New: optional technology chart + rules for A&A 1914

Here is 12 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

So, we have a big pile of new units and new rules, how shall we set up the board? I propose the following new setup for A&A Classic.

List of abbreviations:
ACav - Armored Cavalry
AirT - Air Transport
AKA - (sea) Transport
BB - Battleship
Bmbr - Bomber
CA - Cruiser
CV - Aircraft Carrier
Ftr - Fighter
HArt - Heavy Artillery
Para - Paratrooper
SS - Submarine
Trpr - Trooper

This setup assumes that you are playing with the Cruisers from Post 1 (links to relevant posts added below), the Paratroopers and Air Transports from Post 2, the Armored Cavalry and Troopers from Post 3, and the Heavy Artillery from Post 4. The setup for Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery is ‘inspired’ by Ralph Boerke’s original setup for his Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery. This setup will place 1 Paratrooper and 1 Air Transport in the capital territories all nations, Germany will receive 1 additional Paratrooper and Air Transport in Rome (Southern Europe). This setup also assumes use of the “Boats Valve Fix” (BVF) proposed by D. A. Harrell from the mists of A&A history (I read about it from the re-post on Thrasher’s A&A page, which should give some history for those who remember Thrasher…). Also, this setup assumes the use of the variable British Sub setup. Furthermore, all CVs will receive a full complement of aircraft (2 Fighters) at setup; all sea zones with Transports or CVs will receive 1 Cruiser at setup, and all sea zones with Battleships will receive 1 (additional) Transport at setup.

@Boat:

In short, the Boat Valve Fix changes three things about Classic A&A - 1) optional “No Attack by Russia” made mandatory, 2) increase the number of German Subs in the Atlantic (off Western Europe) from 1 to 4, 3) increase the number of Japanese Transports in the Philippines Sea Zone from 1 to 4.

First, setup the game as normal. Nothing will be removed from the original setup. Then, add the noted pieces to the following territories as listed below:

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics
Russia (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, and 1 AirT
Karelia - 1 CA with SS and AKA already there
Sov. F. East - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics

Germany
Germany (territory of) - 2 Trpr, 2 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 SS with SS and AKA already in the Baltic
Eastern Europe - 1 HArt
Ukraine - 1 ACav and 1 HArt
Southern Europe - 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Western Europe - 1 ACav, 1 HArt, and 3 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea
Libya - 1 ACav

Germany

United Kingdom
United Kingdom (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Eastern Canada - 1 CA with AKA already there
India - 1 Trpr and 1 CA with AKA already there
Gibraltar - 1 AKA added to the BB already at sea
Egypt - 1 ACav, also - (The UK player has the option to move the 1 UK SS already off the coast of Egypt from the Med to the Red Sea (aka, the other side of the Suez Canal) at setup. Once USSR starts taking its turn, choice is set for that game.)

United Kingdom

Empire of Japan
Japan (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Manchuria - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav
Fr. In. Burma - 1 ACav
Phil. I’s - 1 CA and 3 AKA added to the AKA already at sea
Kwangtung - 1 ACav
Caro. I’s - 1 CA, 1 Ftr, and 1 AKA with BB, CV, and Ftr already at sea
Solo. I’s - 1 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea

Empire of Japan

United States of America
Eastern US - 2 Trpr, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA with AKA already at sea
Western US - 2 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Hawaii - 1 CA, and 1 Ftr with SS, CV, and Ftr already at sea

United States of America

Posts
Post 1 - Cruisers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
Post 2 - Paratroopers and Air Transports - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
Post 3 - Armored Cavalry and Troopers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
Post 4 - Heavy Artillery - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0

One more post (Neutral Countries and what to be done with them), and I think I’ll have posted about all of my personal rule collection for Classic. Looking forward to wrapping all of this up and putting together a comprehensive rule book of changes.

-Midnight_Reaper

Here is 11 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

The following are my thoughts on an optional rules section for my Classic House Rules. These rules, and its associated new initial setup, are far removed from the Classic Axis and Allies you may be familiar with. But with the right group I think that this would be a great time. In the mean time, I strategize and theorize.

In this post, I’ll be discussing what I think Axis & Allies units should cost and why. I think that flying units and naval units are too expensive for a game about a war that involved death from above and death from the sea. Now, I’m not arguing that every unit should have the same price. Different units have different abilities and these abilities should come at different costs. But I believe that flying units should have their prices reduced by 1/3rd and naval units should have their prices cut in half.

First, let’s talk about the way things are now. Currently, the base units in Classic Axis & Allies have these costs and abilities (IC is Industrial Complex):

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry    1    2    1      3    Bomber      4  4    6    15
Tank        3    2    2      5    Sub          2  2    2      8
AA Gun    0    *    1      5    Trans        0  1    2      8
IC            0    0    0    15    Carrier      1  3    2    18
Fighter    3    4    4    12    Battleship  4  4    2    24

To this list, I recommend reducing the price of fighters and ICs to 10, carriers to 16, and battleships to 20. This will help with the extreme range in prices at the top end of things. This will give us the following:

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
IC            0  0      0    10
Fighter      3  4      4    10
Carrier      1  3      2    16
Battleship  4  4      2    20

And to the above units I suggest adding the following new units:

Unit            ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Paratrooper  1*    2    1*    4    Special F’s  3*  3*    2*    8
Arm. Cav.    2      1      2    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6    10
Trooper      2      3      1    5    Cruiser        3    3      2    12
Heavy Art’y 2      3      1    6

All of this together gives us the following unit list:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      10
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      10
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      15
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        8
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2      8
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2      12
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      16
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      20
IC              0    0    0      10

What I am suggesting is a unilateral price cut of 1/3rd on flying units and 1/2 on naval units. Ground unit and IC’s would stay the same price. They would then look like this:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      7
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      7
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      10
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        4
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2        4
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2        6
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      8
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      10
IC              0    0    0      10

I find these prices to be more in line with the way I want to play Axis & Allies: lean, mean, and deadly. I want to be able to crash fleet on fleet, to soar into the air and take the fight to the enemy, without destroying the treasury or throwing them all away without replacement. Some of the most exciting fights in Axis & Allies are when that fleet is coming, whether it’s the Japanese fleet coming to take the Pacific, or the US Fleet coming to take the Pacific back, or the British fleet looking to avenge France.

But along with reduced prices come increased problems for the Axis. As it is, the Axis powers are under the gun to expand before the Allies can mount a credible defense of their holdings. When fighters, submarines, and transports are at all time low prices the job of the Allies - to bend but not break and to build up the forces to take the fight to the Axis - becomes all that much easier. This in turn makes the job of the Axis - to take as much territory as possible before the Allies come to take it all back - all the harder.

What to do about this question of balance? My suggestion: give the Axis a proportionally more air and sea power at the start of the game. This will allow the Axis to strike all the harder before the Allies start walking things back. So, half again more flying units and double the fleet for the Axis? How much are we actually talking about?

Standard setup for Germany gives 5 fighters and 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 2 transports, 0 carriers, and 1 battleship.

Standard setup for Japan gives 5 fighters and 1 bombers, 1 submarines, 2 transports, 1 carrier, and 2 battleships.

This gives both powers a total of 5+5=10 fighters and 1+1=2 bombers, 2+1=3 submarines, 2+2=4 transports, 0+1=1 carrier, and 1+2=3 battleships combined for the Axis powers.

Add to that the 4 cruisers (2 to Germany, 2 to Japan) and the 3 additional transports (1 to Germany, 2 to Japan) given out in the setup to account for additional naval forces not currently accounted for. (The Allies get 6 cruisers and 3 additional transports added to their navies at the start.) No extra fighters or bombers handed out yet.

This gives us a total Axis air and sea force of 10 fighters and 2 bombers; 3 submarines, 7 transports, 4 cruisers, 1 carrier, and 3 battleships combined for the Axis powers. Half again more fighters and bombers would yield 15 fighters and 3 bombers. Double the fleet would yield 6 submarines, 14 transports, 8 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 6 battleships. I would divy up this expanded force into Germany: 8 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 submarines, 6 transports, 3 cruisers, 0 carriers, and 2 battleships; and Japan: 7 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 8 transports, 5 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 4 battleships

This would be a massive force, dwarfing the Allies in the sky and at sea. But with new battleships and new bombers for 10 IPCs each, new fighters for 7 IPCs, and new submarines and transports for 4 IPCs, would even this massive force be enough? I don’t know, yet.

Both the known unbalancing effects of much cheaper air and sea units and the massive additional forces given to the Axis to balance out those cheaper planes and ships are well outside of normal Axis & Allies play. All of the above is why these rules and setups are optional. But after I get some results with these rules, I’ll update this post with some data.

-Midnight_Reaper

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

Yes, very nice.  :-) :-)

@Hittman:

This was incorporated to give the lesser powers and pretty much anyone other than the Unites States a  chance of getting something useful during game play

Did the cost of the tech researchers change?
If not, then how are you giving lesser powers a chance at getting something useful?
Are you saying that now all the techs are useful to everyone?

That’s certainly not true.

Plus now I can’t even target a grouping. it’s TOTALLY random what technology I will achieve.  How does that meet your stated goal of ‘increasing the chance of getting something useful’?

Keep up the good work.

here it is

http://www.mediafire.com/?dimyejzoykd

Well in his defense i actually have 2 games (using d12 system) that have both a primary and secondary attack ( the primary is pre-emtive)

but the economy of scale is quite different from regular AA