yes, a lot of tweaking would have to be done, but it’s doable.

I think a lot of the old NAs blend perfectly with the new game.  Here are some examples:

1. Lend Lease lets USSR convert US and UK pieces to USSR pieces.  This means you won’t loose IPCs when your allies try to help you.

2. Japan is now an “island” on the new board, which means Dug-In Defenders now apply.  Didn’t it seem dumb in AAR that Japanese infantry would put up a better fight on Iceland or Greenland than Japan?

Examples of needed tweaks:

1. Siberian Railway would obviously be extended to include the two new territories.

2. The Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe NA would be weakened if the wording “all gray territories” were kept as is.  At least it should be extended to “all gray and brown territories”.  Basically, German Infantry and Artillery get a bonus fighting in Italy, but Italian Infantry and Artillery don’t.  It seems paradoxical, but that’s the way it happened.  Germany fought to the teeth while Italy surrendered.

I don’t think Italy should get a national “advantage.”  Really, was their anything special or unique about Italy in WWII to warrant a NA?  Personally, I think no NAs add to Italy’s character.  It’s small, poor, and has only 2 NOs.  Yet, it’s probably my favorite.  As the old saying goes, “Small is beautiful.”