AAR Kremlin - Abattlemap Module?

Small change to the rules.

I did my playtesting on TripleA where Afghanistan is adjacent to Chinghai.  I had the opportunity to play a live ftf game last night and noticed that on the real board the Himalayas lie between Afghanistan and Chinghai.  Therefore…Afghanistan is no longer a selectable neutral by China…they may take Mongolia only.

The mega offshore strategy:

Its definitely do-able though it seems to become a race. If Japan is not delayed with an UK Indian build or a significant amount of US Pacific naval build up, she quickly gets to a point where she can threaten Caucasus. Now with both St. Petersburg and Caucasus threatened, Russia is in a pickle and Germany may just have to hang on to France for one go to win on VCs no matter how grim the offshore scene.

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)

Thanks axis_roll!

Trusty

Yea, Convoy Raiding Damage is huge!  It may seem like only 8 IPC here or there, but it adds up over time and those submarines have to be targeted with 10 IPC destroyers (which have to be built, moved into position, SURVIVE THE ENEMY, and then attack!)

And CRD (Convoy Raiding Damage) is in addition to any Strategic Bombing Runs you may attempt!  (That means E. USA can, technically, sustain 36 IPC in damage.  12 from CRD, 12 from Japanese Bombing Runs and 12 more from German Bombing Runs.)

Yeah I thought extending to all territories.
And I also thought of ncscswitch’s comment.

Its easy to argue why realistically only enemy Capital require this.
We could consider extending to all Victory Cities, but that might be too much too.

What we could also do, is that conquer Capitals goes back to original control if not occupied by you have no land units there.
And I just realise I didn’t finish typing the draft rule.

Conquer Capital

A captured capital territory generates 50% less income unless controlling player occupies it with sufficient number of land units. The number of land units required is equal to half the number of IPCs in income.

Capital Territory          Units
Germany/Berlin          5
Japan/Tokyo          4
Russia/Moscow          4
United Kingdom/Londom          4
Eastern United States/Wasington DC          6