AA50 all Victory Cities with factories (alternate set up)

Why Hawaii? And the Pacific factories?

The more I play the more I enjoy the VC factories in these territories. Lets start with Honolulu… is it worth it for Japan to attack? Yes! Even though the production is only 1 ipc, it is within bombing range of Western. Beyond bombers, there are other ways to take advantage of the single point of production. Hawaii can produce a carrier deck upon which can be landed fighters from Japan, Philippines or Australia. It can build a sub to attack ships in 56, or a surface warship to cover a major fleet movement. Or you can camp fighters, and threaten territories like Alaska, Mexico, or W. Canada while setting up to control the Pacific. Hawaii, Australia and Philippines can be used together to push inf from the center south, while Japan moves center North, for a rapid re-positioning from coastal China and India against the United States. Whether or not this is a worthwhile strategy to pursue is debatable, but at least its possible here if USA is going KGF. For the same reason USA has an incentive to try and hold Hawaii, and Australia, or to reconquer Manilla, rather than ignoring the pacific because if they don’t protect Pearl then Japan can threaten 13 production and SBR against the USA’s 10 in Western.

This option on USA can give Japan something to do if the Axis get stuck at the center on India, and is more effective here at stalling the Americans than the old Alaska drop to bait a W. US purchase, since, at equal income, Japan can actually contest the VC in San Francisco!

Shanghai allows Japan a presence on the mainland to defend against counter attacks from British or Russian armor out of India. Even the Hong Kong factory gets into the mix, allowing an extra Japanese tank on the mainland, or ship or fighter into sz 61.

For all these reasons, the British have a stronger incentive to at least stall the advance on India and Australia and try to hold one or the other factory for as long as possible, but this invariably draws money off Africa and the Atlantic so everything here is a trade off. Every VC becomes important, as it should be, since total production on the board is fixed and these are the only factories available. So far I am pleased. I have tried a lot of different ways of working China. So far my favorites have been, China under direct US control +7 ipcs (with a few extra US infantry distributed in China on the bid) And OOB China rules with China going first in the turn order (with a few extra Chinese infantry on the bid.)

Basically if you are using NOs, then you bid a bit higher in China for balance. If you play without NOs then the Allies typically need less help, since the National Objectives tend to favor the Axis starting position on income. In either case, balancing around China seems to work pretty well. It prevents overpowered bids from messing up all the opening battles.

Now that I have found an arrangement I like: the 18 VCs are treated as starting factories (the factory unit is eliminated from play to conserve space), with an allied bid in China on balance if desired, we are testing this set up 1941 and 42 for a variable start.

Here is the rule…

Variable Start

Before the first round of the game, roll 1d6 “initiative” to determine which player/nation will start the game:
1 Germany
2 Russia
3 Japan
4 UK
5 Italy
6 USA

the player nation rolled will start the game, with normal turn order following thereafter

Player 1 + 5 ipcs
Player 2 + 10 ipcs
Player 3 + 15 ipcs
Player 4 + 20 ipcs
Player 5 + 25 ipcs
Player 6 + 30 ipcs

added to starting income in the first round (only!)

This is to balance for the potential TUV swing either destroyed or not destroyed, as a result of which player/nation wins the initiative roll.

Examples

Standard opening (rolls 1, “Germany first!”) results in the following starting incomes for the 1941 start date:
Germany 36
Russia 40
Japan 32
UK 63
Italy 35
USA 70

Second opening (rolls 2, Russia first.)
Russia 35
Japan 27
UK 58
Italy 30
USA 65
Germany 61

Third opening (rolls 3, Japan first. The most challenging so far for G, as it allows UK to move before Germany just like in the second opening, but also provides the largest bonus to Russia)
Japan 22
UK 53
Italy 25
USA 60
Germany 56
Russia 60

Fourth opening (rolls 4, UK first, intense Pacific, screws Japan)
UK 48
Italy 20
USA 55
Germany 51
Russia 55
Japan 47

Fifth opening (rolls 5 "Italy first!, intense Atlantic, also screws Japan)
Italy 15
USA 50
Germany 46
Russia 50
Japan 42
UK 73

Sixth opening (rolls 6, USA first, screws Japan)
USA 45
Germany 41
Russia 45
Japan 37
UK 68
Italy 40

The interest, in providing a variable start to the game, is to allow for different strategies, which can then emerge in response to the first round adjustments of turn order/opening movement/starting bonus to income. You can see from the above that there are advantages and disadvantages to each starting position. (The reality is that the nation which goes last sets the stage for how the war will develop under that set up, as much as the nation which goes first.) Nations which go later get the larger bonus, but this is on balance evenly distributed across both sides, since the 6 positions are all alternating by side (axis then allies).

China can be played either under USA control +7, or as a separate nation per the normal rules, whichever you enjoy more.

Opening balance (beyond china) is anchored on the VCs, as they are the only production locations under this set up. The game itself can be made further variable, or resolved with technology or national objectives (or both) at your discretion. So far the openings I’ve played have been engaging, since it pushes the standard set up in six possible directions from the start, with different potential purchases based on the opening “Start” roll.

The bonus, provided in the first round only, allows for a number of different purchasing strategies for each power, depending on who initiates the game. I see this variable start rule as another way to balance the set up, without necessarily requiring a pre-placement bid. Axis benefit somewhat from the starting VC factories, but the ascending bonus can help all nations to build up their air and naval forces early on, especially if they manage to roll a prime first round position. USA and UK for example can wage a much more effective Pacific campaign against Japan if they receive the late order bonus, or if the first round start allows them pull units back to defensive positions, or place on their factories before the J1 attack. Alternatively if Axis go last, they have more time to adapt their round 1 purchases in response to allied movements, with more cash to build out their starting forces. In general, I think it just leads to a somewhat more interesting start, and takes the game out of it normal straight jacket, by allowing the “opening roll” and subsequent player decisions in response, to set the stage for the broader game. There are three openings effectively screw Japan, but Japan is the undisputed godzilla on this board, so this might not prove as distorting as it appears at first. The incentive for USA to destroy transports, or hit the carrier decks, but a pacific game more or less automatically into effect. The carriers are much harder to kill, so the TUV traded is likely around 29 in games where this happens, but Japan also receives a bonus to starting income on unit replacement, and already has the favored position on the gameboard strategically. Also under the three start positions where Japan gets screwed, the other Axis powers likewise receive larger bonuses, so it has a built in split theater effect which I like. Basically the first 3 positions favor Allies over Germany, the last 3 positions favor Allies over Japan. Thus Allied bid can be eliminated, with this sort of bonus cash balancing mechanism replacing it as a way to re-balance the game Allies vs Axis. These effects are more pronounced in the 1941 start date than they are in the 1942 start date, which I believe is the ideal start date for this rule. But since 1941 is more popular, I am starting with it, to see which sort of overall gameplay and strategies it develops.

Here are the numbers for the 1942 start date (with the bonus ascending by 5-10-15-20-25-30)
This set up I think will prove more suitable for the variable start idea, simply because the income disparity is less pronounced and the variation in unit position attack/defense is slightly less damaging to Japan. Yields the following starting income numbers.

Roll 1d6 : 1 Japan, 2 Russia, 3 Germany, 4 UK, 5 IT, 6 USA

First Opening: Japan first
J 36
R 34
G 52
UK 51
IT 35
USA 68

Second Opening: Russia first
R 29
G 47
UK 46
IT 30
USA 63
J 61

Third Opening: Germany first
G 42
UK 41
IT 25
USA 58
J 56
R 54

Fourth Opening: UK first
UK 36
IT 20
USA 53
J 51
R 49
G 67

Fifth Opening: Italy first
IT 15
USA 48
J 46
R 44
G 62
UK 61

Sixth Opening: USA first
USA 43
J 41
R 39
G 57
UK 56
IT 40

I don’t expect that any of these scenarios will necessarily be balanced, this is more for proof of concept. The question is not so much is it perfectly balanced, but is it reasonably balanced enough so at to still be entertaining and provide strategic interest. The advantage I see to using the AA50 board, and esp. the 1942 scenerio which seem most promising, is that we can use all the same conditions that come OOB.

*Set the board exactly as normal.
*Chose sides (which player will be Axis, which will be Allies)
*Roll to determine which nation starts.
*Add in the ascending bonus cash to starting incomes.
Then proceed from this starting position as normal for the duration of the game.

No additional complex rules or adjustments are necessary.
Tech can be optioned in.
National Objectives can be optioned in.
Any house rules you like.

But the basic set up is OOB. Rather than a bid, you get a variable start and cash bonuses to balance through purchasing. The challenge is in achieving victory for your side based on the start, which nation was rolled into opening position. If it works, or at least if it works “well enough”, then we will have shown that a single Axis and Allies gamemap could conceivably support 6 different starting scenarios, without requiring a bunch of different set up cards.

The same basic set up, the same basic turn order sequence, but with 6 potential start positions.

Does anyone else see the merit in something like this?

It would increase the shelf life of the game considerably. At the highest level of play, players could potentially build towards a dozen different endgames. I think A&A needs a board that can work like this, to have real staying power. If AA50 was reprinted it would lend itself well to the concept, because it is a 6 player board. But any 6 player/nation board could work this way, so long as the turn order was alternating by side. I strongly favor this approach to a collapsed turn order (i.e. all Axis then all Allies), because the standard turn order itself can be made variable, whereas if it is collapsed completely this option is taken out of the game. I would hope instead to see a dozen potential start conditions, rather than just a single start condition, which is only possible if you alternate sides between 6 powers. A 5 man game doesn’t work for this concept. It requires the roll on 1d6 (anything else requires special dice, which seems unlikely).

Until d12 is introduced to Axis and Allies, the six man map is by far the best shot we’ve got, and the best of those maps in terms of all-around design is AA50. Reprint AA50! or at least model the next long haul board on its 6 player set up alternating turn order. So we can come up with a way to make it variable like this. :)

Glad to see more folks taking an interest in some of these AA50 ideas

Honestly AA50 remains my favorite board from an HR and modification perspective. The only downside is that the game itself is now out of print and has become a collectors item, but purely from the standpoint of overall balance and adaptability it is definitely my favorite map. And its worth noting that I didn’t always feel that way about AA50. At first I found it demoralizing, and I was frustrated with several aspects of the gameplay, most notably the concept of NOs and the way China was handled, and especially how additional money from NOs seemed necessary in order for the game to play well on balance by sides. I recall grumbling on various AA50 subjects here and on the Larry boards, regarding the production spread and the specific value of certain territories (like zero ipc pacific islands). But on the whole, after playing this map for a few years now, it has become my favorite.

I really came to the A&A game out of Revised. Sure I was introduced to A&A with Classic, and face to face games with friends from highschool, and later the old Hasbro CD, but it wasn’t until Revised came out that I started to get involved in the online community and thinking about the game more deeply. Living where I did at the time, there just wasn’t anyone to game with ftf, so in my desperation to find a way to actually play the Revised game with other people, I sought out and discovered tripleA. It was just a skeleton of what it has since become, at the time there was a version of Classic available, and finally a version of Revised! And we all played that game to death right?  :-D  Later on, after the Revised thing had run its course, and most people had learned how to break the Revised board, with a standard bid established and standard strategies, that’s when we started to think about ways to maybe change the A&A game through house rules. In the TripleA community this was the first real attempt to start pushing the game engine itself, so that it might be able to play other game beyond just Classic and Revised, which were both hardcoded at the time. There were no simple ways to make new maps, or edit values in the xml, no universal ways to redraw things like VCs or various graphics, which at the time were directly drawn onto a gif of the map you played. What followed is I think the period of tripleA at its zenith, when lots of games were made that tried to push new concepts for A&A type games. Among them were ways to get more player nations into the game (Italy specifically, and later China), also new units like the cruiser (a mid range ship) and the half track or mech inf (the weaker blitz unit) at various costs and values. Basically creating space in the game engine to handle other ideas that might be implemented in future A&A games.

When AA50 came out I saw it as the culmination of a lot of those ideas, seeping back into an official mapboard, which was highly gratifying to see. Everyone was so excited about AA50, and I was really looking forward to it as the next major time sink for me, and excited about the potential for growth of a digital platform for it  :-D But then TripleA got hit with a DMCA takedown notice by Atari for all the official games, and the AA50 game that we’d just spent all that time making and figuring out how to port. And I was depressed about it. And I blamed AA50 I guess for being a let down for me.

Well anyway, that’s a brief history of where AA50 had been in mind. But around the time Spring 42 came out and the 1940 games I started to look at it again as a template. I believe that the map design is solid, still providing some of the classic shucks territories that to me always seemed the hallmark of expert play in A&A. People who understood how to push infantry units, and shuck their transports, that was always how I distinguished between the really formidable opponents and the more middling strategies. So I really like the map in that it preserves some of those.

Also the 6 player potential. Finally having a 3 v 3 option, 6 nations to match a 6 sided die. And AA50 remains the only board that has that spread. So far that reason alone, I really like this game. I also think AA50 had the best tech implementation and my players are still fond of the token/save dice concept.  Though I appreciate that its more or less impossible now to expect that people will be able to get ahold of a copy without spending an arm and a leg. So I guess the trick would be how to find ways to adapt these ideas to the two comparable boards that are still in print. 1942 sec edition and Global 1940. Though I admit I worry a bit about global, as it is already becoming so pricey, and the fact that you need both the Pacific box and the Europe box to get it working, makes me fear somewhat for its long term viability. 1942 on the other hand, had a pretty good print run. I’m not sure how many copies of these are in circulation for 1942.2 or the 1940 boards, but hopefully its enough to keep A&A going for a while.

I have a few questions before trying to introduce this in my AA50 game, how much time is needed to achieve a victory for one side?
Does making all VCs with IC increase or reduce the length of the game?
Do you keep all IC production capacity according to the territory value?

Did you allow the building of the 5 remaining ICs, anywhere else on the board?

Did you give some AA gun to few VCs or all?

Did you play with a 6 IPCs’ Tank or simply OOB 5 IPCs’ Tank?

The rules discussed above didn’t alter the gamelength substantially for me. My group usually played until concession, the games tended to last about the same amount of time as a normal AA50 game. Basically one long day that usually stretches well past midnight, but can usually be resolved in a single session. Like anything, if the dice conspire to prolong things there’s just not much you can do about it (and I’m definitely a dice man.) So you know, how often in the midgame you can trade a ton of TUV in a few key battles, and then sometimes it is not so easy to see which side came out on top. Those games can last a while. But for the most part I think it accelerates the gameplay, or at least the feeling of a faster pace, by giving some clearer targets to gun for. And taking the production consideration out of the purchasing equation.

Territory production was still tied to the Territory IPC value in all our games. I never attempted to use the 1940 type factory scheme on this map. Though I do remember hearing ideas about a base unit which would allow for the production of a certain number of infantry on a territory of any ipc value, or as a way to move units from production centers to staging centers. But I never actually used it in a game. We just went pretty simple, the number of IPCs = the number of units you can build, with no restrictions on unit type or anything like that.

Didn’t give any additional AAguns to factory spaces. In the last games I was playing we basically kept the unit set up the same as OOB. I just removed the sculpts and said that the red dot = factory to save space for other units. AA guns were left alone, under the idea that if you wanted the protection for the extra VC factories then you had to buy them. This sometimes gave some opportunities for nice SBR runs, in situations where the players didn’t invest in AA protection.

Tank cost in all my games was 5 ipcs OOB, although we did toy with the idea of an additional armor tech, to replace Long Range Air. We considered various things like Classic Armor at 5 ipcs a3/d2, and then heavy armor at 6 ipcs a3/d3 but this was limited by sculpts especially for Allies (though I suppose now you could maybe do it if you bought enough start 1941 maps). Or different ideas along those lines with Armor was to make the regular cost 6 ipcs 3/3 and then have the tech be a reduction in cost to 5. But for the most part we just played with them at the OOB cost and values at 5, even if it was overpowered, because everyone loves tanks haha.

Do you think it could balance things out against Axis, if China play first, with no bid, and also introducing this specific cost structure for Tanks, Subs, Destroyers, Transports and planes able to hit unsubmerged Subs without Destroyer presence, and by making all ICs with in-built AA gun (as 2nd Ed)?

Here is the basic grounds units cost.
Infantry Cost 3
Mechanized Infantry  Cost 4, Too fond of them, to let them go. wink
Artillery Cost 4
Anti-Aircraft Artillery Cost 5, (as 1942.2 and G40.2 OOB)
Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6

Transport A0 1D1 per TPs group M2 Cost 7, 1 hit value , still taken as last casualty, except for Submarines’ hit which can be allocated to transport before warships, owner’s still decides casualties.

Submarines A3 D1 M2 Cost 8 Can be hit by any aircraft when unsubmerged.
Destroyer A2 D2 M2 Cost 8 block all Sub’s Surprise strike, but only able to block on a 1:1 basis Submerge (and for first round only) and Stealth Movement

Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 11 Too fond of them, to let them go. wink
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 M6 Cost 12

Cruiser A3 D3 M2 Cost 12
Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 14

Battleship A4 D4 M2 Cost 20

This is actually a very interesting idea. Basically without any modifications to the unit set up (no open bid) a roster at those values might actually balance the board without a need to do much else. The increase in tank cost alone would be a game changer, but also the transport modification and the inclusion of mech.

Some things to consider…

For Rocket tech, it might make sense to attach the ability to the factory/VC rather than the AAAgun unit, to prevent abuse if using a 1940 style implementation anti air.

For the 3 new 1940 units you are introducing… 1 Cruiser, 1 Tactical Bomber, and 1 Mech Infantry

It might be fun, as a bid alternative, if you let each of the 6 major player/nations place one of these units on the gamemap at the outset, at one of their Factory/VCs or in an adjacent Sea Zone.

But do it secret ballot style. So basically you write it down on a piece of paper where you want your mech, tacB, and cruiser to go, then all players reveal all at once the locations. This I think would be a fun way to highlight the units and to get players excited about them, while also providing some dynamism to the set up. Fun way to breath some new life into the board  :-D

@Young:

I’ve gotta read more, but at first glance I like it a lot… how would this translate into Global 1940?

I think this is probably the most expedient approach, taking the ideas kicked around for AA50, but bringing them into the boards that are still in print. For global, the set factory concept is workable. The only kink with the 1:1 VC = factory idea, is that there are starting factories in the 1940 OOB set up, that aren’t also VC territories.
Variable start can probably work too, but requires some turn pairing of nations in the standard sequence. And I’m not sure which bonus scheme might work best for that.

China first can work in Global. I’ve tried that one at least so I can say it does stall Japan and give the India IC some breathing room. China is of course much more effective for the duration, since they will have more total units and artillery to work with, better positioning for the Flying Tiger, and a much easier time achieving their NO. The dynamic around Yunnan is stronger for Allies since China can strengthen it before being attacked on J1. There is also a potential hit on Kwangsi. Or you can just try a stack heavy in Yunnan strategy. I’ve also seen a strategy that has the Flying Tiger moving north, based out of Kweichow or Hopei, which makes it a bit more dangerous to Japan on counter attacks. A “China first” turn order can work in isolation as a bid alternative for Global in my view.

One reason I like this China first approach, as opposed to an open bid for Allies, is that it concentrates the balance tweak where I think it is needed most, on the Pacific side of the game vs Japan! Instead of in the Med vs Italy for example. A stronger China means more for Japan to deal with, but the overall influence on balance by sides is less dramatic (than an open bid for UK say) mainly because of the movement restrictions and the special China rules. This is probably the easiest idea to port into 1940, since it doesn’t change anything other than the standard turn order.

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, US, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France

Or if playing with the British Empire Pacific idea, the same China first concept might work, if the normal game there still shows Japan overpowered even with a bolstered UK Pacific power that includes Anzac and W. India. I’d be interested to hear any feedback on that if you get a chance to try it.

Good looking out barney!